This leads to the pre-keynote speech being with a rapper over the suffering and murders of Christians in Nigeria while ignoring Americans being murdered by the thousands every year on the streets of major cities and metropolitan areas. I did not hear one mention about the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte during the whole conference. I did not hear one mention of Bethany Mcgee being burned alive in Chicago during the conference.
Literally zero people in the United States were murdered for their Christian faith this year. Thousands of Nigerians were. Tens of thousands more were kidnapped. **Tens of thousands of children.**
A few days ago, a woman was randomly stabbed to death at a suburban Barnes & Noble in a high end area. I want the conservative movement to focus on random predatory violence and urban crime in the US. If we ever reach Singapore or UAE levels of safety then we can talk about Nigeria.
You’ll never convince normie cons to stop slobbering all over blacks and begging for their approval. Minaj is a washed up pill head who was very obviously high on stage. Her latest claims to fame are feuding with more famous Cardi B and defending her child rapist husband and brother. It’s also abundantly clear she’s being paid to advance the Nigerian Christian issue - by whom is a topic for separate discussion. Utterly embarrassing to make fun of Kamala for the genuine Beyoncé and Taylor swift endorsements - two very real celebrities who weren’t actually paid - then simp for Nicki Minaj. Grotesque and shameful stuff.
The LDS church has taken a much more moderate position than the Catholics or progressive Protestants on immigration. Basically: “be nice when you’re deporting people”
They’re almost all run by Catholics though… hyper fixating on their 2 employees who aren’t Catholic is utterly bizarre and was debunked repeatedly when you guys tried to make this flawed argument previously.
Good piece. In a way both sides are becoming more ideological and moral, with the left becoming more economically Marxist and the right becoming more Christian. That said there is no “trajectory” for the right because the right doesn’t have a plan at all, let alone the ability to act on one, they only have flavors of reaction
They can't have a plan, because the nature of conservatism (the western variety, anyway) is not to plan - it's for things to develop organically based on environment and lifeways. A conservative is there to keep the kids and the crazies from upsetting the natural order. They love father figures and Christ is the ultimate father figure. Unfortunately, Christ is many things to many people, and that is not good enough for a ruling consensus.
I'm descended from heritage americans which i just refer as the founding stock or conquerors. Than throw in the admixture of Irish refugee losers and southern European economic migrants to create a mess. I have more love for my anglo Saxon conquerors because they formed the nation that rules the continent whereas the others are merely hangers on who came for purely economic reasons.
Blacks resist assimilation to the point where they think of themselves as a separate nation. Seems to be changing as black men go with other women in high numbers which seems to piss off black females.
The most important point is what is a American? Do we have a common purpose or are we separate tribes jockeying for spoils? Unless we assimilate to the founding stock and with each other, common purpose will not happen. First step is still to shut off legal migration like the first half of the 20th century and rid our land of illegals. After that, we can talk more.
Most black men reproduce with black women. Intermarriage is exceedingly rare. Far more white men are marrying Hispanic and Asian women than out-partnering among black men.
This religious identity is counterproductive, like you said. It includes many different races. A racial identity would be more appropriate. Not to mention, Christianity is gradually fading around the world.
A racial identity would include some groups that may currently have different religions: White European Christians, White Balkan (European) Muslims, and White (European/Ashkenazi) Jews. A religious Christian identity includes some groups that are of different races: White European Christians, Hispanic Christians, and Black Christians. If race is the bigger issue, then a multiracial religious identity isn't the right paradigm.
Centering your message around Christianity is always the best way to go, as long as it doesn't let bad faith actors into the mix to play to the perceived "Judge Not" principle that non-Christians like to throw out there. Need to stand against mass immigration, lax abortion laws, and support for Israel. Creating a American Christian coalition needs to make the group and nation stronger, not opening it up crap policies for the sake of "being nice".
If your thesis is true, than the right is done. The youth aren’t religious at all, and modern America Christian ethics and aesthetics are a joke. There is no political solution. Electoral politics will get us nowhere. Start forming militias.
I don't personally like the religious tone of the new New Right. Sounds like the old right to me - the right of Ralph Reed, except with less emphasis on capitalism. JD himself is opening himself up to criticism and unpopularity...his wife is Hindoo. So is Vivek. There are plenty of Jews in the New Right.
If you're Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and everyone else needs to come to Jesus, it's very easy for that to morph into hating on Hindus (as is happening) and be anti-Semitic (also happening). More overt Christians are calling Hindus pagans. Of course we got the Christ-killer thing. JD Vance almost certainly reads this stuff? Where does it lead to?
Vance probably hopes that kind, welcoming Christians is the way. Live by example and proselytize that way. I'm afraid that has been tried, and we are seeing the results as giant statues of Hanuman are being erected, and mosques popping up like vape shops.
