Mr. Schoeman, be careful, there are too many Roosevelt
and Churchill haters here who will not take kindly to
your characterization of Hitler as Satanic.

Because if Hitler was Satanic, even the Anti-Christ, as
Stauffenberg thought, then Roosevelt and Churchill wer
right to fight them, and America Firsters and pacificist
were the Anti-Christ dupes.

And the last thing many want to do is let go of their
hatred of Roosevelt.

@Adriana

You see, both FDR and Churchill were anti-Christs as well, along with Stalin.

The Great War Part II was simply a “civil war” fought by various anti-Christs.

@Andy

“The war of the Four Anti-Christs?”

It has a certain ring to it.

There may be a History thesis in it somewhere.

“The Anti-Christ of the Norht fought against the
Anti-Christ of the South. Then the Anti-Christ of the
West joined in the fight, and the Anti-Chist of the East
won the big prize”

Or some such..

I wonder what role did Cthulhu play in all this…

Satan works all sides of a conflict, Adriana.  The devil was a murderer from the beginning and the slaughter of the innocents and the attempt to seize God-like power is Satanic whether engaged in by Hitler, FDR, Churchill, or Stalin.  No one claims to be fighting for the anti-Christ and many claim to be fighting against him even as they destroy the lives of human beings made in the image and likeness of God.  Nothing causes more death and destruction in the world than the attitude of “I’m good; my enemies are evil; therefore, I have the right to kill them.” It’s a characteristic attitude of nationalists - even those who claim to be against nationalism.

What an embarrassing, hysterical piece.

Hitler was consecrated to Satan? Timed his suicide to mark “Walpurgis Night?” That last paragraph is quite a doozy. Do you pay for these pieces?

Please Adriana, no more relativism. Both Nazis *and* fascists *and* Communists *and FDR can all be bad simultaneously. Like a rapist and serial killer in a knife fight, both are bad, even if one is worse.

What is with the FDR/Truman cheerleaders, who for some inexplicable reason think that one side’s evil necessitates that the other side is good?

I think the point of the article being that Hitlers aspirations to either Christ or Satan were pure conceit and foolishness.  It is never stated that he ever achieved that kind of status. Read any true history of FDR and you will find the depictions of him by many of his peers as unflattering as this piece is to Hitler.  I think that it is easier to hate Churchill and Roosevelt for the simple fact that their accomplishments have been lauded to no end in the ongoing indoctrination of the American people in an equally satanic mythology that needs refuting much more than the tired Nazi fear.  I find it very refreshing to know that it is really the liberal progressives who are the cultural heirs to Hitler.

Hitler’s supposed Satanism is “confirmed” by the fact that he committed suicide on the date of an important pagan feast?  I don’t suppose it may have had anything to do with the fact that it was the same day that Hitler learned definitively that the last-ditch counter-offensive ordered to stem the Russian onslaught on Berlin would not happen…

In general, this essay is highly misleading as to the Nazis’ actual religious beliefs and practices.  Yes, there were some who wanted to abolish Christianity, but many others continued to identify themselves as Christians and maintained that National Socialism was a culmination of their faith.  (The extent to which the actions of such persons were in accord with Christianity is, of course, another matter entirely.)

Moreover, the Nazi state never undertook any serious program of persecution against the churches per se.  Clergy and congregants who openly opposed the state were often treated harshly, of course, but that, again, is another matter.

Finally, Hitler himself had nothing but contempt for the paganist musings of Himmler, Rosenberg and other Nazi leaders who espoused some form of pan-Nordic mythology.  His own expressed religious views are actually quite contradictory, but he certainly was no follower of “Wotan” or the other supposed ancient Germanic gods.

For a detailed and much more nuanced treatment of this subject, I highly recommend Richard Steigman-Gall’s book “The Holy Reich.” It convincingly refutes the commonly-held notion that Hitler’s regime worked monolithically to replace Christianity with some form of paganism.

The promised “thousand year reign” of the Reich was an overt allusion to Christ’s thousand year reign, you say?

How silly can you get? Haven’t you by any chance noticed that 1006 years was in fact the duration of the First Reich (800 - 1806)?

Great article! Thank you!

With respect to the exchange between Adriana and Andrew Capp on anti-Christs, note that the first letter of Saint John states that many anti-Christs have come, which would seem to indicate that many more could come in the future.  Now that Hitler has won and apparently retired the official anti-Christ title, evil-doers are simply designated “Hitlers” - the “Hitler-of-the-week” phenomenon noted by Joseph Sobran.  Title holders have included Castro, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Milosevich, Noriega, Bin Ladin, and most recent and current “Hitler” Amadinejad.  In recent years, designation of someone as a “Hitler” is a strong indicator of an impending US attack on their country and slaughter of that country’s civilians.

For the 3rd day in a row, another outstanding article, and another that will make the Browns squirm.  Another for the files. Schoeman is to be profoundly thanked for alerting us to the Browns and their methods, they still attempting to make Catholics and Conservatives their useful idiots.

(Browns = Fascists, Nazis, racialists and racial supremacists, Social Darwinists, Klansmen, Eugenicists, genetic determinists, nationalists, Birchers, etc.)

[F]aced with the task of converting a population who thought of themselves as Christian to Nazi neo-paganism, one of their prime techniques was to co-opt Christian concepts and incorporate them into their new diabolical religion.

The Browns are still very much about this task. And to “Christian” in the above quote, add “Jeffersonian” and “conservative” – all groups which the Browns hate, ridicule, and denigrate, usually by ad hominem, name-calling, red herring, bait-and-switch arguments, verbal hijackings, distortion, omissions, concealment, obscurantism, euphemism, code-words, hate-mongering, false accusations, defamation, and lies.  Evidence enough can be seen in many reader responses on Paleoconservative websites; one need only to read some of the above responses to Adriana, and doubtless responses to this post.  Those who doubt the neopaganism and the atheism of the Browns, need only inquire into the beliefs of Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, the Nouvelle Droite, and the GRECE.

He who offers an apologia for a Browns, is a Brown.  Only he is to be trusted who utterly repudiates anything whatsoever to do with the Browns and the Reds and their lies, and who works to destroy their pretense of any moral and intellectual legitimacy.  I call upon our leading Paleoconservative intellectuals and organization so to repudiate, publicly, and so to work.  Taki himself, by publishing this article, now shows other Paleoconservatives the way to humanitarianism and humanitas.

“organization” in my post should be plural

Kirt, you might also note the phenomena that often the one pointing out
the anti-Christ, or Hitler as it has come to be called, may himself be
the Hitler(anti-Christ). Once you buy in to the need for wars then you also have to
keep finding Hitler.  The thing I like to say is that even Hitler wasn’t
Hitler.  His wanting a thousand year reich would not be equated to ruling
the world as some have said.  It would have been contained in what he believed
to be German soil. People like to forget that he was also considered a
liberator by some as he did in fact liberate some countries from both England
and Stalin.  His biggest crime was that he was a progressive liberal and
took abortion to it’s logical extension of ethnic cleansing and eugenics.
I have often wondered when his ideological heirs would eventually do the
same and make other forms of murder a pseudo-right.

I do not claim that FDR was a shining soul, nor
Churchill (as an Irish history buff, I know about
Churchill’s dark spots).

But they are the ones who stepped up to the plate agains
a Satanic cult which had taken hold of an industrial
powerhouse (what made Hitler really dangerous was
Bismarck’s achievement - which would have horrified
the Iron Chancellor).  Someone had to stop it.

It would have been better, I agree, to have Hitler taken
down by people with better ethics than those two. But
no knight in shining armor seemed to be available then
(they have a way of not showing up in emergencies). So
it was up to those deeply flawed men to see the danger
and to fight it, with whatever means they had.

And for that, we owe them thanks.

And if afterwards we could not make more of the victory,
if we frittered away the opportunity to make a new
beginning, well, that’s our call. They gave us the
opportunity, that’s all.

Most informative article – much appreciated. As a cradle Catholic I take a certain vicarious pride in the fact that, whatever evils the Holy Mother Church may have perpetrated in the not-so-distant past, it certainly put up a courageous and determined struggle against the totalitarianisms of the 20th century. Devout Catholics are liable to do many dumb things, but mass murder isn’t one of them.

Just two reservations:

(1)
“The Blessed Virgin Mary was the one and only pure blossom of the human race, flowering in the fullness of time…etc.”, according to a certain Anne Catherine Emmerich, whom you quote as though she were some kind of leading authority.

