Saturday, January 19, 2019

Religion, Nations, and Geopolitical Review: Saturday Jan 19

by A. Joseph Lynch and Dr. David Pence

                                                             THE WEEKLY BRIEF

                                                                    CAN WE TALK?

The House of Representatives in response to comments of Representative Steven King of Iowa, "once again rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values that define the people of the United States." There was only one dissenter who pushed for a stronger form of condemnation. Rep. King also voted for the resolution. The Republican party stripped King of all his committee assignments. In a long NYTimes interview published Jan. 10, King had asked, "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization - how did that language become offensive?" No-one pushed for a vote on the concept of western civilization which has become an Anglo-European substitute for Christian civilization that excludes Latin Spain, Orthodox Russia, and anything hinting of black Africa and the perilous Asians rising from China.

The high point of "white nationalism" was the film, Birth of a Nation, by D W Griffith. The 1915 film was a technological breakthrough in movies and a great cultural success. Woodrow Wilson reviewed it inside the White House (Mar. 21, 1915) since he could not be seen publicly at the movies so soon after the passing of his first wife (August, 1914). {Shameless Gossip: he had met Edith Bolling three days before and would propose to her in May of 1915. None of this was made public until Oct. 1915 when they married after the suitable year of mourning.}  D.W. Griffith and many other Americans of that era wanted to overcome the North South divisions of the Civil War by reasserting a white Christian brotherhood as the essence of the American nation.  The film was to white nationalism what Uncle Tom's Cabin was to the Civil War. That film was based on a book called The Clansman and ended with a tribute to Lincoln and a romantic portrait of the KKK. It was a nefarious but powerful argument providing  a poisonous definition of American nationalism that would be the ideology of Southern Democrats for half a century.

Representative King thought several years ago (there is a video of him talking about this) that if a white guy was a nationalist, he was a "white nationalist." It did not mean he thought only whites could be citizens. It was more like being a "white football player." It was an adjective describing the particular player not a limiting term of the corporate group.  His inclusion of white supremacy in his quote is what nailed him and he has joined in condemning that notion.
For several years, AOA has been arguing that every time a white man like Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, the media go wild and accuse him of "being a white nationalist".  This deliberate demonizing of nationalism is what Representative King was so inelegantly trying to get at in his NY Times interview. His later  statements (see below) explaining his real intentions and understanding are eloquent and beautiful. Being a nationalist is a TERRITORIAL definition of loyalty. A white American nationalist is more tied to his fellow black citizen from Georgia than a white Eurocrat like Angela Merkel or a white British intelligence officer like Christopher Steele.

The more we understand our national loyalties, the more we will see we are a Christian civilization-not  "the West." "Western civilization" is the term in King's statement that everyone ignored--but it is central to the debate that we are not having. In fact we will see that the alliance of the English speaking white countries: Britain, the US, Canada, and Australia in the name of the West is the ideology that is most set against multiracial American nationalism under God. The "West" is the way the globalist atheists say "us white people." And it was defenders of the "western values" in the Anglosphere  who combined to try to reverse the nationalist election of Donald Trump by the hinterland.  President Trump, the American nationalist, is ready to relate to the multi racial nation men- Eurasian Putin, the Chinese Xi Jinping, the Turkish Recep Erdogan, the Japanese Shinzo Abe, the Korean Kim Jong-un, the Indian Narendra Modi, and the Brazilian Jair Bolsonaro.  The "western alliance" of white security agencies correctly saw that Donald Trump, the American nationalist, was a threat to the status of Britain in the Anglo alliance which was using American soldiers to carry out the foreign policy of globalists and a few other countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel) who knew how to play the game.  Do we need a discussion about race, religion, the nation and the West? For sure!! Should we start by condemning white supremacy? Great idea! Now let's continue the conversation.
      American Nationalism is the antidote to racism not its  expression. As Rep King said "every person is made in the image and likeness of God" and our nation is built on that spiritual principal. That would be a great resolution for the House of Representatives. The American nation is a corporate territorial community that bows to the Sovereignty of God and holds up the sacredness of every human person. We are all nationalists on that proposition.   The scapegoating of the man from Iowa was an act of virtue signaling, moral posturing and mob hatred fed by such courageous Republican statesmen as Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney and led by such moral hate mongers as Maxine Waters.  We need to define what we love to restore our political community. Maybe the House could put forth a nationalist unity proposal. Representative King would vote for such a resolution. Would all his accusers?


