Colin Kaepernick is not the only one who has trouble honoring the symbols of the United States. For years now I have observed and taught my children that during the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance we stand at attention, but we do not pledge, and we do not place our hands over our hearts. We are pledged to Christ. If America were dedicated to Christ in spirit and in prose then there would be no division for us. From its deistic founding by overt Christians and an unfortunate critical mass of deists, the US has rambled from a state of spiritual allegiance to Christ in the hearts of the people (who labored under an overtly indifferent-to-Christ system of government) to an empire which has set it’s face against Christ.
The NRx crowd says, all day every day, that this is the spoilage of Protestantism; particularly of the Puritan sort, though they also say that Puritanism is the only really logical end of a fully-realized Protestantism. Somehow, Puritans get linked to Jews because after some Puritans fell into deism (taking Harvard and Yale with it) Jews immigrated in much larger numbers to the US. What can be counted against many Puritans (though not nearly all) is that they fell and fattened into deism. Because deism is like a negative of Roman pantheism. Instead of believing as the Romans did that any god is a god worth worshipping–it is the belief that every god is really just some aspect of one amorphous god who, or what, somewhere, did something. There’s some Babylonian Whoredom, for sure, but where is the connection of Puritan descendants and Jews?
All this gets blamed on Puritanism/Protestantism for the integration and ascension of Jews into American society; particularly in the spheres of education, government, entertainment, and journalism, but why? Whatever sins or corruptions the Jews have committed in journalism and entertainment I think is squarely on them. The one real exception to that is that someone (Who very well could have been Puritan. I have no idea.) let them into this country with its free press. The US also let in a lot–a whole lot–of RomanCatholics.
Starting in 1820, the US let in wave after wave of immigrants from Ireland (mostly Roman Catholic) Italy (Roman Catholic) Poland (Roman Catholic) Germany (predominantly from the Roman Catholic portions) Hungary (Roman Catholic). At the same time people are immigrating from Mexico (Roman Catholic) and Everything South of Mexico (Roman Catholic). Coming with them–especially from Germany and the Eastern European countries–were Jews.
By the 1900s, socialism is a force in American politics. Animating socialism–it’s thinkers and organizers–are Jews and a lot of Catholics who have brought liberalism over from the Continent and deposited in the streets of American cities. It is fair to say that it had already crept into Harvard, Yale, and the upper classes. That’s a far different thing than socialism in factories and schools and churches.
In 50 years the populations of the powerful, mostly east-coast–US cities are transformed from mostly Protestant to mostly Catholic, because these Roman Catholic immigrant tended not to disperse into the country and remained in the cities. It is this constant supply of fresh blood that allows to Union army to absorb massive casualties and still field more immigrants against their America brothers.
As American politics developed, Roman Catholics–regardless of ethnicity–were soundly in the camp of the Democrats; as were the Jews. The leaders of Marxist-inspired movements in schools and factories and city councils were: Atheist, Roman Catholic, or Jewish. Not Protestant.
It turns out that Roman Catholics in power want more Roman Catholics, and that Jews are glad to help them do it. At the American Revolution .6% of Americans were Roman Catholic. By 1960 it was 30% and the Protestant United States elected its first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. In the years between Roman Catholics came to dominate the Democratic party, and the Democratic party injected its policies with Marxist ideas from Roman Catholics and their long-time neighbors: Jews.
Around the same time, out of Latin/South American Roman Catholics would come Liberation Theology; a Marxist interpretation of Christianity which interprets Christian history, Traditions, and the Bible according to “class struggle”. Liberation Theology came with the Roman Catholic hordes flowing over the US’ southern borders. This will be important later.
In 1965 the Immigration and Nationality Act is passed, and limits on immigration are wildly reduced–especially in that it no longer restricted immigration from Asia, Africa, and Southern and Eastern Europe. That is: Roman Catholic countries. The act was proposed by Emanuel Cellar (descended from Jews and German Roman Catholics), co-sponsored Philip Hart (an Irish Roman Catholic), and promoted by Ted Kennedy (Irish Roman Catholic and brother of the then-dead John F. Kennedy.)
Basically: The 60s happened, and it happened at the hands of the Democrats which the Roman Catholics and the Jews built, and the United States never recovered.
By then radicalism began to scare some Roman Catholics and Jews alike, and a political split occurs. But it doesn’t split in the sense of Jews going one way and Roman Catholics another. Those who went, went together and those who stayed, stayed together. At this time we get the rise of the Neo-Conservatives and the Republican party starts absorbing the fellow-travelling Roman Catholics and Jews who had split from their radical brothers.
