In Charles Schulz’s Peanuts comics, Linus is by far the most outstanding character. The most intelligent(to the point of pathological precociousness), most independent-minded, most thoughtful, most questioning, most imaginative, most insightful, most perceptive, most analytical, and so on. Yet, he is also the most irrational and absurd character. He has an obsessive dependence on his blanket, without which he goes crazy like a Negro deprived of bling, and weirder yet, he believes in the Great Pumpkin with messianic zeal.

With the blanket, he remains an infant; with the pumpkin, he becomes the prophet, impervious to reason and knowledge that usually distinguish him from the others.

Why is the most rational character also the most irrational? Why is the most inquisitive character also the most gullible(of his own delusions)? Linus is like one of the classmates discussed in David Wallechinsky and Michael Medved’s WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE CLASS OF ‘65? He is described as the most intelligent student — #2 being Medved himself — , well-read, knowledgeable, and curious. Yet, after graduation, he got involved with Scientology and a series of faddish cults, and the reader is left wondering why someone so smart got suckered into something so stupid? But then, why did so many highly intelligent people get sucked into Marxism as a secular religion, the answer for everything? It’s no surprise that a lot of mid-wits and dummies fell for Marxist dogma, but why did many highly intelligent people accept it as The Answer?

Granted, the problem with Linus isn’t merely high intelligence but an excess of imagination(often irrational), so overwhelming that it drowns out his rational and critical faculties.

Linus, who is most independent in thought, is also most dependent in habit. He is least likely to conform to peer pressure, like in A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS. While most of the kids fixate on the holiday aspects of Christmas, Linus reminds everyone what Christmas is really about and from where its meaning derives.
Yet, there is, in his cult of the Great Pumpkin, a frightful yearning for a truth beyond questions and answers, one based on vision and faith. There is something of the would-be prophet in Linus, even an intimation of megalomania as he proselytizes his fantasy onto others. Even as he is most resistant to groupthink, it’s as if he hungers to be a cult-leader. The non-conformist who wants all the world to conform to his nonconformity.

Something Jesus said of the soul may apply to the mind. “Man doesn’t live on bread alone.” It also seems man cannot live on reason alone. On facts alone. On questions-and-answers alone. On integrity alone.
A part of him remains a void no matter how much he dwells on facts, logic/reason, critical inquiry, and skepticism. A yearning, even if only subconscious, for a sense of security and/or a sense of higher truth(beyond the matters of the tangible world perceived by the senses and the mind).

Established religions serve as both the blanket and the pumpkin. They offer a sense of stability and continuity with an ordered past, a tradition of heritage and shared sacraments/icons/values. But, they are also about grand prophetic visions of the universe, the infinite dimensions of spirituality, forever ‘radical’ and far-out in their conception.

For those who eschew established religions(and official ideologies that function much like religions) but cannot live on the bread of reason/facts alone, the sources of security and vision remain separate, and this seems to be the case for certain elements of the dissident right.
They seek security(or want to be ‘based’) in relation to race, history, culture, and land, things that are material or inseparable from the physical world, i.e. even though culture is an artificial construct, it is practiced in the real world.
To be ‘based’ doesn’t mean to touch the stars. It means to be rooted, to have a foundation.

But, the Higher Truth requires vision and imagination, a prophecy. A tree grows from the roots but reaches toward heaven. For nearly 1,700 years, Christianity provided this higher meaning and prophetic yearning for Western man, but many people, no less on the right than on the left, can abide by what now seems like a wilting, decaying, and dying religion. The House of Christ is now covered with the poison ivy of Globo-Homo concocted by Jesus-hating Jews. Thus, the anti- or non-Christian dissident right is rather like Linus who must believe in something NEW, like the Great Pumpkin.

The animal tail is instructive as to why the four limbs of reason, facts, skepticism, and criticality aren’t enough. Humans and apes lack tails, but most mammals have them. For some, the tail is virtually useless, like among bears. For others, it’s more important for expression and communication than for movement, like among wolves and dogs. For others yet, however, they are crucial for balance, like among monkeys and cats. Others, like the beaver, use them as akin to a fifth limb.
On the psychological level, people still seem to need their ‘tails’, an elusive but essential X-factor that provides an extra element or dynamic that makes for a kind of mental balance, dexterity, expressiveness, and/or force. It can be aggressive(like a crocodile’s whipping tail) or defensive(like a squirrel’s tail doubling as an umbrella or wind-blocker).