What are ACE’s credentials? Has she produced any evidence to justify this remarkable claim? I mean evidence that would possess at least some credibility for non-Catholics – pagans seeking conversion, sympathetic Prods, agnostics etc. 

(2)
No less an authority than the current chief exorcist of Rome, Father Amorth, stated that “certainly Hitler was consecrated to Satan.”

How does being a ‘current chief exorcist’ in Rome give you any authority, except of course from the p.o.v. to those who are already converted to root-and-branch Catholicism?  What evidence is there that chief exorcist is good at exorcising? Any double-blind case-control studies, for example?

Suggested reading:

‘Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer’, by Francis Galton (1872), available online here:

http://www.abelard.org/galton/galton.htm#prayer

Enjoy!

This article is joke.

Do you pay for such boilerplate fanaticism?  What is commissioned by Weekly Standard?

.

@ Charles Copeland,

How does being a ‘current chief exorcist’ in Rome give you any authority, except of course from the p.o.v. to those who are already converted to root-and-branch Catholicism

Do you assume the guy had no credentials for the job?  He would at least be as well-read
on the subject as just about anybody in the world.  True he would have a
Catholic perspective, but the article indicated that he is a Catholic.
THe point of the article in part being that the church was not in
lock step with Hitler.

Sid,

Although paleoconservatives disagree with white nationalists, they still see the importance of race, especially as it is formulated in its classical manifestations of ancestry and tribe, kith and kin, and genophilia.

I do not know a single paleoconservative who would agree with your politically correct dribble.

This is a great article on the
Jews and Palestine.

Thanks.

those who claim that there will be an earthly kingdom made up of the Jew after the flesh, and of the nations of the earth who somehow miraculously come through a so-called battle of Armageddon, cannot get around this Scripture below that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
here paul makes it clear that the kingdom is not flesh and blood but spiritual....
1cor 15:45
so also it hath been written, `The first man Adam became a living creature,’ the last Adam [is] for a life-giving spirit,

46but that which is spiritual [is] not first, but that which [was] natural, afterwards that which [is] spiritual.

47The first man [is] out of the earth, earthy; the second man [is] the Lord out of heaven;

48as [is] the earthy, such [are] also the earthy; and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] also the heavenly;

49and, according as we did bear the image of the earthy, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly.

50And this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood the reign of God is not able to inherit, nor doth the corruption inherit the incorruption;

Our Lord was not preaching that He had come to set up an earthly, material, physical kingdom, but that He had come, commissioned by God the Father to establish a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of His people and this would be accomplished by the gracious gospel of the grace of God toward poor hell-deserving sinners who would repent and believe Him as the King, the Messiah, the One sent down from heaven, the Saviour, God’s substitute for sinners.

the kindom is already set up and his kingdom in his own words were not of this world…

36Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . .except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So this rules out any one entering into this kingdom of God except by the new birth, by the direct generating power of the Spirit of God upon the heart, making that individual a new creature and giving him a new heart and nature over which Christ rules as King.

caveat emptor.

Great article Roy,I have your book.The Catholic Church was the only institution in Germany to stand up to Hitler.Read Mitt Brenender Sorge at the Cathoilc Peace Fellowship site a great papal document.Read also The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich, printed first in 1941.Churchill and Roosevelt lost all moral authority by fighting total war, without even offering the Germans a chance to surrender honorably, if they got rid of Hitler.They stood by while Stalin murdered and expelled millions at the end of the war.We fought a war so a monster got all the fruits of victory and gave ourselves a fifty year cold war.

Sid:  “He who offers an apologia for a Browns, is a Brown.  Only he is to be trusted who utterly repudiates anything whatsoever to do with the Browns....”

These words could have been written by Herbert Marcuse.

Give it a rest, Sid.

Excellent article that is sorely needed to dispel the
idea of Adrianna etc. that paleo-conservativism is
riddled with fascists and holocaust deniers and
Klu Klux Klanners.

@Joe Populist

On the contrary, the responses from those who call
the author a neoconservative in disguise and attack
him in the name of paleoconservatism shows how visible
are the Ku Klux Klanners, Hitler apologists, and crypto
nazis. 

Maybe they should be less visible, eh?

Am I alone in wondering if we have a similar phenomenon taking place right here in the U.S.?  Doesn’t it seem that the Evangelical Christian Right has taken on a distinctly Nationalistic-Fascistic fervor, idolizing George Bush, leading the charge for more war in the Middle East, obsessed with Israel, and getting inexorably tied into the Republican Party?  A cursory examination yields too many parallels not easily dismissed.

@Dan Stewart,

Agreed to some extent.  I see it as less nationalistic and more new world
order.  Unless you see the U.S. and Israel as one nation, which in many
ways they are.  I would consider it nationalism if it were not so completely
destructive to the U.S. and helpful to Israel.  There are however many
elements of a dictatorship such as suspension of individual freedoms,
fanatacism, religion, paganism, and atheism.  Remember Carl Rove is an avowed
atheist.

I blame the new world order more than anything.  The corporations
that pull the strings of our leaders are the true power.  Bush, like FDR, is
less an actual person than a construct of the evil elements that he fronts
for.  He comes off as affable and dimwitted which serves the purpose that
he is easily blamed for the errors in policy and practice of the administration.
He provides the perfect cover for the actors behind the scenes much the
way the sympathetically crippled FDR did. Make no mistake, he like FDR is beholden
to his masters and by taking the blame on himself will one day be rewarded
with a monument to his legacy.

Just letting you know I didn’t read this, nor would I share it with anyone. Any article about Hitler writtem by a Jew [Roy Schoeman] isn
‘t worth reading.

It just isn’t fashionable any longer to be a philosemite

I had only read the first paragraph of this piece
before finding a rather glaring error, albeit one
that is repeated unceasingly by credulous writers.
Although it is quite true that Hitler very much liked
the music dramas of Richard Wagner, it was Puccini and
Verdi (Oh, such Nazis, those Italians!) who were, by
far, the most performed opera composers during the
Third Reich.

Wagner’s dramatic opera PARSIFAL was NOT given
much at all during the Third Reich and was indeed
frowned upon by certain higher ups in the Party,
mostly because of its proto-Christian overtones.
Of all of Wagner’s work, it was DIE MEISTERSINGER, a
comedic masterpiece, that was presented most often
(the RING cycle came nowhere close).

Facile writers like to cloak Hitler in Wagner---and
Wagner in Hitler, even though Wagner died in 1883, six
years before Hitler was born.It is very true that the
Fuhrer offered subventions to Bayreuth and was on cosy
terms with Winifried Wagner (but most other major
theatres received major government support during the
period, too), but it is simply mythic to suggest that
somehow the music of Wagner symbolized the Reich. It
was Beethoven’s 9th symphony that was played publicly
at every birthday celebration of Hitler, and it was
Franz Lehar’s frothy comic operetta, THE MERRY WIDOW
(DIE LUSTIGE WITWE)that was the Fuhrer’s favorite
vocal work.

By the way, there is an excellent new biography/study
of Winifried Wagner that details that she used her
friendship with “Wolf” to secure numerous favors
for Jewish musicians and political personae non gratae.
For an interesting day-to-day view of the lives of
the later day Wagner family, and in particular their
prickly relations with Hitler, let me recommend
Wolfgang Wagner (one of Winifried’s sons), his
autobiographical work, ACTS.

Now, I shall go back and attempt to read the rest of
this piece…

Sid:  “He who offers an apologia for a Browns, is a Brown.  Only he is to be trusted who utterly repudiates anything whatsoever to do with the Browns....”

Give it a rest, Sid.

Readers should go back to my post and the quote in its entirety.  Conveniently Don broke off at the point that would make his subsequent claim invalid.  And Don should be careful; Paul Gottfried is a student of old Herbie.

Curious article, now that I’ve finished it...but the
suggestion that “Hitler was consecrated to Satan” is
way over the top, and not supported by concrete
historical evidence, despite Schoeman’s best shot.That
he was an aesthete, lazy, with flashes of brilliance,
on occasion demoniacal, cunning, at heart an artist,
prone to bouts of ruthlessness and anger and depression,
gracious and courteous with women and children, and
in the latter stages of his life living in a bizarre
dream world of his own (largely) creation, I can see--
-and there is ample documentation to support each of
those characterizations. But “consecrated to Satan”?
No.

Although paleoconservatives disagree with white nationalists, they still see the importance of race, especially as it is formulated in its classical manifestations of ancestry and tribe, kith and kin, and genophilia.

I do not know a single paleoconservative who would agree with your politically correct dribble.