Yes, Smack right on. People are blissfully unaware that Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. It was a substitution and an adaptation by Paul to the Roman Empire, which then allowed the Emperor Constantine to create a Disney version at the Council of Nicea. People are also blissfully unaware that at least one of the founders of the USA, Thomas Jefferson, was highly aware of the chasm between Jesus and Paul, and developed his own distillation of the teachings of Jesus, the so-called Jefferson Bible, in an attempt to lift the teachings of Jesus out of the deadly embrace of Christianity. Since the gradual rediscovery of many texts and traditions that were exorcised from Christianity, most notably the Gospel of Thomas, it is now plain to all that studying and following Jesus are different from being a Christian. Jefferson could not stand the Church, and while I do not always agree with his selection, it is very interesting that he developed that little book, which was a clear statement that he disagreed with the church reading of Jesus, through the editorial lense of Paul and the Nicene creed. In the end, I am a bit sceptical of Jefferson´s reading, but at least he made the effort. He could not stand sitting in church, because he disagreed with their reading so completely.
lol at thinking Thomas Jefferson's arts and crafts project (he created this bible with a razor and glue) is deep and insightful. I asked Scott about Deism among the Founding Fathers and he responded that it was more intellectually satisfyingly view than one provided by the clergy of the day, who were frequently semi-literate preachers ranting about the scriptures.
In Europe, about a hundred years after Martin Luther, it was Spinoza who questioned a lot about the Judaeo-Christian theological concepts, and that was not particularly appreciated at the time, but he influenced a lot of people. Spinoza was very perceptive in the way he viewed the discrepancies between Jesus and Paul, and this conversation was very much around in Paris in the time TJ hung out there, so I think that fed into his sort of private falling out with the prevailing churches, which he attended more as a social function, less as a spiritual or religious function. Privately he just developed his own views of the matter, but was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of discussing that more widely except with some of his closest friends, like Dr. Benjamin Rush.
Hey, I’m 100% an atheist and on board with a lot but I’d quibble with a few things. The council of Nicea was not about creating a Disney version of Christianity. It was called for the sake of unity. The issue at hand was 1. Was Christ created sometime in eternity past by the Father and thus not fully 100% God in the same sense as the Father is, or 2. Christ is eternal and 100% God and of the same substance as the Father. There are endless amounts attempts at attaching pet theories to the council of Nicea. Also, I doubt a single critical secular scholar thinks that the gospel of Thomas represents in any way the earliest form of Christianity. Though, I would totally agree with you that modern evangelical Christianity would be quite shocked if they could time travel to Jerusalem in 35 A.D. and ask some christians about what they believe.
I wrote a book about the Thomas Gospel in 2007 and at the time I found that among the critical scholarship, the view that GoTh dated before Mark (ca 65 AD) was becoming prevalent, if nothing else because stylistically, it was clear that it's simple "sayings" (logia) were more the more bare bones forms of things that were later dressed up in the Canonical Gospels. The first translation was in Dutch in 1959 by Prof. Gilles Quispel and he placed Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century, and called it gnostic. That has tended to be the reaction of churchianity as a whole, since some of the Thomas saying clearly do not fit comfortably in the Pauline theological framework. The transition from a lived experiential reality that Jesus taught to a moral, religious conviction starts with Paul. It culminates with the Council of Nicea, which renders Jesus suitable for Imperial Ambition. Still, by that time, Jesus has long since left the building, and we're fully inside the Pauline theological framework, which contradicts him on many levels. Spinoza was one of the first rigorous critics of this state of affairs.
Scott as you kind of hint at. I do not see how this is an improvement. Maga has given up the fight for other traditional moral pillars. Trump ran on being explicitly pro LGBT and he just does the same Christ is king shtick of the bush years but fights over less and let's the left win more.
I have said I do not find Trump to be a significant approval over the neo cons he replaced.
Big mistake. This stuff is as outdated and unpopular with most forgotten americans as the foreign adventures of the neo-conservatives. It's last gasping breath was the aggressive proselytizing of the war mongering evangelicals during Iraq and Bush II twenty years ago. What right have they got to pretend they're so different and that they aren't the war mongers they were back then, and what right have they to wrest control of the party from the racially conscious secular right that helped deliver America for Trump? Many of these idiot christian zealots are the sons and daughters of people who voted us into Iraq. They don't care one whit about white people. Leopards don't change their spots. Their guy was Jeb Bush and people have had enough. Trying to rebrand themselves as populists is laughably transparent. Most of them are stinking rich. People actually struggling have better things to do than get up early on a Sunday and go to some tacky building to listen to tacky music. Don't allow them any power. Completely sideline them. Shun them the way you would the woke, a race traitor or the non whites who want you dead. They'll take us right back to 2005 and get us into another war. Maybe the final war to end everything. They should be stripped of citizenship, their votes suppressed, and deported from America along with the non whites. Congo is 95 percent Christian. I'm sure they'll have a great time.
