The Trotskyite NeoCon fears the Helicopter. Press R to Remove, Physically. pic.twitter.com/pAPqTI5FZi— Triple H (Refollow) (@hoppean_groyper) November 26, 2019
Our facebook page was just banned https://t.co/iKoMgxzPOy— Red Ice TV ? (@redicetv) November 27, 2019
We are being Alex Jones’ed. This comes after an anti-White racist wrote lies about us in The Guardian. What does Facebook do? They comply with the demands. Find out what they don’t want you to hear https://t.co/OgQHGqdFxs pic.twitter.com/Tjy8SZBcGI
Matthew Schmitz has a new article in First Things bellyaching about how China is tyrannical for violating the human rights of Muslims in Xinjiang.
“In 2018, Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, said in an interview: “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.”
He contrasted China with the more liberal America. “Liberal thought has dismissed the concept of the common good,” he said. “It does not even want to take it into account, it states that it is an empty idea, without any benefits. On the contrary, the Chinese, no, they propose work and the common good.”
Sanchez Sorondo may want to reconsider these statements. Last week, the New York Times revealed new details about the Chinese state’s mass internment of Uighur Muslims in the western province of Xinjiang. Over the last three years, an estimated one million people have been detained in prison camps, where they are subjected to “reeducation” and urged to abjure Islam. …
As people turn away from liberalism, it is important that they do not turn to ideologies that share with liberalism a fundamental mistake. If they do, Catholics must state clearly that the common good is not a euphemism for tyranny, and oppression is not a synonym for order. Counter to what Sanchez Sorondo seems to believe, neither China nor America is a model society.”
Xinjiang and Hong Kong are the least of our concerns.
Matthew Schmitz sees China as tyrannical. I haven’t studied the Chinese model closely enough to have a firm opinion about it. I am far less interested in what China is doing with Muslims in Xinjiang or liberals in Hong Kong though than in the fact that Europe is currently being overwhelmed by them and our liberal elite has thrown open the gates to the barbarians. What kind of Catholic worries about Muslims in Xinjiang while Rome is being lost?
China is poised to be become the dominant superpower in the world.
Over the course of the next 30 years, the Western liberal elite will confront a wealthy, illiberal authoritarian superpower of over a billion Chinese which is all but guaranteed to surpass the declining West. At the same time, it will simultaneously have to fight off us. We don’t have to agree with every aspect of China’s domestic politics to recognize that this is going to be geopolitically advantageous. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.
I’m not going to give the Chinese any grief about Xinjiang or Hong Kong and “tyranny” or “authoritarianism” because when we take power in the West the first thing that we are going to do after dismantling the liberal order is to start sending all of these immigrants back home. We don’t give a shit about Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang or the South China Sea either.
While I have no doubt there are flaws in the Chinese model, I also have no doubt that China will still be Chinese and vastly wealthier and technologically more sophisticated in 2120. I can’t say the same about Europe or North America because of liberalism.
Interestingly enough, Matthew Schmitz has another article up this afternoon in the Catholic Herald in which he attacks Nick Fuentes and the Groypers as evil:
“Despite what so many well-meaning people believe, an ever more radical insistence on freedom will not defeat white nationalists. For many years, conservatives – once the party of censorship and discretion, as men such as Irving Kristol well understood – have revelled in provocation (“triggering libs”), disrupting “safe spaces,” and advancing an absolute idea of free speech. This shift in emphasis has reflected broader changes in our legal culture. Against longstanding precedent, the First Amendment is now widely seen as a licence for all manner of obscenity. …
In order to defeat the white nationalists and anti-Semites, conservatives must become less liberal. Only a conservatism that praises restraint and discretion will have weapons to fight those who are “just asking questions” about the Holocaust. Only a conservatism that abjures “viewpoint neutrality” will be able to side with truth against lies.
Conservatives must be ready to say that the freedom to host drag queen story hour is not a blessing of liberty. At the same time, they must be able to say loud and clear that they oppose white nationalists and anti-Semites, especially ones that wrap themselves in Christian garb. Our civilisational inheritance is spiritual, not racial. We were taught by a Jew to love; we were not taught to hate Jews.
Classical liberals have built a conservative movement that valorises “dangerous ideas”, thereby allowing people whose ideas are dangerous indeed to gain a foothold. That is why in the latest conservative debate, both sides need to los
After mounting his high horse about Chinese tyranny, Matthew Schmitz attacks Charlie Kirk for not supporting censorship of Nick Fuentes and the Groypers who are evil White Nationalists. He believes that Fuentes and his fellow Catholic Zoomer populists are dangerous anti-Semites and that Kirk has allowed them to gain traction by supporting free speech.
Over these past few weeks, we have come to see the First Things crowd in a new light. David French is a familiar figure to the Dissident Right. We have relentlessly mocked David French for years who inspired the cuckservative meme in 2015. We are also very familiar with National Review and conservative liberalism. In contrast, we had never heard of Sohrab Ahmari until he came to prominence by attacking French over his classical liberalism earlier this year. Sohrab Ahmari wasn’t even a Catholic when we were making fun of French during the Trump campaign.