Glad you’re back, Donald! Even if your trying to drum me out of the paleoconservative ranks.  No paleos would agree with me?  I know plenty, in fact all of them not infected by the Browns. Find in Ed Burke, Möser, de Maistre, and Adam Müller any discussion about organic chemistry and molecular biology, - the PhD’s of which being the only souls with the requisite credentials to talk about genes—and then please cite title, chapter, verse. To save you the effort: These men—the fount and origin and benchmark of Paleoconservatism—believe that handed-on history formed habits, not genes, just as Big Dave (Hume) told them.

The Browns, of course, agree with you 100%.  So do Leonard Jeffries and Frances Cress Welsing.  Wiki them.

In the spirit Big Dave’s scepticism:  The real “politically correct dribble” was written by Arthur de Gobineau (immediately shown to be hogwash by Joseph Deniker), Francis Galton, Madison Grant, Alfred Ploetz, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Alfred Rosenberg.  My guess they’re in the Wiki.  I have elsewhere (Google it) discussed how I, a Borderer Backcountry ("Scots Irish") like 75% of “white” Southerners. am the mixture of 10 “races” at least—enough to suggest that for culture and character, “race”, if it were a meaningful concept at all, is quite meaningless.

Yet your are a philosopher, not an organic chemist and molecular biologist.  Take a gander at your fellow philosopher John Crosby, the Personalist, in his _The Selfhood of the Human Person_.  Every single person has “incommunicability of being”, as Thomas would call it. “Persons are incommunicably their own and never mere specimens”—thus never a geneotype, or rather each is a genotype of one example.  Every person is his own “race”.

A dude named Wojtyła was a Personalist too.

Cast your eyes also on ol’ Ed’s _Sketch of a Negro Code.  Heck, take a week off at Myrtle Screech and read his work on India and the rights of the Indian people.

I do welcome your participation.

Excellent article that is sorely needed to dispel the idea of Adrianna etc. that paleo-conservativism is riddled with fascists and holocaust deniers and
Klu Klux Klanners.

I wish it were true, Joe, that paleoconservatism were not so riddled.  If you mean that paleoconservatism has nothing to do with these types and their principles, I’m with you.

Remember Carl Rove is an avowed
atheist.

The John Birchers live!

Sorry for being out of the loop,but when did the right become the exclusive home of “fascists” and “neocons”.

Or is name-calling just the order of the day?

Isn’t there something to be said for discussion, debate etc., without accusations of being “brown”.

What a load of hysterical crap.
The great majority of Germans didn’t believe into this
nonsense, nor did Hitler himself. He never read any of
Rosenberg’s (his chief ideologist) books,
and said so a few times publicly. His was a savage
socio Darwinism free of ethics or compassion, and
that was all.

i find the term holocaustianity used by norman finkelstein so revealing about the time in which we find ourselves living....

european society is encouraged to ridicule islams holy man mohammed, and they are encouraged to be racist against arabs and intolerant of their religion....the same society is goaded into revering the holocaust as an untouchable golden calf, a god to be worshiped and feared. questioning any part of the golden calf of holocaustianity is considered a crime, .....the governments that are alligned against arabs and islam along with the state controlled press try and associate isalmist to fascism or to a new hitlerlike incarnation (the antichrist), but dare not make the same connection of fascism and racism to the zionist government in israel, although that connection would be more correct based on the real life events on the ground in the middle eastern nations of papestine/israel and lebanon....they fear being called anti semites and of being ostracized and or being brought under the power of the law or the discipline of the groups to which they may belong.....the press and governments portray a religious arab or persian islamist as a threat and dehuminize them with labels such as terrorist ( terrorism is the new nazism) so they can then be targeted as subhumans not worthy of living unless they surrender their allegience to the powers that create and control the popular opinion of the nations in europe.

there is a fear in the world that makes men cower and sacrifice their morals at the altar of terror.

in the human spirit there is a rebellious nature that doesnt like to be controlled with fear.

these are the events of our times.

If it take ACLU lawyers to defend the Klan’s right to march, then it takes a Paleoconservative to defend Rowe.  (Those who had problems with the SAT’s analogy section should ignore the previous sentence).

I thank Dr. Cathey for his remarks on Wagner.  I don’t have a copy of _Mein Kampf_ handy, yet I remember something from the 2nd Part, the 6th chapter—the only chapter worth reading—about “the magic of Bayreuth”.  But my memory is faulty. So I’ll yield to Dr. Cathey.

Dr. Cathey is right that the “consecration to Satan” wants a source, however much such a want fails to detract from this outstanding essay.  Much is written about the famous and the infamous that is either plaster-saint kitsch or dirty defamation.  Queen Marie did not say “Let them eat cake” Dishonest Abe had severe faults; if homosexuality and syphilis were among them they remain unproven.  And as for Father George’s wrath against cherry trees ....... So we should be skeptical of reports about ol’ Adi’s putative BO and Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and much else, monster though he doubtless was.

Adriana, you’ll be glad to hear that World War II did have one knight in shining armor, or almost:

AIDE AT CASABLANCA: Prime Minister, your problem is, General De Gaulle thinks he’s Joan of Arc!

CHURCHILL: No, my problem is, my bishops won’t burn him!  We all have our crosses to bear; mine is the Cross of Lorraine.

Hey, a fella that can save his country from disaster four times (1940, 1958, 1962, 1968) and can stand up to Moscow and Washington can’t be all bad.  For me, He and Konrad the Great were the 20th C’s greatest men—though both utter products of the 19th C.

Is this some kind of practical joke?  How can anyone take this article seriously? 

This is pure neocon boilerplate.  I can’t believe that Taki’s Top Drawer is publishing this nonsense. 

Has this site been invaded from interns from Weekly Standard?

First off, the vast majority of the upper ups in the Nazi Party were Christians, both Protestants and Catholics.  Very few identified with paganism.  This is well-documented fact.

Second, do you think that Holocaust just happened in a vacuum?  Did one day the Germans just wake up and say let’s get the Jews? 

No, the Jews had been meddling (via banking, newspapers, etc) in German affairs for far too long.  And even when they all had the chance to leave (1939), many stayed there and continued agitating.

And now the Jews are doing it again in the U.S.  Jews have all but declared war upon the white race and Christians.

From now on, I’m going to call Sid Cundiff “David Frum Jr.” That’s Sid’s new nickname.

Just as David Frum wanted to excommunicate all the paleos from the conservative movement, so Sid Cundiff wants to excommunicate anyone from the paleoconservative movement who violates the norms of political correctness.

But at least David Frum can write well (sometimes), and sometimes finds new things to day.  Sid is like a broken recored.

Sid’s broken-record statements:

“if only we have Venetian capitalism and free trade”

“race does not exist”

“real conservatism is all about voting rights for minorities”

Bla bla bla.

We already know that Sid is on the payroll for some neocon organizations.  I wonder whether Adriana and the other neocons are.

“He who offers an apologia for a Browns, is a Brown.  Only he is to be trusted who utterly repudiates anything whatsoever to do with the Browns and the Reds and their lies, and who works to destroy their pretense of any moral and intellectual legitimacy. “

Spoken like a true psychopath. The problem is, Sid labels anyone who disagrees with his oafish theories a “brown.” A man who denies the reality of racial differences, black-on-white crime, and the basic facts of biology is left with calling names as his only defense. Doesn’t Sid realize than name-calling is the most graceless way of admitting you have lost an argument?

By the way, de Benoist goes out of his way to attack fascism and racism. Anyone who labels him a “brown” has not read his work.

One of the many mistakes conservatives can make, is asserting the left-liberal view that everything that is Teutonic, Germanic, Norse, Anglo-Saxon or other pre-Christian (for instance Roman, Greek or Celtic) is interlinked with national-socialism or fascism. In defending Christianity, not seldom conservatives tend to attack other pillars of Western civilization. Yet here it is not Judeao-Christianity that wins, but the West that loses; one cannot defend a Christian religion while forgetting the pre-Christian roots of our societies, on which our Western Christianity is founded. One cannot see the West without for instance what is called the ‘Germanic’ component, as conservatives like Edmund Burke and J.R.R. Tolkien rightly understood. Take for instance the English language, which we inherited from our pre-Christian ancestors. The same with the Common Law known in the UK and the US; it was Thomas Jefferson who stated it was of pre-Christian origin. Or another example: this article was published on Thursday, thus Þunresdæg, the day of the pagan god Thor. Moreover, there is a 1.500 year gap between the old heathenism and the Second World War; we should not forget that. While the intent of Mr. Schoeman may be noble, it is imperative for us to understand that we should never throw away the ‘Germanic’ baby with the bathwater in the hope it may save Judeao-Christianity and the West. As soon we allow the use of Second World War arguments to attack certain pre-Christian traditions of the West, the step for radical liberals to use the same arguments against Judeo-Christianity is rather small—and I fear they will only welcome that small step.