The tailspin of America has only accelerated, and it is accelerating at a quadratic rate. Whatever our ethnicities or religions, we now have two groups of people in America: Those who think men who dress as women should disrobe with little girls, and those who think they should disrobe with little boys. (There is no debate about the wrongness of trans-sexualism. There is no concern for the boys.) How did we come to this? Who has been presiding?
I’m going to finish this post with a descending-order list of powerful politicians which I think illustrates how profoundly wrong the NRx theory of Judeo-Puritan conspiracy is, how poorly political parties in the US fail at what they say they will do when infiltrated by Roman Catholics and Jews, and how much spiritual nationality matters.
- President Obama – Raised Muslim/Atheist, converted to “Protestant” Christianity. Actually mentored and taught by Jeremiah Wright; who preaches Liberation Theology
- Joe Biden – Roman Catholic
- Paul Ryan – Roman Catholic
- John Boehner – Roman Catholic
- Eric Cantnor – Judaism
- Marco Rubio – Roman Catholic
- Jeb Bush – Roman Catholic
- Rick Santorum – Roman Catholic
- Newt Gingrich – Roman Catholic
- Nancy Pelosi – Roman Catholic
- Barbara Boxer – Judaism
- Dianne Feinstein – Atheist Jew
- William F. Buckley – Roman Catholic
- Jonah Goldberg – Judaism
- Irving Kristol – Non-practicing Jew
But here is the list that I think is really eye-opening. The most powerful branch of the US government is the Supreme Court:
- John Roberts – Roman Catholic
- Anthony Kennedy – Roman Catholic
- Clarence Thomas – Roman Catholic
- Ruth Ginsberg – Judaism
- Stephen Breyer – Judaism
- Sam Alito – Roman Catholic
- Sonia Sotomayor – Roman Catholic
- Elena Kagan – Judaism
- Antonin Scalia (deceased) – Roman Catholic
Before Scalia died there were six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court. Before them, there had only been seven total. American Roman Catholics repeatedly leave the problems of America at the feet of Protestantism and say, “Tsk! Tsk! What a mess you’ve made. If only you knew the Mother Church in Rome you wouldn’t have these problems.”
What I, the NRx, and the Alt-Right agree upon is that America’s direction is no longer in the hands of the people. And I tell you that Mother Church in Rome already knows the decision-makers in America. So what are we going to do about it?
If you tell the narrative badly, it will of course sound silly. Call it: Critics Advantage.
That was excellent. I could not agree more. However, corresponding to your earlier post (I think but correct if wrong), geopolitical realities do not inform my Faith. I realize it would be easy and very likely fair to accuse Catholics of the “no true Scottsman” fallacy. I just think that we moderns are so infected with liberalism that it is nearly impossible to make too many connections between current politics and religious orthodoxy. But if the point is that Catholics are just as, if not more than, complicit in the rotten state of the US and world I could not agree more.
I think one of the Reformed addressed this so called connection between protestantism and progressivism:
Do you mean the NRx Puritan-Judeo narrative? If so: That’s a fair point.
I found the P-J narrative too obtuse, convoluted, and just plain wrong to be able to fairly summarize. Take a look around: There are few Jews where Protestants are dominant.
If you have a couple resources you recommend on the P-J Theory I’d be happy to read them, and post them for others to read.
Yes, that is a good essay. I’ve read it a couple times.
I’ve had the same bent, but I think the Bible shows that’s a mistake. My re-reading of Revelation has convinced me that I haven’t paid enough attention to geopolitical realities.
To illustrate what I mean here’s an example not from Revelation. When Jesus said the Temple would be torn down and rebuilt in three days He was talking about Himself. All Christians believe that. But there were geopolitical realities which had to follow in the wake. The Temple in Jerusalem had to be destroyed. God allowed no competition–no material escape–from the Temple of Jesus Christ that He set before them. If I were a Jew it would be unconscionable to accept The Dome on the Rock on the Temple Mount. Totally unacceptable. And it is not as if Israel couldn’t wipe the floor with the Arabs.
To me, that is a clear geopolitical reality to remind the Jews, and everyone, that they look for the Temple in Christ.