Take certain figures of some prominence(or notoriety depending on whom you ask) in the alt-right, dissident-right, HBD, race-realist, Paleo-Conservative, and etc. sphere. What all of them have in common is the urge to go against the grain of the prevailing dogma and narrative.
Some of them have been lifelong rightists while others were former leftists or ‘liberals’. Yet, what they all have in common is a strong sense of independence, even a maverick streak. Even as rightist lifers, they refuse to hew the party line of Conservatism Inc. and to serve as mere foot-soldiers taking orders.
And if they are ex-’liberals’, it’s partly and paradoxically because they are more truly liberal than most so-called Liberals, ‘truly liberal’ meaning someone who is open to all ideas, skeptical of conformist dogma, eager for facts, and critical of authority. Indeed, most so-called Liberals have little that is truly liberal about them, just like most so-called Conservatives are hardly conservative as the milquetoast types at Con Inc. are mainly about conserving their status and servility to the ruling class than to the truth or any deep sense of values.

Among these figures are Jared Taylor, Ramz Paul, E. Michael Jones, Greg Johnson, Jay Dyer, Vincent James, Richard Spencer, Andy Nowicki, Nick Fuentes, Kevin MacDonald, Kevin Michael Grace, Steve Turley, and Pedro Gonzalez. None of them could have become what he is without having a strong independent-minded streak.
In other words, not for them the so-called ‘Liberal Consensus’ or the so-called ‘True Conservatism’ pushed by the cucks at the National Review and the like. They want the red meat of truth and dig for their own truth despite the warning signs, “No Trespassing, Do Not Dig Here.” Despite powerful taboos and threats, they noticed truths on matters such as race, Jewish Power, the problems of diversity, cultural degeneration, globo-homo degeneracy, and the like. A man with a wig is NOT a woman, gimme a break.

Now, given their penchant for facts, reason, and independence of mind, you’d think they’d go all in on truth-seeking on every topic, but this isn’t so, at least for most of them. If anything, it seems their investment in facts and logic hankers for compensation via an equally strong need for the blanket and/or the pumpkin.

Take the Catholics among this group, and this applies to Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan as well. Why would a maverick like E. Michael Jones, who refuses to shut up about Jewish Power or the ‘gay disco’, remain so resolutely wedded to the traditional Catholic doctrine or the idea of Logos? He sees Jewish Power and its nefarious influences everywhere and calls out on it because it’s a FACT. No amount of pressure from the secular or religious community can make him recant what he knows and says about Jewish Power and its tentacles reaching into every institution.

Yet, the foundation of his worldview is, from a secular and factual viewpoint, a fantasy: Jesus Christ, as Son of God, was killed and died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected and ascended to Heaven. This is impossible on a factual basis as there has never been any proof of miracles or the supernatural. If we go by facts(or known facts), Jesus or Yeshua was a fiction made from the whole cloth(as Steven Pinker seems to think so) or some Jewish neurotic who talked shit and got his arse whupped by the Jews and Romans. According to the New Testament, Jesus was stripped naked and nailed to the cross.

In other words, the supposed son-of-god lingered on the cross like a naked Ron Jeremy for the mobs to jeer at. It seems Jews have a more factual view of the whole Yeshua Affair. How could anyone who is put on the cross with his schlong hanging out(for the crowd to crack jokes about) be the ‘son of god’? Even Christians seem to realize this ludicrous part of their Faith, which may explain why all the Jesus paintings show him clothed around the groins. Even Martin Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF THE CHRIST, which came closest to historical verisimilitude in the crucifixion scene, presented Defoe-as-Jesus with legs crossed so that his thing wasn’t even faintly visible(like Sharon Stone’s shaded pooter in BASIC INSTINCT).
Christians long reviled the Jews for rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, but Jews had a point. To them, Yeshua, for all his flowery talk of love and promise of salvation, met the most ridiculous death, hardly something worthy of the Messiah, let alone the ‘Son of God’.

Yet, Yeshau’s donged-death came to serve as the basis of the story of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Greatest Story Ever Told. To Jews, this must be as crazy as the notion that a-man-can-be-a-woman is to sane goyim(who say NO to Jewish Globo-Homo). Maybe, on some subconscious level, all this globo-homo twisting of sense and logic is a kind of revenge against Christian goyim for trying to make Jews forcibly swallow what to them was unswallowable, even more than pork and lobsters, the notion that Yeshua, some errant putz who got his arse whupped and then nailed to the cross with his schlong hanging out is the ‘son of god’. To put it in Negro terms, it was for Jews a case of “Nigga, you gotta be crazy!”

How does one square E. Michael Jones’ strong individuality on matters of conscience with his rather conventional faith in traditional dogma? If so questioning of the current dogma, why so trusting of the old dogma? Didn’t it ever occur to Jones that the dogma he adheres to had also been institutionalized and enforced through means not unlike those in the modern era with Marxism-Leninism, Holocaustianity, Negrolatry, Queertianity, and Woke Capital?