1. Judaism-Christianity is a religion that is non-Western in origin.

2. It is the Civil Law tradition, not the Common Law, that is non-Christian in origin.  Or quote please pagan English law (i.e. before Augustine of Canterbury).

3. The Germans abandoned ANY connection with a pagan past with Boniface. Or find it in German literature before Hebbel, and quote it.  Even the Niberlungenlied thinks little of paganism.  Even the Hildebrantlied abjures it. Casper David Friedrich incorporate NO paganism into his painting except a few monument from the stone age.  By and large he borrows from Gothic Christianity and nature.  Then came Hebbel’s use of paganism, then Wagner, rightly ridiculed by Nietzsche, then the Nazis. Other than these three sources, paganism had no past or future.  Let Germanisten correct me.

German Culture, aside from Lutheranism (Christian), was largely French, Flemish, and Italian from the Medieval period until Klopstock’s _Oden_ (1750) and Winkelmann’s _Gedanken über die Nachahmung der Griechischen Werke in der Mahlerey und Bildbauer-Kunst_ (1751), the dates from which Germany began to lead rather than follow. I except maybe the Frauenmystik of the 14th century and early Pietism.  Even the supreme sculpture of the Renaissance, Riemenschneider’s, is Flemish in origin. So also Grünewald’s painting. Dürer studied in Italy with Bellini, and considered himself a Humanist.  Bach may not have learned his trade at Corelli’s and Louis Couperin’s and Vivaldi’s knee, but it was close enough.  Of course Germany didn’t really exist until 1871. We’re speaking of “Mitteleuropa”.

Please,let’s have tomorrow’s article as good as the last three.  Such quality, besides being Beef Wellington the mind, will make the Browns realize that they are here on soil foreign and alien to their own benighted ideas.  Their comments already indicate that they can’t distinguish Real Conservatism from the Whig-Hamilton-Wilson ideology (Neoconservatism), and that they mistakenly (or maybe deliberately!) judge their Brown views to be Real Conservative. Brown views aren’t.

God might be dead but the Devil lives on in the form of Adolf Hitler.  In our age, saying Hitler did anything good or right is on a par with saying the devil did something right.  But IMHO, Hitler was a man - a man who himself rejected attempts by certain of his supporters to deify him.  He said he was a politician, with all that word implies.  But in this era, if you are a writer of history such as David Irving, finding any redeeming qualities or right decisions of A.Hitler finds you doing time in an Austrian prison.  The nazis are long since gone but the powers- that-be seem to think using similar methods is the way to prevent them from coming back.  The people reading this website are no doubt more free-thinking than the average, and most, if not all, would favour the American founding fathers conception of freedom over Adolf Hitler’s.  But in 2007 there is only one man running for president who shares those concepts (Ron Paul) and we are told by the establishment media that he has no chance!  An enforced dogma corrupts freedom and truth, whether it is a church dogma or the dogma of anti-nazism. Now here is a sample of poetry that apparently the anti-Christ might write:

“When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
no longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks -

Then lend her your arm in support,
Escort her with happy pleasure.
The hour will come when, weeping, you
Must accompany her on her final walk.

And if she asks you something,
Then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her,
Not impatiently, but with gentle calm.

And if she cannot understand you properly
Explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour,
When her mouth asks for nothing more.”

Beef Wellington FOR the mind.

Some sense?

Hitler and his inner circle were occultist neo-pagans. They had no love for Christianity or the Church.

There was no vast Jewish conspiracy to ruin Germany.

The Holocaust actually happened. It was fact.

Just because you fight a bad guy doesn’t necessarily make you a good guy. Stalin murdered millions. Churchill had no qualms about killing brown-skinned people who made trouble in his empire. FDR founded the welfare-warfare state that is bankrupting the United States.

FDR didn’t give a crap about the Jews. He only wanted to get into the war to bail out his English relatives.

Most Germans who fought in WWII did so out of a form of desperation. They were angry because Woodrow Wilson cheated them at the negotiating table at Versailles, selling them down the river to get the useless League of Nations. They were worried because of the Depression. They were humiliated. Hitler delivered, for a time, both renewed national pride and economic development.

I’m rather reminded in all this of the War Nerd’s column “Why I Hate WWII”:

http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html

Hopefully this article lays down a marker, because Paleoconservatism does not need a fascist element stumbling around muttering that “Hitler wasn’t all bad.” I kindly invite the New Right to find a New Right website to post their fulminations to, and leave us Paleos unsullied.

No one is asking anyone to love FDR.

But it is good to recognize that hartred for him led
many to overlook the evil of Hitler, and to imperceptibly
slide from principled pacifism to nazi apologetics.

Hate is always a bad counselor.

Sid, I must kindly demur when you hail Charles De
Gaulle as one of two greatest men of the 20th C.
(along with Konrad Adenauer). Here is your statement:

“a fella that can save his country from disaster
four times (1940, 1958, 1962, 1968) and can stand
up to Moscow and Washington can’t be all bad.  For
me, He and Konrad the Great were the 20th C’s greatest
men—though both utter products of the 19th C.”

It was Marshal Petain who saved France in 1940 from
total German occupation (and all he gets from
neo-conservative style historians is the charge that
he was a “stooge of the Nazis,” which he most
definitely was not). He knew well that taking the
leadership of France in 1940 (legally)would be
difficult, incurring the wrath of liberal opinion,
but he was willing to sacrifice himself for his
country. Non-jaundiced historian (e.g. Prof. George
Melton in DARLAN, and others) have understood this.
I am certainly willing to debate his record, including
his weaknesses late in the war, but his overall
record during the period is admirable.

Regarding De Gaulle, I must echo the criticism of
French traditionalists. He came in in 1958 with the
avowed purpose of maintaining “la Algerie francaise”
(and I might add, an Algeria that was Christian and
European)and in less than four years sold out his
erstwhile supporters while sacrificing some 2.5
million Frenchmen in a French province, outre-mer,
to Islamic barbarians in one of the most scandalous
double-crosses in history. For me, he is no hero.

Nor, for that matter, is Sir Winston---who went to
war in 1940 (he claimed) to save the British empire,
and only succeeded in completely dismantling it. Prof.
John Charmley (in his several studies of Churchill,
the Second World War, and Sir Neville Chamberlain)
is right--Britain made a serious miscalculation by
extending a silly pledge to defend Poland (which was
geographically impossible), and ended up at the end
of the war by not only giving Poland to the Reds
(against the wishes of the very Polish government in
exile supposedly recognized by Britain) but also
sacrificing her own empire---that Churchill has
stated he would never sacrifice.

It is time for self-styled “paleo” conservatives to
take stock and stop parroting the “establishment”
(both traditionally liberal and neocon), sanitized,
“p.c.” view of modern history. When we hold up
De Gaulle and Churchill as models for our policies--
the incarnation of crass opportunism and the sacrifice
of principle to expediency--the we are implicitly
admitting defeat.

Pat Buchanan in his short primers has it right.

While I like most of the article, the racism and turmoil caused by the state of Israel have alot in common with National Socialism.I hate American blood and treasure going to suport such an awfull state.

“He who offers an apologia for a Browns, is a Brown. “

Lolz.  What a bore.  You’re the mirror image of the pc trash that run the school system in this country, and your statement epitomizes that of the ignorant, the anti-academic, and those who despise honest inquiry. 

That stumbling factual mistakes of this piece are apparent, and have been noted by several of the readers here.  Obviously the author has no grounding in his subject, as well as no interest other than to froth and make fantastical comments.  I’m just surprised the author didn’t claim Hitler dined on Belgian baby hearts after his soldiers raided nurseries in Antwerp. I hear “Walpurgis Night” is the annual festival for such delicacies.

Many “paleo” cons left the Republican party in order to retain their conscience and maintain their integrity after you and your neo-con PC multikult scum coup’d that once respectable organization.  Go away.  Sign up for Iraq or go stand a post in that infamous “shitty little state” in the mideast.

Most of all, don’t lecture mass going Catholics on their faith, “Sid.”

Tom Thumb,

Hopefully this article lays down a marker, because Paleoconservatism does not need a fascist element stumbling around muttering that “Hitler wasn’t all bad.”

I guess that dashes any hope for a Ukranian or Estonian hoping to become a paleocon.