Pingback: Age of Cross-dressing | Dalrock
“Around the same time, out of Latin/South American Roman Catholics would come Liberation Theology; a Marxist interpretation of Christianity which interprets Christian history, Traditions, and the Bible according to ‘class struggle’. Liberation Theology came with the Roman Catholic hordes flowing over the US’ southern borders. This will be important later.”
Ah yes, Liberation Theology; I know it well. Think Jesus holding a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book and an AK. I think I remember actually seeing such a propaganda poster, but vague childhood memories aren’t reliable.
I do remember (this time clearly) that some of the local priests started preaching it almost immediately when the Communists took over. I also remember my parents lamenting that one of the Protestant pastors started preaching it. Our little Protestant church, however (and the Pentecostal one down the block) stood fast, at least until we became part of the horde.
Legally, of course.
And we’re Protestant, so…
By the way, if you want to see Babylonian whoredom in full flower (and who doesn’t? amirite?), check out Communism.
The State is God. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and Darwin are its prophets. There are saints, both nation-specific and global. The US (El Yanki) is the Great Satan (“Humanity’s Enemy”, as the song we were supposed to sing before class said [I refused]).
Communism is a religion. I used to think it was that way in Latin America because the people were Catholic, and the Communists figured out that they had to replace the people’s faith with something. Turns out it’s that way everywhere.
The Kims, for example, demand to be worshiped. Or else.
It doesn’t look good, that much is true. But on the other hand, I like that Mr Donald Trump, a rising star in American politics, doesn’t have a record of backing away from this conflict when it’s necessary. I noticed that when he was coming into some disagreements with Speaker Ryan he said at a rally, “The real Rome-Rome, N.Y.” and that was several months ago, but I think he had even said it at another point before then.
A life in Texas gives one an up-close view of the Roman Catholic hordes.
We’ve met. You’re not part of the horde, you Gerry.
Here’s an interesting tidbit I learned from the History of English Podcast which is tangentially related to you (and Hrodgar) and certainly to my current investigation.
The last king of Spain before the Moorish takeover was Roderick who was of the Visigoths “empire”. They were among the Germanic peoples who chewed up the Roman Empire all around the coast of the Mediterranean–including North Africa! (Germans love North Africa.) In fact, Germanic Visigoths/Vandals accomplished what the Carthaginians (who were the Phoenicians, aka the Canaanites) could not: They sacked Rome with a sea-based invasion from Carthage.
Anyway: Roderick is a cognate of hrod (fame) and ric (power). Today it is still in use, but in a latinized form: Rodriguez. Ric also meant king in the languages of the Germanic Indo-Europeans. It comes to English as rich which can mean wealthy or powerful (e.g., “That’s a rich cheesecake.”) both of which are kingly traits. Spanish has it as rico. Ric came into modern German as reich—empire.
I just found your wonderful blog. Cheers! It gives me hope for a Protestant Mannerbund. I was getting a bit discouraged hearing the reformation being trashed every week on Ascending the Tower. I just hope to meet some kin IRL before the lights start going out.
Well done Cane. I havenjoy been saying that about catholics for years upon years
You said it better
I’ll leavemail my meaner comments for another location but catholics drove the usa left. Gave the organic “progressives” ie yankees the numbers to finish linclons work politically
Yeah, I don’t get famous power. Just a famous spear. Perhaps Gungnir? Or maybe one of the Holy Lances (Longinus’ is, I believe, at Rome, though it’s missing a bit off the tip, and then there’s the spear of the Holy Roman Emperors, which had one of the Nails put in the head). And I do get a cool song about an infantryman who won a MoH in the Pacific in WW2, plus a couple of Norman kings in Sicily. Fun times.
Anyway, I’ll not deny that Catholics have largely been on the Left in American politics over the last several decades, at least up until abortion became a thing, and even these days an embarrassing number stuck around. I do think there are a few mitigating factors worth considering, at least in the United States (I know nearly nothing about South America; will have to change that) :
1) When it comes to American politics, I’m more or less with Zippy. Everybody’s wrong. 70 years ago, backing, say, FDR, was probably an easy enough mistake to make, but it’s not like Hoover was much better. The game is rigged from the start: heads you lose, tails you really lose.