Indeed, the entire myth on which Christianity is founded is deeply suspect to common sense. If Jesus was truly resurrected after His death, why was this revealed only to a select few? Why not walk around freely among Jews & Romans(among others) and exclaim, “Look, I’m back!” Why reveal the miraculous feat of defeating death to just a handful of men? Why make it so difficult for the Disciples in spreading the gospel by vanishing soon after appearing before them? They would have had a much easier time if Jesus walked by their side as they went about proselytizing, standing as living proof of how the Son of God transcended death. There would have been hard evidence, visible proof for all to see, of the Disciples’ accounts of what they’d seen.

Instead, the men only had the word and could spread the message only as a matter of faith.

“Jesus was resurrected. He lives!”

“Yeah? So, where is he?”

“I saw Him with my own eyes.”

“Well, why can’t I see him anywhere? Why doesn’t he show himself?”

“There’s no need for you to see Him. Just believe! Have faith!”

“Get lost, you idiot!”

Imagine a weightlifter allegedly breaking five world records in a row in the presence of a small number of diehard fans and then expecting the whole world to believe in his feat on the basis of those fans’ accounts. How would we know they’re telling the truth? Why didn’t the weightlifter do it out in the open so that his record-breaking lifts could be verified by officials and the crowd? We could never know for sure if he really did lift those weights and if his fans are telling the truth.

At least when it comes to the Moses story, the miracles happened out in the open according to the Torah. The Power of God did turn the Nile into a river of blood for all to see. God did send a Pillar of Fire, again for all to see. The Red Sea(or Sea of Reeds by correction) did split all the Jews to witness and walk across. Moses alone encountered the Burning Bush, but the spectacular miracles were seen by ‘everyone’, Egyptians and Hebrews alike(and the viewers of Cecil B. DeMille’s epic).
Given that the Resurrection is central to the Christian Myth, it’s rather odd that it was revealed to only a small number of people. Why didn’t Jesus make a big splash of it, like with Moses dividing the sea? One might argue it was easier to speak of miracles in the past(in the times of Abraham and Moses) than in the near-present, which is what the Gospels dwelt on when written(about events going back a mere several decades). But then, there are miracles in the New Testament, such as when Jesus provided fish and bread to a large gathering, walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the blind & sick, and brought Lazarus back to life. Those were said to have taken place out in the open for many to witness. That being so, why limit the witness to the Resurrection to just a few?

When General MacArthur and the Terminator promised to be back, they made sure everyone witnessed the return. But, Jesus’s greatest triumph was done as a secret meeting.
This is most puzzling. Was it because something so great, awesome, and profound was too special for public consumption, thereby reserved only to the most deserving(like the restricted event with the space aliens in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND)?
If so, however, why offer Christianity as the Gospel for all mankind? A religion open to all mankind but premised on a most secretive meeting between Jesus and the chosen vanguard. On the one hand, it reeks of fraud, of snake oil, but on the other hand, it does make it seem more special, as if to suggest that the heart(faith) matters more than the eyes(senses), i.e. one must learn to feel and accept through the soul first and foremost.

Jones can be cuttingly skeptical and critical about the officially mandated issues of the day, but he takes at face value the foundations of his faith. Why not direct the same rational energies on the building blocks of Christianity that defy facts and logic. When has there ever been any evidence of a higher being? How can a virgin give birth? How does one walk on water? How do you turn a few loaves of bread into many? How does one bring a dead person back to life, let alone be resurrected after death? Jones rightly dismisses the notion that a man can be a ‘woman’, but he has no problem believing in the fairy-tales of his religion. He sticks to dogma.

Granted, Jones is somewhat idiosyncratic in his take on the ‘logos’, which strikes me as ‘bogos’. As Jones understands it, the logos is the ultimate truth emerging from the meeting of the two crowning heights of Western Civilization: Hellenism and Hebraism. Jews got so much right but was missing a key element that finally came by the way of the Greeks. And so, like the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, the Jewish chocolate merged with the Greek peanut butter and Christianity was born(and the rest is history as The Truth has been delivered for all time).
But this explanation doesn’t make sense. Jones is anti-pagan and believes God holds all the truth. If so, why would the spiritual-intellectual tradition of God(as understood by the Jews) require the intervention of a pagan tradition to form the perfect union of eternal truth? If paganism is so wrong, why would ideas that developed out of polytheism be so crucial to the fulfillment of God’s promise unto mankind? If God is everything, the wholeness of truth, then His tradition via the Jews would hardly have required the finishing touch of the pagan Greeks. By rules of bogonics, it renders his rationale for the logos rather bogus.