Or the Irish for that matter, they having many a good thing to say about Hitler and the Nazis as they attacked their age old oppressors.

David Frum Jr. (aka, Sid Cundiff),

Please be quiet.  Go post on the SPLC webpage.

.

Sid Cundiff, I take your answer on Aug 30, 2007 to be a reply to me, so here’s my reply:

First of all, I do not claim Judeao-Christianity is not non-Western in origin. It is however, now a part of our Western tradition—although it is sadly crumbling down fast, especially in my native country. It is not dead yet, but the pre-Christian roots of the people of Western and Northern Europe have not faded fully as well (we are by-the-way nor merely talking about Germans, but also about the English, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Scandinavians, many Americans, and so forth). The connection with the traditions of old are not gone; they were in most cases simply Christianised. Christian churches were for instance built on heathen temples so the locals were able to come to the same places on the same moments. The same with many traditions following the Christianising; those Easter eggs do not come from nothing, they are a remnant of the worship of the heathen goddess Ostara (and yes, Easter is etymologically correlated with Ostara). And then we are not even talking about the very languages we speak, a vast amount of folklore about elves and giants (men as Tolkien, Lewis and Chesterton knew that), and the names of our days. Now it is for instance the day of Freyja, Friday –- of course we do not worship this goddess anymore, but it is still a part of our tradition. Only Jacobins would plea to change the names of the days and months, as they did after the French Revolution. Or take the names for our towns and cities; in my country we have a lot of places who etymologically refer to a ‘sacred wood’, a lo.

Concerning common law and civil law, I will quote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814: “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law....  This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century.  But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686.  Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it....  That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.” Or let me quote Edmund Burke in his Letters on a Regicide Peace: “The nations of Europe have had the very same Christian religion, agreeing in the fundamental parts, varying a little in the ceremonies and in the subordinate doctrines. The whole of the polity and economy of every country in Europe has been derived from the same sources. It was drawn from the old Germanic or Gothic customary; from the feudal institutions which must be considered as an emanation from that customary; and the whole has been improved and digested into system and discipline by the Roman law.” Thát is the essence of our Western tradition and civilization, as David Gress correctly defends in his book From Plato to Nato.

The ‘Germanic’ or northern spirit of the Northern and Western countries of Europe -– and its decendants in the US, Canada and Australia--, did not find an exponent in an atheist as Adolf Hitler, but in a Christian Catholic as J.R.R. Tolkien: “Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge--which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.”

Many of those who’s name ends in ‘man’ sure getting a lot of mileage out of that sorry little half-breed queer. Yeah, that Hitler creep. Good men do not ride creeps.

@Daniel O

On the theme of the pagan roots of Europe, I am
interested if that includes return to the practice of
human sacrifice.

Or polygamy.  Before the Christian Chruch wimped them,
any king could have all the concubines he wanted and
the wife had to smile at them.

I can imagine how in pagan Europe Diana would have been
told to be nice to Camilla and get a beating if she
complained.

The problem with pagan revivalists is that they have a
very rose-colored vision of what paganism was.

@Nergol

As you acknowledge, Hitler was no Christian, and may have
wanted to destroy it. and he did carry out the Holocaust.

As for the intentions of Roosevelt and Churchill, I follow
John Lukacs’ advice to quote Dr. Johnson “intentions must
be gathred from acts” sicne it is all we have to judge,
and his acts were to destroy that menace before in
set up camp permantently in the heart of Christendom
(with Vatican City in his power...one master of Europe
how long would have taken him to dispose of the Pope?)

The rest is speculation.

1. Worth asking is whether for Naziism neo-paganism was the facade and biological determinism was the core. Perhaps it was a mixture of both.  Either way it was certainly anti-Christian, and Christians were against it.  This outstanding article has served a number of useful purposes, one of which has been to remind us that Brownism is blasphemy and Satanic.

2. Boyd Cathey is correct that my hero de Gaulle was not a classic French conservative.  He did his own thinking.  His father was Catholic and conservative, yet supported the Republic and knew Dreyfus was innocent. And the Dreyfus Affair left French Conservatism hopelessly tainted in the eyes of the public – a lesson for us all who wish to avoid a similar taint upon Paleoconservatism. De Gaulle himself, who had the gift of prophecy, knew 30 years before van Creveld wrote his great book that Algeria was a Fourth Generation War, and thus one France could not win.  See _The Transformation of War_, pp. 142-149.  If I have a problem with my hero it is his cold shoulder to the French Christian Democrats, the Mouvement Républicain Populaire and Georges Bidault, another man whom I much admire.  French Conservatism, in its defense, wasn’t Brown, however much the old Maurras at first welcomed Pétain.  I am sure Dr. Cathey would join me in deploring Vichy’s role in transport of French Jews and the crimes of the Milice.  I thank him for his contribution.

3. Jefferson, more Deist than Christian and more Paine than Burke, was wrong about the origins of Common Law.  Christian English judges, not worshipers of Wotan, developed it, and did so in the 12th and 13th Centuries, and thus in the Christian Middle Ages, and largely initiated by a Frenchman, Henry II.  See the Wiki for “Early Germanic Law”, where the codes are listed, and their debt to Civil Law and Canon Law are acknowledged. I see no evidence that the English Normans knew of or copied these Germanic codes, or even the Anglo-Saxons. Burke also was talking about the Christian Middle Ages.  The Civil Law was re-introduced in the Catholic world in Bologna around a.D. 1000.  At Oxford a century later, the revival of Civil Law was well underway, and had Oxford been in London, English Legal history would have been very different indeed.

4. That Jews and the First American “Blacks” are just a shade paranoid and, on rare occasion, a bit standoffish finds plenty of good reason in some of the responses here. Obliged by the teaching of Blessed John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, I must regard the Jew as my elder brother.  You Browns stay out of our family business!

Hitler’s Catholicism:
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html

Hitler was always pretty dismissive of Himmler’s attempts to create a new pagan Germanic religion.  He seems to have thought much more highly of classical Greek and Roman civilisation than of the culture of the Germans’ barbarian ancestors which destroyed that civilisation.

Sid, I can in no way share your admiration for the
MRP and Georges Bidault. Good heavens! It was the
weak-willed so-called “Christian Democrats” that
were greatly responsible for the decay of the Right
in France, just as “Christian Democracy” was
in Germany, Italy, etc. Spare us such “rightists!”
These men have been our undoing, and are, to be
blunt, the godfathers of the putrid modern brand of
neo-conservatism. Such praise is worthy of a David
Frum...or worse.

As to Vatican II and John XXIII and the pastoral
declaration “De Aetate” which deals with the position
of the Jews in Catholic theology, Sid, I believe you
have not really read that document.It does not totally
exculpate the Jews from the charge of deicide; it
simply states that “not all Jews” of Our Lord’s time
can be charged with that offense, which, of course,
is entirely correct, in that many Jews of that time
had accepted Our Lord as the Messias,the Expected One.
Furthermore, one must understand the theological note
of that declaration. It is self-declaredly a “pastoral”
document, and cannot undo the dozens of encyclicals
and constant teaching of the Magisterium on the topic.
It simply clarifies a bit what was already evident to
theologians who had written in detail on the topic
(such as Cardinal Billot earlier in the 20th c.).

Even Pius XI (and Pius XII) had condemned hatred
based strictly on ethnicity, and this would certainly
apply to Jews, or Protestants, or whomever. But, the
post-Apostolic, Talmudic religion is inimical to
orthodox Christianity, and despite the Christian love
and charity that we are obliged to show to all men,
that does not mean that we cannot protect ourselves
or be critical of a religious practice that at its
heart represents the antithesis of our Christian faith.

That certainly does not dictate a blind or vicious
anti-jewish response. Indeed, I have in another post
mentioned a number of Jewish scholars who understand
the cultural and political battle that is raging in
society today. They may well be allies, in some ways,
in that struggle.

Again, we ARE obliged to love all men, despite their
opposition to Our Lord. But, and this is important,
it also does not mean that we forget the stark
differences, the attacks, the opposition that has
been there since the rocking cradle of Bethlehem--
and since the Reformation---and the French Revolution.
To ignore this is destructive of our Faith and our
heritage,and is the very thinking that has lead to our
present pitiful state of affairs.