THE POPE ADDRESSES THE CITY AND WORLD (URBI ET ORBI) ON CHRISTMASHis plea is for fraternity under the Father. He mentions five nations by name.

OBJECTION TO FRANCIS' APPROACHFr Robert Sirico of Acton Institute objects to the Pope's approach to Venezuela and Nicaragua. It might have been better for the Acton president to follow the Holy Father's prayer and reflect on priestly and national civic fraternity. That really is at the heart of the religious and political problems besetting the Catholic nations of Nicaragua and Venezuela as well as our own Protestant America and the Catholic priesthood. It is hard to believe that such a deeply seated homosexual personality like the Acton public intellectual will help us out of our muddle. He is the Fr. James Martin of the right.

FRANCIS AND THE NATIONSThe Pope to his diplomats to open the new year. Austin Ruse rightly objects to the Pope's take on nationalism. I think it is safe to say at this time that Pope Francis does not see the nations as formalized civic fraternities based on the biblical model of Israel and the Jewish fraternal covenant of circumcision.


GEORGE WEIGEL ON EWTN - "CHURCH IN AMERICA HAS LARGELY SOLVED THE PROBLEM" - OTHERS SHOULD LEARN FROM USRaymond Arroyo on 1-17-2019 interviewed George Weigel on the upcoming meeting on sexual abuse in Rome.  Mr. Arroyo showed Mr. Weigel several video clips of  Cardinal Donald Wuerl lying about his knowledge of McCarrick's homosexual  abuse of seminarians and priests.  Weigel described the findings as "Tragic and sad...very, very sad." When Arroyo objected to the "narrowing of the meeting on the protection of minors," Weigel agreed without ever mentioning the homosexual subculture in priesthood. He then stunningly said:

"It would be very helpful if it would be made clear that the church in the US has basically learned to deal with these problems. US has solved this... we have things to offer the world Church on this...  we actually have something to offer, this can't be a beat up on America."  

Mr. Weigel did say that the whole church must return to CHASTITY which he defined properly in terms of rightly ordered love.  Unfortunately he could not bring himself to go on to discuss how fatherhood, filiation and fraternity are desacralized by sodomy. Mr. Weigel and the whole neoconservative crew at First Things magazine were never good on this problem. In their own insular culture, they cultivated the effete personality of the "faithful Catholic intellectual". Imagine Cardinal Raymond Burke if that isn't clear. There was nothing masculine about that gang. It is why the premier magazine of religion and public affairs so utterly missed the Trump phenomenon and the masculine appeal of nationalism.  In that respect, the First Things intellectuals are very much like Mr. Arroyo's  TV cast of characters.  "The Long Lent of 2002" was barely a day of partial abstinence. The anthropology of masculine accord and the demonic cancerous presence of sodomites throughout the priesthood and episcopacy were never discussed back then. Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Weigel are video evidence of this latest failure of clarity and courage. Pope Francis used his Christmas address to appeal for fraternity. Why don't we take him up on that and discuss the masculine anthropology of fraternity under the Father  as the icon of the Trinity that undergirds the priesthood and the nations. US Catholics have a free press and media - what a waste of our bullhorn!



“Today, the New York Times is suggesting that I am an advocate for white nationalism and white supremacy. I want to make one thing abundantly clear; I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives.

It’s true that like the Founding Fathers I am an advocate for Western Civilization’s values, and that I profoundly believe that America is the greatest tangible expression of these ideals the World has ever seen. Under any fair political definition, I am simply a Nationalist. America’s values are expressed in our founding documents, they are attainable by everyone and we take pride that people of all races, religions, and creeds from around the globe aspire to achieve them. I am dedicated to keeping America this way.

This conviction does not make me a white nationalist or a white supremacist. Once again, I reject those labels and the ideology that they define. As I told the New York Times, ‘it’s not about race; it’s never been about race.’ One of my most strongly held beliefs is that we are all created in God’s image and that human life is sacred in all its forms.”

Could the FBI and MI6 Have Planted a British Mole in Trump Campaign? 
By Richard Morris & Eileen McGann 
There is increasing evidence that the FBI planted a mole inside Donald Trump's presidential campaign during the election. And it is also increasingly possible that it did so with the assistance of British intelligence.