Jones, like other dissident figures, also relies on what might be called ‘compensatory correctness’, whereby someone who is disapproved and even reviled for a set of beliefs is nevertheless partially forgiven or tolerated for having at least one ‘acceptable’ view.

For Jones, it’s the rejection of race as a natural category, which makes a complete mess of his views on racial problems. So, the black-white problem has less to do with race than Christianity, which makes no sense as most black Americans have been Christians. Also, white Christians are far more likely to get along with Arab Muslims, Asian Buddhists, white atheists, and even Jews(at least on the social level) than with black Christians.

Jones is also regarded as relatively ‘correct’ in favoring religious anti-Jewishness while rejecing racial ‘antisemitism’, as even the ADL came to admit that Jones isn’t a ‘racist’ toward Jews and only a religious bigot. But the notion that the only difference between Jews and Christians is a matter of credo simply isn’t credible. The fact remains there are more people with the personality of Alan Dershowitz among the Jews and more people with the personality of Dan Quayle/Mike Pence among the white goyim. Even if Jews like Alan Dershowitz were to accept Christ, they would still carry on with their Jewishy ways. And contrary to Jones’s concept of the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’, it will not fade with the Jewish conversion to Christianity. Jews will simply radicalize it and push it in new directions. Socialism and communism were supposed to unite Jews and goyim into a united brotherhood and sisterhood, but Jews and Slavs(among others in the Soviet Union and Communist Bloc) remained distinguishable along ethnic lines and personality differences.

Besides, it’s rich for the ADL and Jews in general to kvetch about ‘racial antisemitism’ when Jewishness is itself a racial identity-ideology. If certain goyim began to regard Jews as a race, it was only because Judeo-centrism persisted even after the Emancipation of Jews. Prior to the Emancipation, it was well understood that Jews constituted a separate Tribe(as recorded in the Torah and discussed in the Talmud). Either Jews could remain tribal or convert and join the Christian brotherhood.
In contrast, the Emancipation promised the full assimilation of Jews into modernity that purported to do away with old dogmas and tribal distinctions. Unlike the tribe, the modern nation could accept Jews as full-fledged citizens, and modern liberalism could treat Jews and Non-Jews alike.
But, the so-called ‘Anti-Semites’ began to notice the persistence of Jews as a race because Jewish attitudes, behavior, and agendas were so markedly at odds with the goy norm. Even when Jews cast aside their tribalism and old faith, many of them continued to huddle together and cook up plans and schemes that were often subversive and hostile to goy well-being and interests.
Thus, it was the persistence of Jewish racial consciousness(even if subconscious at times) that compelled some goyim to notice the resilient racial aspects of Jewishness, which is certainly visible in the US today. How can anyone explain the likes of Victoria Nuland, Janet Yellen, Anthony Blinken, Merrick Garland, Chuck Schumer, and etc. without taking into consideration their fervent racial solidarity and agenda against goyim?

Contra Jones, the revolutionary spirit is baked into Christianity itself because of the contradiction between its transcendent theory and its tawdry practice. The history of Christian Civilization is that of rise in power and wealth by violating and circumventing the teachings of Jesus.
Therefore, conscientious Christians were always bound to feel anxiety, doubt, guilt, and a host of complexes because they worshiped a loving pacifist Christ but gained and spread power through the iron fist. No wonder there was so much gloom and doom throughout Christian history, especially the Middle Ages. No wonder so many Europeans took to the liberating spirit of neo-pagan Renaissance. No wonder Martin Luther began a revolution on the basis of the discrepancy between Catholic preaching and Catholic practice. And no wonder the Enlightenment waged war on the clergy as the corrupt tool of the ruling monarchs who hardly lived by the teachings of Jesus. And no wonder Liberation Theology took off in Latin America because the clergy had for so long been in cahoots with the corrupt ruling elites.

If the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit results from the Jewish belief that the Truth has yet to be revealed, the Christian Revolutionary Spirit results from the conviction that the world has continuously failed to live up to the lofty teachings of Jesus. Thus, if for different reasons, both groups constantly wage war on history with the Jews coming up with their grand schemes and with the Christians seeking to baptize the world anew, though both groups have disgraced themselves by merging in their ecstatic glorification of globo-homo and Negrolatry as the near-end of history.