Finally, as to the “complicity” of the Vichy in the
deportation of people during World War II, yes, I
would deplore the activities of some elements in
France; just as I would condemn the mass deportation
of Russians (via Operation Keelhaul) back to the
Soviet Union by the Brits and Americans, the so-called
“victors” in a war that had only ONE victor, and is
first name was Josef. In comparison, the Vichy
comes off smelling of roses, and the Brits and Yanks
like heathens. See James Bacque’s OTHER LOSSES or any
of the studies by Alfred de Zayas, Nicholas Tolstoy,
and others. I will take Marshal Petain to our buddy
Stalin, any day, thank you.

Again, I ask the question: why are “traditional”
conservatives in the US of A so eager to accept the
“p.c.” version of contemporary history, especially
as relates to World War II and the post-war period?
Perhaps if we got “outside the box” a bit, our
own ignominious situation might improve?

Dr. Cathey is an erudite man.  Americans know very little of European Christian Democracy.  To suggest that it undid the “Right” in France, and not the Dreyfus Affair and De Gaulle’s cold shoulder, and to suggest that it godfathered American home-grown Neoconservatism is as incorrect as would be any ludicrous suggestion that Dr. Cathey were to have gotten his views about “inimical” Jews from _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_.  Dr. Cathey is is in fact correct that Christian Democracy isn’t conservative; neither are its founder Leo XIII; its supporters Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI; and its chief intellectual, Maritain, – however much conservatives have to learn from them.  And Dr. Cathey is eager to distinguish Real Conservatism from Christian Democracy, as I am to distinguish Real Conservatism from the Browns. It is also correct that certain conservatives, such as Le Play, Emile Keller, Rene La Tour du Pin, and Bishop Ketteler paved the way for the transition to Christian Democracy. Indeed the Legitimist program during the July Monarchy, the 2nd Empire, and the early 3rd Republic is, in its social policy, proto Christian Democracy. Even Dollfuß wasn’t Brown. Indeed the Browns killed him.  Alas, he on rare occasion played footsie with a few Brown elements, a bad habit that some Paleos still have.

As for Vichy’s crimes, Stalin quoque would no more be an argument than tu quoque would be.  I agree that Stalinism and Communism killed more people.  That doesn’t excuse the crimes of the Browns.  I one heard a Cultural Marxist tell me that ONLY 20,000 people died in the Reign of Terror and in the Vendee. Only wild horses kept me from punching him out.

As to Vatican II and John XXIII and the pastoral
declaration “De Aetate” which deals with the position
of the Jews in Catholic theology, Sid, I believe you
have not really read that document.It does not totally
exculpate the Jews from the charge of deicide; it
simply states that “not all Jews” of Our Lord’s time
can be charged with that offense, which, of course,
is entirely correct, in that many Jews of that time
had accepted Our Lord as the Messias,the Expected One.
Furthermore, one must understand the theological note
of that declaration. It is self-declaredly a “pastoral”
document, and cannot undo the dozens of encyclicals
and constant teaching of the Magisterium on the topic.
It simply clarifies a bit what was already evident to
theologians who had written in detail on the topic
(such as Cardinal Billot earlier in the 20th c.).”

I first assure readers that Cardinal Billot isn’t the Magisterium. The “dozens of encyclicals
and constant teaching of the Magisterium” on the relation of Catholics to Jews readers can read for themselves rather than taking it from me or others.  The Denzinger numbers are 480, 646, 698, 772-773, 788, 1998, 2552-2558, 2562, 4109, 4195-4199 – especially 4198 (The document correctly called “Nostra Aetate”). The key paragraph:

“Etsi AUCTORITATES Judeaeorum cum suis anseclis mortem Christi urserum, tamen ea quae in passione Eius perpetrata sunt, NEC OMNIBUS INDISTINCTE JUDAEIS TUNC VIVENTIBUS, NEC JUDAEIS HODIERNIS IMPUTARI POSSUNT. Licet autem Ecclesia sit novus populus Dei, Judaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati neque ut maledicti exhibeantur, quasi hoc ex Sacris Litteris sequatur.” emphasis added. “not all Jews” ain’t the quote.  This “exculpates”. I am the one who has read this document. I urge all Catholics to be its readers as well.

And its reference to Holy Scripture is a clue for Protestants as well as Catholic to read _Romans_, chapters 9-11.

To continue:

“Ecclesia igitur quamvis hominum discriminationem aut vexationem stirpis vel coloris, condicionis vel religionis causa factam tamquam a Christi mente alienam reprobat.”

Y’all read these Denzinger documents and Scripture and get back to us before discussing the Catholic-Jewish issue further.

Adriana, acknowledging the roots of our Western civilization is not the same as returning to practises long gone. Human sacrifices stopped to exist after the Christianising (although the burning of witches still pervaded), but folk tales about elves, fairy’s, leprechauns, gnomes, trolls and giants did not dissappear. Regarding polygamy: if Tacitus in his Germania is correct, our ancestors did not have more wives than one, and wives were held in relatively high regard compared to Roman or Greek societies. And of course, some pagan kings did indeed have several wives, but so did Abraham. The question is: should we now? While many pagan revivalists may have a rose-colored vision of paganism, it is no reason for us as non-pagans to see only the thorns and not the leaves.

@Dr. Kathey

I am puzzle by your comment that compared with “Operation
Keelhaul” the Vichy governmetn comes out ather well.

Did “Operation Keelhaul” result in the deportation of
non combattants, including children?

If not, then the Vichy government comes out much worse.

Concerning the Nazis take on religion, here is a quote from Heinrich Himmler’s “SS Defender against Bolshevism”.  Himmler sounds like he could be more liberal regarding religion than Pat Robertson and John Hagee but with these anti-Christs and Satan worshippers, you have to be careful they’re not trying to fool you. 

What do you think of a person who does not believe in God? The answer
is: “I consider him arrogant, megalomaniac and dumb. He is not suited
for us.”
To clearly present our stand on religion. Be assured that we would not
be able to form such and an ironclad corps, if we did not have
conviction and faith in a God who stands over us, who created us, our
fatherland, our folk and the earth, and who has sent us our Fuehrer.

We are piously convinced that in accordance with the eternal laws of
this earth we must stand by every deed, every word and every thought.
Everything that our mind thinks up, our tongue speaks, and our hand
carries out does not stop with its execution, rather it is a cause
that will have an effect, in inescapable course that will return to us
and our folk as a blessing or as a curse. Believe me, people with this
stance are anything but atheists. We refuse to allow ourselves to be
slandered as atheists - through misuse of the term pagan - simply
because we as a community do not embrace a particular denomination or
dogma or demand this from any of our men. We allow ourselves the right
and freedom to draw a sharp and distinct line between
religious/church/denominational activity and political/world-view
soldiery, and we will fiercely combat any violation. Likewise we teach
our men - despite much justified outrage and many bad experiences that
our folk has had in this area in the past - to respect everything that
is holy to any folk comrade - due to his education and conviction -
without any insult in word or deed.

Sid Cundiff, it is contradictory to claim that a non-codified set of laws –the Common Law– starts with ‘Christian English judges’, instead of the already existing customs and traditions. The Common Law did not come to being after the appearance of some judges; the customs and traditions were already existing. The judges complemented the Common Law later with what we call Equity, but they did not create it. To bring it in a greater perspective: the Ten Commandments did not come into being after they were paved on two stone tablets; they existed long before that. Laws exist before their codifications. The same with Canon law; already before -and not after- its codification Christian mores found their way through the mores and customs of man. Changes in history are more often organic than radical.

Moreover, how can Edmund Burke talk about ‘Christian Middle Ages’ (the word we use for that is by the way ‘Teutonic’ – which makes the remarks about ‘Teutonic paganism’ only more daft) when he clearly talks about ‘old Germanic or Gothic’, and already mentioned ‘the very same Christian religion’? You are de facto saying here that Germanic and Gothic are the same as Christian. Since if that is the case, then one can claim as well that the Roman, Greek and Jewish sources of our culture and civilization are in fact Christian. It suggest that everything predating Christianity is in fact Christian; it does not acknowledge the fact that Christian countries have their own histories, their own traditions and their own customs. That is why Haiti is different to Belgium, and the Philippines different to Ireland. Not acknowledging what came before, is allowing it to disappear—which is already uprooting Western Christianity.

It is what both liberal Christians and atheists in my country now do not only to deny the Germanic roots of our own culture, but also the Jewish roots of Christianity. History cannot be interpreted by ideological standards, as it will never explain why nations and cultures, although they are Christian, differ from each other. Conservatives should look into that we do not fall into the same trap as liberals – to give history a Whiggish interpretation that always ends in its starting point. People from Jefferson to Burke, from Montesquieu to Adams, and from Chesterton to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis to acknowledged the rich traditions of the West, and its deeper origins, acknowledging it to be what David Gress calls the Western synthesis of Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and Germanic elements. One cannot explain Charlemagne without seeing these three elements. A Germanic king becoming the Imperator Augustus, crowned by the Christian Church, laying the foundations of the West -our civilization- as we know it.