When the House Intelligence and Oversight committees subpoenaed information about this report, the Justice Department declined to comply, saying that to do so would compromise an "ongoing investigation" and might risk the lives of its sources.

As Kimberly Strassel of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal noted: "We also know that among the Justice Department's stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the 'source' may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That's notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this 'top secret' source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply."
They alluded to domestic and "international" sources.

In our book "Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War Against Donald Trump," we raise the specter that the U.K. and its equivalent of the CIA — MI6 — initiated the Russia collusion scandal. Now it appears very possible that U.K. intel set "traps" for Trump campaign operatives to get them to brag about collusion with Russia.

Foremost among these was the meeting in a British pub between former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and George Papadopoulos, a volunteer in the Trump campaign. The 29-year-old Papadopoulos, over drinks, boasted of his pivotal role in Trump-Kremlin co-ordination. Was this a chance meeting? What was a former foreign minister doing talking to the likes of Papadopoulos?
It was this conversation that the FBI cited as the basis for issuing a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign officials and possibly the candidate himself.

If this meeting was an "intelligence trap" by the U.K. spy agency, it casts new doubt on the entire basis for the scandal, the warrants, the surveillance and the Mueller probe.
The entire allegation of collusion with Russia may have been dreamed up by MI6. Consider (reprinted from "Rogue Spooks"):
  1. It was Government Communications Headquarters — Britain's NSA — that first warned the U.S. that the Russians had hacked the Democratic Party's computers. Back in September 2015, long before the FBI and CIA knew anything about it or showed any interest in it, GCHQ was waving warning flags about Russian hacking. For a long time, the U.S. did nothing about it.
  2. During the campaign and even after, both MI6 and GCHQ routinely passed along classified intelligence information to the U.S. intelligence community about Trump's associates.
  3. It was Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 spy, who says he wrote the dossier that contained all the unsubstantiated and unreliable but nevertheless explosive material about Donald Trump. Was Steele only a former MI6 agent? Bear in mind what the Russian embassy said: "MI6 officers are never ex."
  4. It was Steele who went to the FBI, without telling his American client, in July 2016, to tell them about his dossier and urge them to investigate Trump and his associates.
  5. It was former U.K. Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood — a secret business associate of Steele's — who first approached Sen. John McCain to alert him about the dossier and warn him about the danger that Trump might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail if the dossier was actually true. Wood tried to throw the press off his trail by saying that he "had never worked professionally" with Steele, but that claim was contradicted by sworn statements filed in court.
  6. It was to London that an associate of McCain's traveled for a prearranged meeting under clandestine circumstances to obtain the dossier.
  7. Numerous uncontradicted published reports indicated that Steele shared his intelligence with MI6, and he admitted he received "unsolicited raw intel" — perhaps coming directly from British intel sources.
  8. It was former colleagues of Steele and Wood who, along with Wood, offered a virtual echo chamber of comments to the press about Steele's credibility. None of them had seen or verified the document.
  9. The director of MI6, Alex Younger, used notes from Steele's dossier in his first public speech. Younger and Steele — and Wood — had all been colleagues in British intelligence.
  10. As noted, two weeks after the dossier containing all the negative information about Trump was published — and three days after the inauguration — Robert Hannigan, the popular director of GCHQ, abruptly resigned, citing family illnesses, giving only six hours' notice. The Guardian reported that "his sudden resignation prompted speculation that it might be related to British concerns over shared intelligence with the U.S. in the wake of Donald Trump becoming president."
  11. MI6 issued a DA notice when the dossier was published and Steele's identity was revealed. This government directive requested that all media refrain from reporting anything at all about Steele for nine hours — enough time for him to escape from London.
  12. U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and several government ministers were briefed on the Trump dossier before the U.S. inauguration and decided to stay quiet about it. All roads may lead to London.


OLAVO DE CARVALHOAn intellectual maverick behind the Brazilian turn from the left. He talks about cognitive parallax in which the philosophy of intellectuals divided from reality are picked up by crowds chanting for a utopian construct.