Sohrab Ahmari and Matthew Schmitz’s problem with liberalism isn’t the same objection that we have to liberalism. We dislike liberalism because it has become a solvent that is dissolving the ethnocultural core of our nations and has empowered a hostile Jewish elite over us in the West who are bent on our demographic destruction. In contrast, Ahmari and Schmitz object to liberalism because our hostile Jewish elite is being criticized too harshly and mainstream conservatives are too tolerant of free speech. In other words, Ahmari and Schmitz are Catholic elitists who are even more out of touch with the conservative base than David French and Charlie Kirk.
What should we make of this? It is a war within the Catholic Right between elitists who have cozied up to the Jews and the populists who resent being censored by them. The Catholic elitists don’t believe that America or Europe should remain European because that is White Nationalism and our civilization has nothing to do with race. They are more upset about the blasphemy of Nick Fuentes making a Cookie Monster joke about the Holocaust that is offensive to Jews on YouTube than the plot of the Camp of the Saints unfolding in Southern Europe.
Who was that great conservative icon Irving Kristol who is so admired by Matthew Schmitz who stood for censorship and discretion? Let’s take a look at his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea:
“One “neo,” however, has been permanent throughout my life, and it is probably at the root of all the others. I have been “neo-orthodox” in my religious views (though not in my religious observance). … (My parents spoke Yiddish to each other, but only English to the children.) I dutifully participated, learning to read the Hebrew and memorizing the Yiddish translations. Discipline was strict – if we misbehaved in any way, the rabbi would order us to stand up and then give us a stinging slap to the face. He taught us to hate the goyim and to spit whenever we passed a church.”
Sohrab Ahmari and Matthew Schmitz dislike Thomas Jefferson. They both have the greatest respect though for Irving Kristol and Norm Podhoretz. I’ve never met anyone outside of the ranks of professional American conservatism that shares this strange worldview.
Schmitz seems to believe that there is a contradiction between opposing conservative liberalism and valuing free speech. The American Founders and Thomas Jefferson in particular were classical republicans. They believed that American liberty and free government rested on a foundation of moral virtue. They were comfortable with racial inequality and inequality between the sexes. They restricted our naturalization laws and citizenship to “free white persons.” They justified the American Revolution not only on the basis of the theory of natural rights, but also on English traditions and the colonial charters. They carefully distinguished between natural rights, political rights and social rights rather than muddling them all together as “equal rights.” The Constitution also reserved the vast majority of undelegated powers to the states.
The America that was created by the Founding Fathers was one that was that created by Anglo-Protestants. The overwhelming majority of White Americans were Anglo-Protestants. Americans didn’t become “free” as a result of the American Revolution or because of classical liberalism. The colonists were already the freest, wealthiest people on earth at the time. A society that is overwhelmingly English and Scot-Irish and which has an Anglo-Protestant elite will be free almost by default regardless of whether it adheres to a rigid abstract ideology. If the Scots-Irish of a “post-liberal” Greater Appalachia were an independent nation, it would be a free country and it would be nothing at all like Bourbon France or Habsburg Spain. It would be nothing like Xi Jinping’s China either because of differences in blood, culture, history and religion.
The Founding Fathers created an America that was White, Christian and free. The Dissident Right still finds that to be the best formula. The Confederates didn’t try to change any of that. Sohrab Ahmari and Matthew Schmitz, however, propose to do with away with an America that is White and free, but which will somehow remain Catholic, even though Catholicism has been in a state of free fall while Catholic elites have been aligned with Jewish elites. What’s more, the funniest thing about Ahmari and Schmitz’s America, which will be neither White or free, and their vision of the Right is that they expect it will appeal to highly religious Christian conservatives who tend to be Southern Anglo Protestants when it doesn’t even appeal to young Catholic traditionalists or the majority of Catholics either who tend to be far more liberal.
If Nick Fuentes and the Groypers had their way, there would at least still be a Catholic Europe a century from now because like the Poles they want to preserve both the people and their religion while rejecting liberalism and Jewish control and influence. In contrast, Ahmari and Schmitz are content to allow the people to be replaced by aliens because fighting “anti-Semitism” and “White Nationalism” is the higher priority for them, and as along as the status quo continues their religion and culture will continue to vanish under Jewish cultural hegemony. The Poles are smart enough to combine their nationality and their religion with defending their culture.
In spite of my personal differences with Fuentes, I hope that it is Fuentes and the Groypers who carry the day over Sohrab Ahmari because I am more ideologically aligned with them. I’m not even a Catholic, but obviously I don’t want to see Spain or France or Italy fall in my lifetime because Catholic elites were too intimidated by Jews to break with them. I understand what they are trying to do, sympathize with them and I certainly don’t think they are evil or support Jewish organizations like the ADL trying to blacklist and destroy them either.
Note: I think Nick Fuentes is a bit immature and an asshole, but evil? Is he really evil for making fun of Jews? That’s absurd.