Daniel, whose remarks I welcome, should note the distinction jurists make between code and judicial precedence.  The Common Law, and even the origins of Civil Law, came from the later. What is more, Blackstone, and I recalling this from memory, said that if precedence contradicted later code or the Bible, it wasn’t precedence.

Which Germans? Which Goths?  Before of after Boniface and Augustine of Canterbury? Which text of the Early Germanic Codes were copied into the Common Law? There were some Germanic elements in our Culture. Salic law of female inheritance and its woeful effects is one of them. By the way, Celtic and Slavic enthusiasts would find your Teutonic views not quite passable.

In reviewing my remarks regarding Dr. Cathey and Catholic teaching, I may have not made it clear that Dr. Cathey was quoting Nostra Aetate and the Talmud from his memory, and cannot in anyway be faulted if his recall isn’t utterly verbatim. I thank him for a prompting to re-read these documents. I thank him also for is quite correct argument that Christian Democracy isn’t conservatism.  My argument is that it also isn’t Neoconservatism. I urge him to continue his informative remarks.

Sid...to respond to your fascinating comments would
require, I’m afraid, a book-sized document. Let me,
however, respond briefly to several points:

First, you make a direct assertion that Christian
Democracy (and its modern guru, Jacques Maritain)
enjoyed the full support of Leo XIII, Pius XI,Pius XIII,
and so on. I respectfully suggest that you are wrong
here. I believe we are discussing apples and oranges,
actually two very different kinds of “democracy.”

The kind of “democracy” tolerated by those
pontiffs (not to mention Saint Pius X) had and has
very little in common with the so-called “Christian
Democracy” that we saw develop AFTER World War II, e.g.
in France (with the MRP), and in other places.
Dom Sturzo, who headed the Popular Party in Italy pre-
Mussolini, had strict guidelines he had to follow to
even be tolerated.

Please do NOT forget that Saint Pius X CONDEMNDED
that kind of Christian Democratism (a la Marc
Sangnier and Le Sillon) in AU MILIEU DES SOLICITUDES
and Leo XII’s encyclicals on government and authority,
and I am thinking of LIBERTAS and GRAVES DE COMMUNI
and other papal pronouncements, make it rather clear
the limits of authority and the types of legitimate
representation that are permitted. More, Leo XII’s
encyclical RERUM NOVARUM and Pius XI’s QUADRAGESIMO
ANNO certainly indicate a strong tendancy AGAINST
the kind of Christian Democracy that existed in such
countries as France, or Germany, and
Italy after the Second World War, and in favor of
a guild/corporativist/distributist political
and social system.

The great Canadian Thomist Charles De Koning, by the
way, demolished (at least to my satisfaction) the
Maritain of LA DEMOCRATIE CHRETIEN. Indeed, Maritain
may well have come to regret his embrace of that
kind of “democracy” late in life, as per his finely
retrospective LA PAYSANNE DE LA GARONNE, in which he
recanted much of his middle-period “progressivism,”
which you apparently like.

In any case, I certainly ADMIT that the praxis for
Catholics, post WW II, and even more so,post-VaticanII,
has been to embrace “democracy"--"modern democracy.”
But it has only been a “praxis,” and it in no way
discredits other Catholic views of the state and
society, and their respective arrangement..and it’s
my considered opinion that on this practical issue,
that embrace has been disastrous for the Faith and
for Catholics generally.

Second, as to NOSTRA AETATE (and thanks for the Latin
correction, Sid--I don’t have my library at hand when
I write), we shall have to disagree on its place in
Catholic theology. As a traditionalist Catholic (yes,
I attend the traditional Latin Mass) I believe that
our depositum fidei cannot contradict itself. Since
Pope St. Gregory the Great the church has had a fairly
consistent teaching on the economy of salvation and
the position of the post-apostolic, Talmudic people,
vis-a-vis the Church. I assure you that I have read
(in Latin, as well) NOSTRA AETATE. If indeed it is a
true document of the Magisterium, it cannot contradict
the unbroken and consistent teaching of the Church
on this matter. Tertium non datur. Thus, my own
interpretation that the imputation of guilt had to be
understood in the light of previous, and unbroken
teaching. Now, shall I cite Saint Pius V’s encyclical
HEBRAEORUM GENS? Or other Council of the Church? Or
the Fathers of the Church? Or St. John on the
“synagogue of satan”? There are various manuals
of Catholic teaching (prior to Vatican II) that I
could also refer to. If there is a problem at
all it is with NOSTRA AETATE’s muddled formulation
(just as the declaration DIGNITATIS HUMANAE is a
muddled compromise on the Catholic teaching on
religious liberty, as the late Michael Davies has
shown in several excellent essays and a fundamental
book on that topic). I give thanks that both John XXIII
and Paul VI underlined the pastoral nature of
Vatican II. Just as Benedict XVI has re-affirmed
the eternal licitness of saying and attending the
old Traditional Latin Mass (ending the pseudo-
controversy over whether Paul VI abolished it), so
too he and others now are beginning to look towards
the “clarification” of language--and practice--that
came out of Vatican II. I pray they will succeed.

Denzinger’s ENCHIRIDION notwithstanding, I stand with
the Popes and the teaching Magisterium of the church
since St. Gregory on this one. NOSTRA
AETATE could not and did not undo what they said and
did.

Lastly, to answer Adriana: Yes indeed, Operation
Keelhaul incorporated not just combatants, but families,
children, and even Russian emigres who had been in
Western Europe since the Russian Revolution. There
were literally hundreds of thousands of Russians,
Ukrainians, Cossacks, and others,who were herded,
80 to a boxcar by machine-gun toting British soldiers
and shipped to our wonderful ally Uncle Joe (who, as
I said earlier, was the TRUE winner of World War II).
Nicholas Tolstoy and Alfred de Zayas have written
extensively on the topic, and the official records
are available. As I stated, the deportation in Vichy
pale in comparison.

Finally, once again, let me urge traditional
conservatives to at least “question” the “givens”
handed down to us as history. I do believe we
suffer dearly because of them.

Christian Democracy isn’t Neoconservativism…

We all know what Christian Democracy is, but the
question is: just what is “neoconservativism”?

The best answer I can give is that it is the
proponant of a worldwide revolution for the institution
of “conservative” Western liberalism.  That is,
Neoconservativism supports invading countries in order
to form them into the more “conservative” neighborhoods
of Boston.  Such things as high taxes and gun control
aren’t all that bad, since they are necessary evils,
according to the Neoconservative.  What’s important
is that the people are transformed into quasi-Americans.

So, does Christian Democracy breed Neoconservativism?

I can see Dr Cathey’s point.  It’s not that the
Christianity of the movement leads to Neoconservativism,
it is the DEMOCRACY part that does.

When people allow themselves to be influenced by others,
which is what democracy is, then they will be led
into a worldwide revolution for whatever ideals the
leaders of that mob hold.  For the Trotskyites, it
was communism, for the Neoconservatives, it seems
to be some sort of perverted American version of
Fabianism.

Sid--Just wanted to make it clear that I have the
utmost respect for you, and that I am always
delighted to read your messages, which are always
interesting and enlightening, even tho’ we seem
to diverge on certain points. Please don’t interpret
my quick fingures on the keyboard as any lack of
regard. I have had similar discussions, i.e., about
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, religious liberty,
Christian democracy, etc. with friends over the
years, and I believe that such discussions are
useful, many times in clarifying points. The
fundamental point vis-a-vis Vatican II is that there
are apparent, some very apparent, contradictions
in such declarations as DIGNITATIS HUMANAE and NOSTRA
AETATE and previous Catholic teaching. My praxis in
such cases is always to follow the advice of St.
Vincent of Lerins, to always follow the constant
teaching of the Church, what was believed always, and
in all nations. In respect to those two pastoral
declarations, that it what I do....and I think that
further “clarifications” (as in the case of the Holy]
Mass) will continue to elucidate those topics.

Best regards…

Dr. Cathey I thank for his very kind words. He is the proper model of a Southern scholar and a gentleman, and a fellow SCV member. I look forward to future posts to help us understand the Continental conservative tradition. 