2) It may be worth looking more into the distinction between the two largest, that is, the German and Irish, Catholic Immigrations. The Germans came earlier, and seem to have more or less kept to themselves, but the Irish, as pointed out by Joseph Moore in one of his “history of American education” posts over at Yard Sale of the Mind, were a bit too eager to be liked, a bit too Irish, and maybe not enough Catholic; JFK, with his “not a Catholic American, but an American who happens to be Catholic” exemplifies the attitude. And after the Irish came over, they quickly came to dominate the Catholic Church in America, and large numbers seem to have subscribed to what Leo XIII called Americanism, and cautioned against very strongly. And, of course, the unions, despite their many faults, did actually help take care of their disproportionately poor Irish members a bit, and tribal loyalty (or as some folks put it, identity politics) ain’t exactly nothing. Along similar lines, victim politics have long been a specialty of the Democrats, and, well, the Irish were grade-A victims when they were coming over here. Plus the left has always talked a better game about taking care of the poor, and many Catholics even these days are silly enough to favor methods that only became necessary, at least in England, with the abolition of the monasteries, methods which feed the pauper but enslave him to the State.
3) While in American politics Catholics, or at least Irish Catholics, have trended Left for at least a century, the American “experiment” as a whole is decidedly Protestant in character. Not to mention the “Glorious” Revolution so thoroughly excoriated by the admittedly cantankerous William Cobbett, himself an Anglican, which set the precedent for it. And liberalism was not brought over in the 1900’s. On the contrary, liberalism (“free and equal”) was the founding philosophy of our nation. Perhaps this liberalism is not the direct result of Protestantism, but the similarities between the individualist tendencies of Protestantism and the individualist principles of liberalism (yes, even “classical” liberalism) are hard to miss, and certainly the two have long been associated in English and, to a lesser extent, German and Dutch history; in the most rest of Europe this particular sophistry seems to have largely skipped Protestantism and jumped straight to atheism.
Not that any of this excuses folks like the Kennedies or Biden or Kaine or the LCWR, and in better days they would either be much more circumspect, penitent, or excommunicated. Catholic performance in political arenas has bee shameful for a number of decades, though it’s actually a bit better than the performance of my old Protestant denomination. Look up the “Belhar Confession” or the CRC “Office of Social Justice and Hunger Action” (yes, that’s the actual name) if you want some examples. At least Catholicism has SOME vocal dissenters from the prevailing cultural “orthodoxy.”
On the whole, though, I’m inclined to view the reasons for Catholic Leftism to be extrinsic to Catholicism, much like when I was Reformed I was not inclined (and still am not) to view Calvinism as intrinsically Leftist. Adherents to either system are required to either mangle or ignore their respective groups’ theological principles before they can pretend that sodomy, for instance, is acceptable.
I haven’t examined the Supreme Court closely, but now you’ve got me wondering. Are Catholic and Jews overrepresented in the law profession generally, or in courts generally? Does anybody know? Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that Catholics make up a disproportionate number of criminal defense lawyers who specialize death penalty cases, but that’s a very specific subset and I’m have no idea if it applies to the profession generally. That breakdown was very surprising, and I’m bit curious if it’s reflected similar trends elsewhere.
I see one Jew marked as “non-practicing.” How is that determined? I’d expect more than one, both among the Catholics and the Jews (though if we looked at a list of Protestants I’d be surprised to see any “non-practitioners;” in my experience by the time they get to that point they don’t bother calling themselves Protestant anymore).
American Catholics – doing their best to show that, even if one is a part of the one true faith, selling your soul for fame and power will often get you fame and power. Its not 30 pieces of silver, but it wins souls for satan.
From what I can see Cane, American Catholics have always been American and then catholic. Exceptions being those converted (and later killed) before they lived in anything called the United States.
I am blessed to be a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, and doubly blessed to have been so while looking towards traditon and rejecting the modern. I still have modern errors of thought; but one wages war against oneself first, the world second.
By the barest of means. If someone claims to be a Jew, a Catholic, a Baptist, etc. then I accept it. If their heritage is Jewish, but they didn’t claim to practice Judaism, Catholicism, etc. then I defaulted to non-practicing. To be honest: The non-practicing distinction only matters with Jews; at least for my purposes here. Jews are clannish and conserve Jewishness whether they practice Judaism or not.
My overall point is to investigate whether there is some intrinsic error in assuming or integrating Romanism. You’ve searched out and identified some genetic traces of ideas, but I’m wondering if something more primal and mysterious is at work.
I started investigating this months ago. Why, I wondered, can’t these people get anything done? What do they have in common besides: 1) Being in gov’t, 2) Abject failures? What I found was Roman Catholics and Jews were over-represented at both the endpoints and chokepoints of power; especially the House of Rep leadership and Supreme Court: where law is made, and where law is interpreted.
