Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Firing Foxman Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/firing_foxman#3428 Post contents: This Paul Gottfried article is not merely incisive; it is also courageous. It is the kind of article telling hard, ugly truths that gets you smeared and ostracized in such a fiercely philoSemitic age and nation. Who knows, but this could be the article that makes Gottfried suspect even to the LewRockwell crowd. What most interests me most about it are not the major points about what Foxman's successes in fundraising say about Jews and their indispensable role in the cultural Marxist that is simultaneously cancer metastasized and gangrene fast approaching the hip. What interests me most are Gottfried's comments about American Protestants. For some 4 or 5 years, I have responded periodically to an article or book of his noting that if he would only recognize that sola fide is an inherently liberal theology that births an inherently liberal set of inter-related philosophies, which reproduce increasingly liberal politics, and then also recognize that the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the most savagely self-righteous Judaizers to emerge from the Protestant Reformation, then he would have the basic answer that makes sense of the various phenomena he observes. In this article, Foxman notes, “Evangelicals have been moving toward the social left (that is, in Foxman’s direction) on moral issues and is currently fixated on human rights, missionizing for democracy, and the presidential nomination of socially liberal Republican Rudolph Giuliani.” After noting that then Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed had publicly apologized for the Spanish Inquisition, Gottfried admits, “What did not surprise me was that an Evangelical leader did the predictable groveling.” The only person who should not be surprised by such Anglophonic Evangelical conduct is one who does not know or refuses to accept either of the two premises I make two paragraphs above. First, because sola fide is inherently liberal, it breeds more liberalism: theological, philosophical, cultural, and political liberalism. Second, because the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were imperialistic Judaizers (natural forerunners of Zionists) and they made an indelibly defining mark on all subsequent English culture and defined New England culture, and then through osmosis with Quakers to form a kind of a-doctrinal cultural Protestantism came to define Northern (Yankee) culture, and after that through the War Between the States came to be the mandarin culture of America, the main fruits of their hegemony must necessarily involve forms of philoSemitism benefiting preponderantly from their theological liberalism (become primarily heresy long ago) that breeds never-ending political liberalism and cultural suicide: the Thanatos Syndrome of Walker Percy. Whether he is willing to acknowledge, Gottfried seems to be coming around to my assessments. Perhaps he was at this point long ago and refused to so acknowledge because my larger case is focused not on theology, but linguistic and folk culture. However sincere Gottfried is in his defense of Anglophonic Protestantism (and the more sincere, the more self-contradictory he is), he is rather openly as anti-Irish as any old fashioned Philadelphia lawyer WASP, and my focus always takes account of the fact that in the Indo-European family, Celtic is the most conservative in everything (linguistics, folklore, material culture, etc.), and it emphasizes the defining Celtic cultural heritage of the South against the theologically heretical and culturally liberal Yankee WASP world. It aint no mistake that every form of cultural liberal – including the Neocon form that is little more than a Jewish focused grandchild of Lincoln and the original Republican Party advancing liberal WASP culture through sanctimonious gunpoint - hates the Celtic-Southern thesis and acts to stop its transmissions. Those who wish to know more should see my book ‘How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature.’ Sent at: 2008 05 15