Another Catholic with an independent streak but clutches onto the blanket of religious dogma is Kevin Michael Grace, the former Canadian journalist of some note. Again, we see the same pattern. Someone with a critical mind and acumen for asking questions missed or ignored by others. Someone with a wide-ranging understanding of the arts, history, and culture with tastes ranging from punk-rock to classical music. One would think someone so independent and inquisitive would have no use for any iron-clad belief system and be open to all ideas.
But, when it comes to Catholic dogma, he becomes the Linus who sucks his thumb and clings tightly to his blanket. It even affects his view of science, such as the irrefutable truth of evolution. What other theory explains the history of life on Earth? The belief that some heavenly deity created man and woman by breathing into dirt? Or that the woman was created from the rib of a man? And what is so shocking about the notion that man evolved from apes when so many men(and women) are still so apelike; indeed, plenty of people seem more barbaric and dumber than apes.
But, for the Christ-cuck types, the belief that man was created in the image of God means that evolution must be false. (What does that mean? God looks like Don Rickles or Don Knots? Given the current state of globo-homo festooned Christianity, one is tempted to believe that god is Bozo the Clown.) How can someone so sharp on most matters be so dull when it comes to religion? How can anyone so skeptical about the powers-that-be believe that bread-and-wine turns into the flesh and blood of Christ?

Then, there’s Nick Fuentes. Unlike most young political-minded of his or any generation, he chose to ask the big questions and state the obvious than take the thirty pieces of silver in the hope of being placed on a fast-track to prominence(as with the likes of Charlie Kirk). He didn’t accept the free trip to Israel and the wink-wink understanding that you don’t get anywhere in American Politics unless you cuck to the Zionists(or Neocons) and stick to the Con Inc. talking points. Instead, the truth was plain to see and in need of being said.

Any honest person who pulled his head out of his arse once in a while would have noticed by now that the US(and the West by extension) is ruled by Jewish Supremacists(who’ve been increasingly and brazenly acting like gangsters). Fuentes noticed this truth and felt compelled to talk about it. Someone who knows something to be true but ignores it or mentions it only in a mealy-mouthed manner is either a liar, a coward, or an opportunist, which Fuentes is certainly not. With a strong independent streak, he’s taken his share of the slings and arrows from the powers-that-be.

Nick Fuentes Outlines a Basic Argument for Christianity

Video Link

But here’s the odd thing. If so committed to an independence of mind, truth-telling, and defiance of official dogma, why is Fuentes such a committed Christian-Catholic and purveyor of the West-Is-Good narrative, e.g. hero-worshiping about Columbus and the like?
If Fuentes is obsessed with facts and details, why be religious at all, which is premised on blind faith in the ancient texts?
It’s one thing to acknowledge the historical, spiritual, and moral values of religion but quite another to insist that the Bible is the literal truth. (And for someone who likes to dump on the poor and the losers of the world, has he ever considered the true message of Jesus Christ, who was not for the rich and powerful but compassion for the downtrodden and meek?)

Also, it’s one thing to admire the great feats of men like Columbus but quite another to indulge in mindless hero-worship of them. Great men are, after all, all-too-human. Greatness doesn’t mean goodness, and tragedies often accompanied or followed the triumphs. To pretend that the great men of the West were godlike heroes is as foolish as the ‘woke’ idiocy of condemning them only as villains. Besides, True Christianity believes that only Jesus was the Perfect Man whereas all other men, however accomplished, were sinners whose successes came at the expense of others.

This makes one wonder if Fuentes is primarily invested in the truth or in his dogma of choice. Is he so outspoken against Jewish Power and its agendas because their ultimate goal is at odds with what Fuentes prefers? If, however, the currently dominant ideology, despite its lies and viciousness, were at work in pushing the kind of agenda favored by Fuentes, would he be okay with its war on truth and integrity?
Just about every dirty trick employed by ‘wokeness’ has been used by the Church(in its various forms) all through the ages. The deceptions, the propaganda, the threats, the purges, the destruction of reputation, and etc. Indeed, much of Political Correctness, ‘Wokeness’, Globo-Homo, and Negrolatry(as with communism before them) borrowed a thing or two from the Christian ways of iconoclasm(against pagan temples), canonization(of its favored saints), and the persecution of heretics. Real truth means questioning ALL dogmas, not firing salvos only at the dogma of the enemy.

Granted, every side has its necessarily simplistic narrative and its white lies, and one may argue that the lies that do good(to defeat the bad guys) are better than the lies that do bad. But to the extent that Fuentes has risked everything to speak his mind, his forte is to say than to play, and the primary role of a maverick socio-political critic is to question everything.

Now, it’s understandable that in order to lead a movement — Fuentes regards himself as a leader of men, the ‘groypers’ — , one cannot simply operate at the rational, critical, and skeptical level. One must invoke powerful themes and stir up sweeping passions to rouse the crowd with a sense of certainty and destiny. Such emotions depend more on a sense of shared faith and collective mindset. Still, in the case of Fuentes, it’s interesting that someone who’s so defiant of the prevailing dogma is so wedded to the old one.