Also JFK. After his election, things just go really bad.
It could also be that America (here I mean its laws and culture) just isn’t a good place for Roman Catholics.
As luck would have it, Cane, Jim has recently penned the best brief synopsis of the Puritan Hypothesis yet: http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-puritan-hypothesis-in-short/. He leaves out a lot of nuance that I prefer to fill in–crucially the fundamental distinctions between high-church and low-church culture (which stem from high/low theology regarding sacraments)–but he gets the basic chronology and characters right. The first thing you should do is stop taking it personally. There are genuinely conservative low-church Protestants. You can’t get any more low-church than the Amish or the GARB. Somehow certain sects, certain strands manage to find a way to Catholicize by cementing doctrine and “church” authority in stone and avoid progging, even tho’ all their closest cousins long ago evolved into UCCers, ELCAers and Unitarians. Evolution does weird things.
I think a great deal of Catholic leftism is an ethnic thing. The self-perception of these groups as historic vicitms. The Irish can be really bad about this – weren’t they always highly concious of their victimization by WASPs. The Italians got called “dagos”, “wops”, etc.. Hispanic Catholics certainly can have the victim mentallity. My impression is that the German Catholics displayed less of this tendency because they never really felf like they were victims of WASPs.
There is probably no possible act that will lower your status as quickly as criticizing Jews. As such, there is great pressure for critics avoid the issue by regressing back to the puritans but not so far the you end up criticizing Catholics. Criticizing puritans is a high-status activity.
Criticizing puritans is a high-status activity.
Certainly. And when the current crop of Puritans: Progressives, realize every aspect of your critique attaches to them (moral signaling, rank hypocrisy, immanentization, universal deontological ethics, hyper-rationality), you reveal that you are higher status than them… and maybe they should consider changing sides (conversion).
Though the puritan hypothesis is not completely without merit, I can see several problems.
1. It tends to attribute problems to certain agents acting with uniquely bad faith rather than to organically forming incentive structures. http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/
2. It tends to avoid and exonerate powerful enemies at hand by attacking ghosts.
3. It is likely insufficient to answer critics from Gibbon to Nietzsche on the issue of Christianity as harmful to the polis.
4. It makes a sort of chauvinistic error. Puritans founded America, America won WWII, there are things about the modern world that I don’t like, attack the puritans. We have no way of knowing what the world would look like if Catholics or Confucianists or anyone else had won a world war, maybe very similar (as Scott Alexander theorizes), maybe different but even worse than the one we have.
Any particular critical model can only take you so far and NRx would do well to be as dispassionately critical of this one as they are on other matters.
1. Nonsense. The critique is almost entirely structural: low-church religions are almost always unstable -> leftism (moral status spiraling) will inevitably results, not if but when.
2. Ridiculous. NRx fully names current enemies. Identifying their psychological characteristics to their descent from dissenter Christian sects in no wise obscures their status as enemies of civilization.
3. I don’t see how that became part of the project. Christian Civilization advanced for a thousand years… far beyond the glories of Rome… somehow.
4. Of course history is contingent, and permits no do-overs. So what? I’d argue that without the Puritan Spirit there would never have been such a thing as a “world war”. It takes a certain sort of psychology to compel people far away from you to live and think as your ideology demands–to fight a terroristic war until unconditional surrender.
Pushing a critical schema too far strains language and categories. “The current pope is a Puritan”. Moldbug did this using 5000 words and a lot of “let us suppose” and addressing a sympathetic audience. Ive found that many people are going to find this type of use of language dishonest and manipulative, particularly when such things are stated in a concise and strident manner.
The current pope is an enemy of civilization and should be treated as one. The rhetorical flourishes one uses to emphasize it, do not change the matter of fact, if indeed it is one.
It is not only American catholics
Catholic Ireland went left and gave women the vote before WASP America
Catholic France went way left and way early compared to WASP America
The Catholic section of Canada? Same applies
Catholic Spain and Italy? Seems to apply there
All those Catholic people South of Texas? Way left, way before WASP America
The case for it being catholicism itself is fairly self evident when viewed in total.
In the NRx a hypothesis is proposed (often with a wild amount of conjecture), accepted, and integrated without much testing or comparison. For example: The idea of a “holiness spiral” which is neither holy, nor a spiral. It is more true to say the NRx is caught in a memetic spiral.
I invested time here because I thought you were serious, Cane.