A very brief answer: Pope St. Gregory the Great does indeed begin an unbroken tradition.  Take a look at his letter “Qui sincera”.Nov a.D. 602, Denzinger #480.  The Denzinger calls attention also to Gregory’s letters “Scribendi”, 3 June 591, and “Supplicaverunt” from Sept or Oct 591. (I don’t have these letters handy, and I’ll check them in the Wake Forest Library.) Then there’s Innocent III, The Constitution “Licet perfidia Judaeorum”, which despite its name is called rightly “the Magna Charta of toleration for Jews”, Denzinger 772-773. Innocent relied the 3rd Lateran Council of 1179, Chapter 26: that Jews should be supported if for no other reason than for humanitarian ones ("sola pro humaniate foveri").  This Constitution—as all constitutions a formal teaching of the Magisterium—was repeated and confirmed by Honorius III (7 Nov 1217), Gregory IX (3 May 1235), Innocent IV (22 Oct 1246) and 5 July 1247).  Innocent added that anyone who violates this Constitution’s provision is to be excommunicated.  The other Denzinger numbers mentioned in my previous post confirm this continual tradition.

Protestants and Jews should note that Dr. Cathey, I, all faithful Catholics, and the Magisterium itself abhors and condemns the odious Paul IV’s “Cum nimis absurdum” of 14 July 1555 and the equally repugnant Judeophobic provision of Gregory XIII “Sancta Mater” of 1 Sept 1584.  These papal provisions bind NO CATHOLIC.  They are not the teaching of the Magisterium. And they are utterly against the tradition that began with Gregory the Great. It took me three visits to the Roman church Santa Maria Sopra Minerva before I could enjoy Fillipino Lippi’s frescoes, because Paul IV’s tomb is right by.  The Roman mob rioted when he was buried there. Good for them.

As of 17:24 hours EDT, 31 August a.D. 2007, the author of this column has been changed to “The Editors”.  I assume this to be an endorsement of it by the Taki Top Drawer editors. Good for them!

@Dr. Cathey

Thanks for the acclaration. It is indeed depressing
reading.

On the other hand, saying that “Stalin was the real
victor of World War II” while true, does not explain
the circumsntances of this happening.

I do not know how many times I have to write this, but
when the war started it was between England, France and
its allies against Germany (Italy had not joined yet).
The Soviet Union had helped Germany tear up Germany
(indeed in Spain it was an argument against going to war
with Germany was the spectacle of it being allied
with the Atheistic Reds to tear up a Catholic nation).
The invasion of neutral countries,the Fall of France, the
Battle of Britain were fought while Stalin looked on,
counting his gains, and confident in his new-found
friendship with Hitler.

The one who brought Stalin to the side of the Allies
was Hitler, who unnecessarily opened a second front when
he had not yet finished conquering England. This was
his undoing.

FDR was bent on going to war on the side of Churchill.
In the middle of it, they get the news that Stalin, having
been invaded by Hitler wants to join their alliance.

The war was a desperate one, and not the best time to
get picky about allies. It was not as if there was a
big supermarket where they could shop for allies and
find one more in line with their principles. They took
what they could get.

And then, they needed him too much. As John Lukacs
explains, one of their worries was of Stalin making
peace with Hitler and leaving them in the lurch. So they
bent over to keep him happy. That they ended up giving
too much, yes. That they ended up deceiving themselves
as to what they were doing, yes.

They had to choose between getting half an Europe or none
at all.  I imagine that the Pope, who ended up in the
good half, was grateful for it.

Indeed, in all the scenarios that posit that it might
have been better to let Hitler win, have they considered
the effect on Christiendom of a Pope captive of Nazism?

<<the effect on Christiendom of a Pope captive of Nazism?>>

As opposed to the rosy conditions of Christiandom today?  How could it be any worse if Christiandom were under Nazi rule for some number of years, as opposed to some other form of humanist secularism?

In the end, the World is opposed to the Church, and the only perfect government for the Church is anarchy - that is, a total conversion of people to the One True Faith, with no need of secular government.

Thank you, Sid, for your kind words.

First, a couple of corrections to an earlier message
I sent. St. Pius X’s condemnation of the “Christian
Democracy” of Marc Sangnier is expressed in his
“Notre Charge Apostolique” (1909)and not in “Au
Milieu des Solicitudes,” as I previously stated. The latter was
issued by Pope Leo XIII. Leo XIII’s various encyclicals
on the limits of “democracy” include the following:
DIUTURNUM ILLUD

My thanks to Sid for his kind words, to which I
reciprocate. I hope this proves that men of goodwill
can differ on such issues, and perhaps find common
ground on essentials.

I need to make a couple of corrections to an earlier
posting I sent. First, Saint Pius X’s condemnation
of Marc Sangnier’s Christian Democratic “Le Sillon”
movement was titled “Notre Charge Apostolique” (1909)
and not “Au Milieu des Solicitudes” (1892), which
was issued by Leo XIII.NOTRE CHARGE APOSTOLIQUE
formally condemns the indifferentism and egalitarianism
implicit in French Christian democracy, as well as
its reliance on “the will of the people” as a guide
in governance.

St. Pius X also issued the encyclical, VEHEMENTER NOS
(1905) condeming in the firmest language the
separation of Church and State.

Before him, Leo XIII laid down very precise
principles on government, representation, democracy,
liberty, and toleration. Among these superb
formulations of doctrine are:
DIUTURNUM ILLUD, on political authority, its
transmission, who retains it,who may use it;
HUMANUM GENUS, condemning Freemasonery and secret
“illuminee” societies;
IMMORTALE DEI, on the necessary Christian constitution
of nations, what is involved, what is required, and
what is impermissible;
SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE, of the duties of Christian
citizens; and of course,
RERUM NOVARUM, on the social order, commutative and
distributive justice, and what is required in
society. [all of the above, from DOCTRINA PONTIFICIA,
II, Madrid: B.A.C., 1958].

Now, regarding Papal teachings on judaism and the
economy of salvation, let me refer to the rather
extensive articles in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (I
use the 1913 version), which lists and discusses
various papal encyclicals, bulls, constitutions,
and decisions by various Councils. Let me also point
out that Catholics are NOT at liberty to cherry pick
teachings. The teachings of the Church, since St.
Gregory are consistent, and indeed include prohibitions
against harming Jewish subjects within Christian
states, against forcible conversions, etc. But
the teaching also clearly states that the Jewish
people may be, strictly in a theological sense,
considered as guilty on two levels of the crime of
Deicide. That is, that the effective leaders of the
Sanhedrin actively assisted in engineering the
Crucifixion of Our Lord, and thus incur a primary
“macula,” but that via imputation (cf. St. Matthew).
the whole people incur a secondary responsibility.
It is interesting that, even at Vatican II in NOSTRA
AETATE, the appellation of “Deicide” was NOT removed.

The multi-volumed DICTIONNAIRE DE THEOLOGIE CATHOLIQUE
also contains good essays on these topics. St. Pius V’s
encyclical, HEBRAEORUM GENS (as quoted by Fr.Julio
Meinvielle, EL JUDIO EN EL MISTERIO DE LA HISTORIA
(Ediciones Theoria, 1959), pp.60-64)gives us a very
complete summary of prohibitions, restrictions in law,
and theology.  I count at least 50 formal papal
teachings on the topic, and almost as many decrees
made by councils (starting with the Fourth Council of
Toledo, 653, and continuing on through the centuries).
(Cf. Addis & Arnold, CATHOLIC DICTIONARY. London:
1955, pp. 474-475.)

In the barbaric 20th Century the Church felt an
obligation to stress charity and humanity, and
has forthrightly condemned hatred based solely on
ethnicity. But this in no way inhibits a Catholic
or Catholic society from protecting itself from
those who would undermine or destroy it.

I fully recognize that to even discuss these topics
in public is to raise eyebrows and cause some
consternation among a few, to perhaps inspire others
to utter the deprecation “anti-semite.” But, as
Pius XI eloquently stated, no Catholic can be an
anti-semite. But, likewise, no true Catholic can
accept the Old Dispensation on equal footing,
theologically. The promises made then are fulfilled
in the Christ, and His enemies are our enemies.
My hope is that these things can indeed be discussed
serenly and in a scholarly fashion.

And now, I think I should give this topic a rest!

@Andrew Capp

Well, for one thing the Pope can send his messages witout
having to ask permission to do so.

And no matter how much he might irritate G.W. Bush, he
does not have the power to have him arrested and shot

Just go back in history about the captivity in Avignon,
or when Napoleon took hold of the Pope. Think about
Hitler having the kind of power than Napoleon had (and
Napoleon there were some things he would not do).

But the teaching also clearly states [where? Name the documents!] that the Jewish people may be, st