It’s the-chicken-or-the-egg question. For most ‘based’ people on the dissident right, what came first and led them to their maverick positions? Did they become so bewildered and confused in the search for truth that they gravitated to some strong faith as their compass and rudder? Or, were they so anchored to tradition to begin with that they began to question everything about modernity and post-modernity?

Andy Nowicki is another member of the Catholic Church, aka the Pedophile Cult. Again, it begs the question as to why someone so independent-minded and idiosyncratic feels a need to belong to an institution and tradition founded on unquestioning dogma. If you’re going to question everything and be skeptical of all institutional authority, why the servile attachment to the Church founded on the illusion that some Jewish carpenter-preacher who got nailed to the cross was the Son of God?
Nowicki claims to have been something of a liberal in his younger days; apparently, religiosity wasn’t a part of his formative years. As with the others, could it be that he needs something firm to stand on or cling to as he’s devoted his life to challenging just about every official line? When the world becomes a sea of uncertainty, one may need something to hold onto as a life support, and Catholicism, as the first and original(and the only true)Church may seem like the answer to one’s prayers.

Besides, even if one doesn’t literally believe in the New Testament, one could see history and spirituality as a contest between moral visions of the world and cosmos. Even if you know there’s no god, certain visions of God or gods are more on the side of the angels whereas others are on the side of the devil(s). Even if you don’t believe anything in the movie THE EXORCIST, it’s clear that the godly forces are trying to save the girl from filth and obscenity whereas the demonic forces are trying to corrupt and ruin her.

Then, there’s Jay Dyer who, though Orthodox, shares a similar mental contradiction with the maverick Catholics. Dyer built his cult reputation on alternative takes on popular culture, politics, and history, teasing out the subtexts of works that he deems to be esoteric in nature. Not for him the milquetoast interpretations and evaluations of the arts, culture, and historical narratives. He goes about his business by researching and appraising everything on his own. And despite having rejected the Protestant religion of his upbringing, he’s a loyal member of the Orthodox Church.

Now, why would someone who cuts through the official orthodoxy of the Current Year be so drawn to an Orthodoxy that is 2,000 yrs old? If small or fashionable orthodoxies aren’t to be taken at face value, couldn’t it be the case that the Big Orthodoxies are even bigger delusions or deceptions? Why be so skeptical and critical of everything but check one’s rationality at the gate of perhaps the biggest orthodoxy of all? Why not reject all orthodoxies, old and new? Isn’t it rather like disbelieving all the pagan gods on the basis of critical reasoning but then opting for total faith in the one and only God? Big God or small gods, neither stands up to rationality and factuality.
On the other hand, perhaps people like Dyer are prone to believing that there is some all-abiding power in the universe. Thus, instead of rejecting all orthodoxies or dogmas, they believe there is the one eternal truth as opposed to the fashionable lies that seem or feel true only in the moment. That being so, the fact of Christianity’s 2,000 year history isn’t one of the longest lie or the stultifying sleep of reason but the eternal illumination with the one and only truth.

How does one square these contradictions among the aforementioned personalities? Paradoxically, could it be that those venturing far from the official norm or the prevailing dogma feel a need to clutch onto something equally potent(if only in the spiritual, moral, or ideological sense) in order to stave off the hostility, the ridicule, the threats, and the shunning that comes with the stigma? Vox Day is another example. He goes further than most in his skepticism of the Power, indeed to the point of paranoia that leaves him vulnerable to ridiculous conspiracy theories(such as the ‘moon landing hoax’ nonsense). For someone so distrustful of authority, he sure has a blind faith in the Christian God despite the total lack of evidence for Biblical literalism.

But then, it could be that rationality and criticality have a disorienting effect on the human psyche. If one cannot trust the Power and its authority on a whole range of subjects, it means one’s mind carries the extra burden of seeking things out and weighing their validity. And as there are so many counter-arguments and different sets of ‘facts’(depending on the source), one can never be sure of anything at any given moment. While some people may make peace with such a mental state, even the maverick-minded might find it tough-going at times. The more you venture into the unknown, the more you need to rely on something of certainty. If you go into the unknown parts of the woods, you might take food, water, compass, and other essentials that you wouldn’t take on a familiar stroll.

Indeed, it seems their faiths imbue people like E. Michael Jones, Nicholas Fuentes, Jay Dyer, Vox Day, Alex Jones, and other similar types with the courage, confidence, and righteousness to tread where most don’t dare. Even the most rational and critical-minded people have their limits when it comes to courage and integrity. When pushed up against the wall, they’re likely to feel they have no recourse but to comply because the Power is the ultimate arbiter of who swims and who drowns.