The behavior of Puritans (or whomever) which NRx lumps under the term holiness spiral is inclusive, subversive, and entropic. Inclusive is the opposite of holy.
Perhaps the word-picture of a spiral is supposed to represent entropy, but that’s not what it sounds like to me. Either way: Holiness isn’t the thing getting wound up when we see subversion, apathy, and inclusivity.
We’ve all got time restrictions, Nick. Choose wisely.
Cane, this feels pretty weak. It’s just an apology for Protestants and Jews.
“Leftism” isn’t the only problem. A bigger problem is a hostile elite looting and propagandizing its own people. One of the most egregious examples of this is in money/central banking. Our very currency is in the form of debts to largely Jewish central bankers. Finance is dominated by Jews and Wasps, not Catholics. The power of seignorage is basically the power to eat the whole world. Jews control the media not just because they are verbal, funny, and nepotistic, but because they could afford to BUY it.
Are there lots of Catholics in the U.S.? Yes. Did Catholic immigrants dominate local city Democratic machines, taking over firehouses, police departments, and precinct captainships? Yes. Are there some Catholics at very high levels in the U.S. government? Yes. And has Wasp leadership been eroded at the country went from 80% Wasp to much less? Yes, obviously.
But if you look at some of the deeper and higher sources of power, you see Wasps and Jews. Central banking. Hollywood. The News Media. The Donor Class that owns politics. Harvard. Yale. CIA. State. NSA. Homeland Security. Skull and Bones. Organized Masonry. Google. Facebook. Soros’s NGOs. Planned Parenthood. The Medical Profession. The Legal Profession. Etc. etc. etc.
Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum are obviously not at the commanding heights of power. And your need to include a member of the Bush family, which has long been the epitome of Wasp power, as proof of your Catholic power thesis is telling.
As the alt-right is highlighting, everything is identity politics. You are lamenting the decline of Wasp power while trying to absolve them/you of responsibility for a) Universalism/the war of Massachusetts against the world/giving Jews the keys to the kingdom. Just like Moldbug/NRx is trying to blame Wasps for a state of affairs largely brought about by organized elite Jewry.
The real task is to wrestle, really wrestle, with the JQ. They have BY FAR the most wealth, power, and influence per capita of any group in America and by far the most protection from public criticism. How? Why? With help from whom? Even if NRx is right about the Puritan origins of Progressivism, no group has more successfully harnessed these forces for thier benefit than organized elite Jewry.
You’re right about one thing. Immigration and open borders are always a pet projects of the Jews. Jews pushed for it and open borders helped get more Jews in, along with the Catholics. But correlation is not causation. I’d really like to understand how all these deep power dynamics work. But I wouldn’t say you’re “getting warmer” with your theory. If the question is: “How did the Jews cooperate with/take over from the Wasps at the pinnacles of American power?” the answer is unlikely to be “Catholics.”
A lot of the thinkers in our sphere either are Jews or are afraid of criticizing or even mentioning Jewish power. Who can help us figure this out in an open-minded way? Any suggestions for the best examples of honest wrestling with the JQ? I’d love to read smart, convincing thinking along the whole spectrum from “Jews are only successful because they are smart and hard-working” to “Jews control everything.” Does anyone have suggestions?
1. These are the facts; not to be confused with “all the facts”.
2. These facts support the notion that RC heads are at the helm, and therefore defend against the NRx idea that we Prots are to blame.
3. It is a lie to say there is anything like a defense for Jews in this post.
My thinking here is that Roman Catholic immigrants politically warred against WASPs not for the sake of Jews but under the rubric that the enemy (Jews) of my enemy (WASPs) is my friend.
Thanks, Cane. Good clarifications.
Any thoughts on my second question? What should I be reading to help me think through the JQ?
new world order university
Sorry, no. My thoughts on Jews are limited to the idea that I have no desire to be either ruled or influenced by those who reject Christ’s lordship.
Socialism was a problem in the U.S. way before 1900. Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln were both socialists. Lincoln refused to consider the federal government buying slaves and freeing them. It was supported by many. Instead, he wanted a war to use as an excuse to greatly increase federal government power. Read the well documented book THE REAL LINCOLN by DiLorenzo.
Jews who follow the Tenach (Old Testament) are conservative, but they are a small minority of Jews. Dennis Prager is one example.
It depends on whether a Jew or a Roman Catholic follows the Tenach (Old Testament). Those who do are good. It is not good to view people as groups rather than as individuals. Viewing them as groups is what leftists do.