There’s a good chance we see a resurgence in sectarian conflict if this continues. If “American Christianity” becomes the lodestar for the Right’s identity then we’ll probably see a lot more public conflict on the Right over the contours and content of that Christianity. It would be an easy pressure point for the Left to push on to try and fracture the coalition post-Trump.
This leads to the pre-keynote speech being with a rapper over the suffering and murders of Christians in Nigeria while ignoring Americans being murdered by the thousands every year on the streets of major cities and metropolitan areas. I did not hear one mention about the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte during the whole conference. I did not hear one mention of Bethany Mcgee being burned alive in Chicago during the conference.
Literally zero people in the United States were murdered for their Christian faith this year. Thousands of Nigerians were. Tens of thousands more were kidnapped. **Tens of thousands of children.**
A few days ago, a woman was randomly stabbed to death at a suburban Barnes & Noble in a high end area. I want the conservative movement to focus on random predatory violence and urban crime in the US. If we ever reach Singapore or UAE levels of safety then we can talk about Nigeria.
It's like you made up an entirely different comment in your head and then replied to that.
You’ll never convince normie cons to stop slobbering all over blacks and begging for their approval. Minaj is a washed up pill head who was very obviously high on stage. Her latest claims to fame are feuding with more famous Cardi B and defending her child rapist husband and brother. It’s also abundantly clear she’s being paid to advance the Nigerian Christian issue - by whom is a topic for separate discussion. Utterly embarrassing to make fun of Kamala for the genuine Beyoncé and Taylor swift endorsements - two very real celebrities who weren’t actually paid - then simp for Nicki Minaj. Grotesque and shameful stuff.
The LDS church has taken a much more moderate position than the Catholics or progressive Protestants on immigration. Basically: “be nice when you’re deporting people”
Don't forget the Catholic Charity groups that aren't even run by Catholics
They’re almost all run by Catholics though… hyper fixating on their 2 employees who aren’t Catholic is utterly bizarre and was debunked repeatedly when you guys tried to make this flawed argument previously.
Yeah but you have the pope and like hundreds of bishops all slamming the deportations.
But it’s impossible to be nice when your deporting people. You are physically expelling them from the country by force.
Right. The purpose of the press release was mostly just appeasing the liberal Mormons and immigrant converts I think.
Good piece. In a way both sides are becoming more ideological and moral, with the left becoming more economically Marxist and the right becoming more Christian. That said there is no “trajectory” for the right because the right doesn’t have a plan at all, let alone the ability to act on one, they only have flavors of reaction
They can't have a plan, because the nature of conservatism (the western variety, anyway) is not to plan - it's for things to develop organically based on environment and lifeways. A conservative is there to keep the kids and the crazies from upsetting the natural order. They love father figures and Christ is the ultimate father figure. Unfortunately, Christ is many things to many people, and that is not good enough for a ruling consensus.
Interesting point actually. Does go to the true meaning of “conservation”
The Christian Right should be about Evangelization first, then assimilation.
Happening here in the UK to.
For me it's the ultimate containment operation for White people.
It's identity politics for mainstream right wing parties who want to win 55% of the national vote to continue the status quo.
What wins (anywhere, probably in a left or right flavour) is an extreme repudiation of the status quo.
The TPUSA conference is full of establishment types in complete denial.
I'm descended from heritage americans which i just refer as the founding stock or conquerors. Than throw in the admixture of Irish refugee losers and southern European economic migrants to create a mess. I have more love for my anglo Saxon conquerors because they formed the nation that rules the continent whereas the others are merely hangers on who came for purely economic reasons.
Blacks resist assimilation to the point where they think of themselves as a separate nation. Seems to be changing as black men go with other women in high numbers which seems to piss off black females.
The most important point is what is a American? Do we have a common purpose or are we separate tribes jockeying for spoils? Unless we assimilate to the founding stock and with each other, common purpose will not happen. First step is still to shut off legal migration like the first half of the 20th century and rid our land of illegals. After that, we can talk more.
Most black men reproduce with black women. Intermarriage is exceedingly rare. Far more white men are marrying Hispanic and Asian women than out-partnering among black men.
This religious identity is counterproductive, like you said. It includes many different races. A racial identity would be more appropriate. Not to mention, Christianity is gradually fading around the world.
A racial identity would include some groups that may currently have different religions: White European Christians, White Balkan (European) Muslims, and White (European/Ashkenazi) Jews. A religious Christian identity includes some groups that are of different races: White European Christians, Hispanic Christians, and Black Christians. If race is the bigger issue, then a multiracial religious identity isn't the right paradigm.
What ever is less important than family but more important than country is a tribe. What's the big deal?