In contrast, if you have faith in God, no matter how much the Power crushes and stomps on you, you still feel that God, the true lord of the universe, is on your side. In the story of Jesus, He didn’t cut-and-run in fear of torture and death because of His faith that God was looking over Him no matter how much the Jews and Romans whupped Him real bad and then nailed Him to a cross.
As such, it’s noteworthy that some of the most ‘rogue thinkers’ in the alt or dissident sphere tend to have the most traditional-conventional take on core convictions and values. Jay Dyer, though always eager to see beyond the conventional critique, is ‘based’ on a system of beliefs rooted in the bygone Byzantine civilization. Fuentes, the mad-bad barking dog on just about any issue, turns into a cherubic babe at the feet of Jesus as the lord of all.

Humans are social creatures and highly sensitive to pressures of all kinds. Even strong personalities, when mocked and shunned, begin to fall apart and cave under pressure. It’s just the way people are genetically programmed. They are more like dogs than cats, more like ants than grasshoppers(unless one is a Negro).

Richard Spencer is a case in point, a paganite whose highest authorities seem to be Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, and James Bond. When the Power put him up against the wall after Charlottesville, he turned into a scared little puppy doing the bidding of the Deep State, even going so far as to favor Joe Biden over Donald Trump. For all his confidence and boldness, when the shit hit the fan or when push came to shove, he wilted at the prospect of doing prison with Nietzsche, Schmitt, and Bond as his guides.

After all, those pagan or secular figures were all about the winning, not the losing. It’s hard to cope with the reality of prison with 007 on your mind. Bond offers no relief from the crazy Negroes as either convicts or guards. But those who believe in God feel they’re spiritually with the lord of the universe even if their bodies have been crushed by the temporal powers. As Linus speaks of the spirit of Christmas in the Peanuts Christmas Special, it can even imbue a dinky tree with dignity and light.

Indeed, the problem of defeat plagued paganism throughout history. Paganism revels in victory but has a tough time with defeat. What can Zeus, Apollo, and Ares do for your defeated self when they’re the gods of the heroes, the warriors, the conquerors, and the winners? Jewish Genius came upon a formula that, at once, imagined the most powerful God and the most righteous God. Being about the ultimate good as well as the ultimate power, this Good Great God would always favor the virtuous, even in defeat, over the wicked, no matter how victorious.

There are all kinds of defeats in life. Military defeat on the grand scale and social stigma on the personal scale. Even in a peaceful and prosperous society that purports to be ‘free’ and ‘democratic’, you can lose your livelihood, your reputation, and your friends. And most people don’t know how to cope with such defeat based on purely rational, critical, and ethical recourse.
No matter how much someone thinks he’s right, the world-around-him condemns him. Even if he’s sure that the ‘world’ is wrong, it has an overwhelming advantage over him. One of the few ways to overcome such a dire set of circumstances is to have faith in a power above and beyond the social pressures all around him.

Just like Linus, the most adventurous and imaginative thinker, needs his blanket as a safety net(or the ‘nest egg’ in the sense of Albert Brooks’ LOST IN AMERICA), it seems the various maverick critics of the status quo need their blankets too, and it’s usually a form of Christianity, either Catholic or Orthodox. (One wonders if the Catholic Church has a future as a spiritual force, however. Being hierarchical, it’s innately more conservative than many sects of Protestantism where changes and reforms can happen in an instant. Of course, after the initial Lutheran break from the Catholic Church, most sects of Protestantism have been protests and deviations from established forms of Protestantism. Anyway, even though the Catholic Church is slower to change due to its entrenched hierarchical system, change can happen rapidly with new elites at the top. The current devil pope Francis portends a dire fate for the Church, which is now rotten at the top, and this rot will flow to the bottom once the globo-homo Jesuits and their ilk finally come out of the closet and reveal that the Catholic Church has been taken over by Jew-worshipers, Negrolaters, and Globo-Homo sodomites. It used to be that some Protestant conservatives flocked to the Catholic Church as a system that kept with the Eternal Faith, unlike the various Protestant sects at the mercy of social fashions, but they overlooked the fact that the entire church can rot almost overnight once the uppermost elites are corrupted. The current Catholic Church might as well be the arm of the CIA and Hollywood. While the hierarchy continues to go through the motions of traditionalism, there’s no heart in it; rather, it’s looking for every opportunity to dispense with it and align the Church with the Globo-Homo mantra of ‘wokeness’. It’s like the Democrats under Bill Clinton pretended to care about traditional marriage while working behind the scenes to push Globo-Homo into every corner of American life.)

Andrew Torba is another interesting case. An Orthodox Christian Nationalist who also happens to be the one of the most zealous defenders of free speech on the internet. Being such a fanatic on free speech and the First Amendment, one would think Torba would appreciate liberalism, the ideological foundation of the right to free speech. And being a devout Christian, one would expect him to ponder deeply about sin and guilt. And being a nationalist, one might think he would respect other nations and their cultural & spiritual traditions.