"First, the revolutionary sets the hypothetical future which one he wants to realize as the parameter of the judgment of his actions. The past thus becomes irrelevant. Second, the revolutionary inverts the subject and object positions; attacking the opponents of his future society and turning them in scapegoats who prevent him from achieving his plans. In substance, then, the revolutionary process is unleashed through the systematic rejection of reality. The higher the level of alienation of the individual concerning to the reality that surrounds him, the higher will be the power exerted by the proposal to transform the present so that it confronts to an imaginary future."

The continuing gap between reality and the godless genderless vision of the left animated by the HATRED for those who will not submit is a pretty good description of the sexual left in America. Carvalho's antidote is to keep connecting people with reality. We would add that begins with public prayer to acknowledge the ultimate reality as well as renewed civic liturgy to acknowledge the fundamental political bond of national citizenship. Will such acknowledgements elicit hatred and scapegoating? Carvalho predicts yes.

[Addendum: This is a video of an interesting discussion on Approaching the Transcendental between Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and British gentleman Roger Scruton. Note the many Brazilian commentators arguing that Carvalho belongs in the discussion. What these two Anglo thinkers need is a strong dose of the Living God and masculine national identity - maybe a Latin could so ground them.]

Christopher Caldwell reviews A.S. biography Between Two Millstones :1974-1978
"Solzhenitsyn had become convinced that, far from being a reliable defender of others’ liberty, the West was at risk of fumbling away its own. He saw in the rich nations a “blindness of superiority,” a “decline in courage,” relativism, litigiousness, and a sense of responsibility to God that was growing “dimmer and dimmer.” The speech was a turning point in the Cold War, redrawing all its lines in a way that would anticipate the conflicts of our own time. Indeed it was with this speech during the Carter administration, not with the Putin ascendancy in the first decade of this century, that one first began to hear the progressive complaint that “the true Russia, as opposed to the Soviet Union, is a far greater danger to the West,” as Solzhenitsyn lamented. That foolish but durable view is the cornerstone of elite Western thinking about Russia today. 

All along, there had been something false about the heady early days of his exile, Solzhenitsyn would later come to suspect: “That incredible and unjustified groundswell that lifted me had been triggered by a mutual lack of understanding.” A giant of Western literature and philosophy had taken up residence in the United States, had spoken to the West in a spirit of friendship, and had gone on to write much of his best work there. Yet, within a few years, many of the West’s most influential people discovered to their surprise that they distrusted and even detested Solzhenitsyn, much as his Soviet persecutors had — and, alas, for many of the same reasons."
It will help us in understanding Solzhenitsyn if we remember he is a Christian man not a western one. Marxism on the other hand is an ideology of the West divorced from God.

IN THE CONGO (80 MILLION; 40% CATHOLIC, 38% PROTESTANT, 12% OTHER CHRISTIAN)The Bishops set up a separate counting system for the 18 million ballots and says the wrong man has been announced the winner.


NATO WORKED FOR FORTY YEARS. At seventy, NATO as threat, not protector.


KEEPING HER SAFE - GUNS AND GENDER ROLES PROTECT JAYME CLOSSBrave women and armed men saved a girl from the psycho.

THE AGE OF SECULARISMThe Age of Secularism by Auguste del Noce (1910-1989, Italy). “Marxism has ended up being a stage in the development of the technological and affluent society, which accepts all its negations of traditional thought but at the same time eliminates its messianic and (in its own way) religious aspects.” What is left after the revolution is a materialist and atheistic core that thrives even when the Marxist political and economic program fails."

“...natural irreligion is characterized by the refusal even to pose the problem in terms of theism versus atheism, because it is not interesting [original emphasis],...everything becomes purely an object of commerce. This is symbolized by the disappearance of modesty; in the most elementary forms everything is reduced to “water, sleep, sex,” falling, in short, into pure animalism."


RICHARD WEAVER...and the need for piety.

PEW SURVEY % PEOPLE BY NATIONSay religion is very important in their lives, 2018 

                                                                  Ethiopia: 98%                             Mexico and Bosnia: 45%
                     Indonesia: 93%                                    Serbia 32% Canada: 27%
Nigeria: 88%                                         Spain: 22%
India: 80%                                            Australia: 18%
Egypt: 72%                                           Russia: 16%
                       Brazil: 72%                                           Germany and France: 11%
             Turkey: 68%                                         Japan and UK: 10%
Greece: 56%                                    Czech 8:%
US: 53%                                               China: 3%

No comments:

Post a Comment