For sure, Torba is an outlier with an independent streak who does his own thing regardless of the pressures from all around, especially the vile Jewish Supremacists and their cuck goy minions.

Yet, his Linus-like individuality comes with a massive blanket. For all his commitment to free speech, Torba never had an independent thought in his life, and his values and worldview are strictly dogmatic and liturgical, made up of Biblical verses, catechisms, partisan slogans, and other doggerel. He expresses contempt for liberalism without realizing or admitting that (1) free speech is a liberal value and (2) current so-called ‘liberals’ are anti-liberal.

Indeed, what a strange state of affairs that the so-called ‘liberals’ undermine the principles of liberalism while anti-liberals like Andrew Torba champion the biggest liberal value ever: Free Speech.
One wonders if Torba’s commitment to free speech is principled or strategic. His worldview and agenda sound rather theocratic, i.e. “When we take power, we’ll make sure society and politics are made to submit to Christian values and norms.” If so, wouldn’t such a power take away free speech that offends Christian sensibilities? Isn’t that exactly what the Jews did? Defended free speech when it was advantageous to their rise to power but then used Political Correctness and worse ‘wokeness’ to suppress or criminalize free speech that dared to speak the inconvenient truth to power, which is mostly hogged by Jewish Supremacists?
Would Torba even be for free speech if the US were a Christian-dominated country where heretical and blasphemous voices were shut down? Maybe, but maybe not.

Also, Torba’s Christian blanket is an iron blanket, one that goes against the spirit of Jesus who preached upon mankind to reflect on their failings and transgressions. While the anti-Western activists are stupid and retarded in vilifying the West and blaming the white race for all the problems of the world(while overlooking all the wonders that flowed from the West), it’s also true that much terror and misery were visited upon the world in the painful process of Western empire-building.
A balanced view is possible and preferable, but if the ‘woke’ side speaks its idiocy, Torba pushes the counter-idiocy that the Christian West has nothing to genuflect on. In Torba’s mind, Jesus is apparently a gun-toting and sword-wielding imperialist who goes around the world slapping people around, plundering entire peoples, and even resorting to slavery & genocide for his own vainglory. It’s really dumb and totally anti-Christian in spirit.

A true Christian believes that a Christian should be more conscientious and reflective of his transgressions while being more forgiving of the sins of others(who do not know what they do). In contrast, Torba’s brand of religiosity means being a Christian means never having to say you’re sorry. It’s hardly different from the attitudes of Jews, blacks, and homos who feel that their identities alone make them holier-than-thou. Torba’s Christianity is about pride, not humility.

And for all his anti-globalism and the defense of Western nations to preserve their own identity, demography, and culture, this consideration apparently doesn’t apply to non-Christian nations. Torba routinely expresses contempt for other spiritual traditions and supports an aggressive Christianity that would impose faith in Jesus on all of mankind.
Now, Christianity, like Islam, is indeed a universal faith that seeks to convert the world. But, how does it square with nationalism that means different peoples having their own borders, traditions, cultures, and interpretations of the holy? True nationalism means, at a minimum, a respect for different peoples and different cultures. But the pigheaded Christianity of Torba is as contemptuous of non-Christians as Jews are of goyim.

My guess is Torba’s commitment to free speech is genuine but most likely came by way of challenging circumstances. Suppose Torba had joined Big Tech and found himself surrounded by like-minded Christian conservatives with their own spin on “We believe in free speech but not hate speech”, ‘hate speech’ here being heretical speech offensive to Christians. Would Torba then have embarked on an enterprise to defend free speech? Or would he have joined with his Christian censors in suppressing anti-Christian speech? The entire history of Christianity has been censorious, not about free speech, though the emphasis on personal conscience did play a role in guiding the West toward free speech.

That said, it seems that Torba’s religiosity filled him with extra grit. While libertarian-types are ideologically most committed to free speech, they’ve been more-or-less gutless when push came to shove. Jack Dorsey began as a libertarian but caved under pressure. John Matze was the libertarian CEO of Parler but hardly fought back when Big Tech applied its pressure.
In the end, libertarians, for all their principles, only think in terms of individuality, but individuals are helpless against the combined forces of the industry giants and the deep state. An individual feels weak when faced with the Power.
In contrast, the Christian, even when crushed, believes almighty God is on his side, and that is reason enough to trudge on and keep with the struggle. It’s possible that, had Torba been a mere true liberal or libertarian committed to free speech, he would not have weathered the storm. Against all pressure, he carried Gab like his own cross, and credit must be given where it’s due. Still, if it takes religious zealotry to truly defend free speech(a liberal value) in these times, it’s an upside down world.

Print