Centering your message around Christianity is always the best way to go, as long as it doesn't let bad faith actors into the mix to play to the perceived "Judge Not" principle that non-Christians like to throw out there. Need to stand against mass immigration, lax abortion laws, and support for Israel. Creating a American Christian coalition needs to make the group and nation stronger, not opening it up crap policies for the sake of "being nice".
If your thesis is true, than the right is done. The youth aren’t religious at all, and modern America Christian ethics and aesthetics are a joke. There is no political solution. Electoral politics will get us nowhere. Start forming militias.
I don't personally like the religious tone of the new New Right. Sounds like the old right to me - the right of Ralph Reed, except with less emphasis on capitalism. JD himself is opening himself up to criticism and unpopularity...his wife is Hindoo. So is Vivek. There are plenty of Jews in the New Right.
If you're Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and everyone else needs to come to Jesus, it's very easy for that to morph into hating on Hindus (as is happening) and be anti-Semitic (also happening). More overt Christians are calling Hindus pagans. Of course we got the Christ-killer thing. JD Vance almost certainly reads this stuff? Where does it lead to?
Vance probably hopes that kind, welcoming Christians is the way. Live by example and proselytize that way. I'm afraid that has been tried, and we are seeing the results as giant statues of Hanuman are being erected, and mosques popping up like vape shops.
Yes, Smack right on. People are blissfully unaware that Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. It was a substitution and an adaptation by Paul to the Roman Empire, which then allowed the Emperor Constantine to create a Disney version at the Council of Nicea. People are also blissfully unaware that at least one of the founders of the USA, Thomas Jefferson, was highly aware of the chasm between Jesus and Paul, and developed his own distillation of the teachings of Jesus, the so-called Jefferson Bible, in an attempt to lift the teachings of Jesus out of the deadly embrace of Christianity. Since the gradual rediscovery of many texts and traditions that were exorcised from Christianity, most notably the Gospel of Thomas, it is now plain to all that studying and following Jesus are different from being a Christian. Jefferson could not stand the Church, and while I do not always agree with his selection, it is very interesting that he developed that little book, which was a clear statement that he disagreed with the church reading of Jesus, through the editorial lense of Paul and the Nicene creed. In the end, I am a bit sceptical of Jefferson´s reading, but at least he made the effort. He could not stand sitting in church, because he disagreed with their reading so completely.
Okay buddy
lol at thinking Thomas Jefferson's arts and crafts project (he created this bible with a razor and glue) is deep and insightful. I asked Scott about Deism among the Founding Fathers and he responded that it was more intellectually satisfyingly view than one provided by the clergy of the day, who were frequently semi-literate preachers ranting about the scriptures.
In Europe, about a hundred years after Martin Luther, it was Spinoza who questioned a lot about the Judaeo-Christian theological concepts, and that was not particularly appreciated at the time, but he influenced a lot of people. Spinoza was very perceptive in the way he viewed the discrepancies between Jesus and Paul, and this conversation was very much around in Paris in the time TJ hung out there, so I think that fed into his sort of private falling out with the prevailing churches, which he attended more as a social function, less as a spiritual or religious function. Privately he just developed his own views of the matter, but was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of discussing that more widely except with some of his closest friends, like Dr. Benjamin Rush.
Hey, I’m 100% an atheist and on board with a lot but I’d quibble with a few things. The council of Nicea was not about creating a Disney version of Christianity. It was called for the sake of unity. The issue at hand was 1. Was Christ created sometime in eternity past by the Father and thus not fully 100% God in the same sense as the Father is, or 2. Christ is eternal and 100% God and of the same substance as the Father. There are endless amounts attempts at attaching pet theories to the council of Nicea. Also, I doubt a single critical secular scholar thinks that the gospel of Thomas represents in any way the earliest form of Christianity. Though, I would totally agree with you that modern evangelical Christianity would be quite shocked if they could time travel to Jerusalem in 35 A.D. and ask some christians about what they believe.
I wrote a book about the Thomas Gospel in 2007 and at the time I found that among the critical scholarship, the view that GoTh dated before Mark (ca 65 AD) was becoming prevalent, if nothing else because stylistically, it was clear that it's simple "sayings" (logia) were more the more bare bones forms of things that were later dressed up in the Canonical Gospels. The first translation was in Dutch in 1959 by Prof. Gilles Quispel and he placed Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century, and called it gnostic. That has tended to be the reaction of churchianity as a whole, since some of the Thomas saying clearly do not fit comfortably in the Pauline theological framework. The transition from a lived experiential reality that Jesus taught to a moral, religious conviction starts with Paul. It culminates with the Council of Nicea, which renders Jesus suitable for Imperial Ambition. Still, by that time, Jesus has long since left the building, and we're fully inside the Pauline theological framework, which contradicts him on many levels. Spinoza was one of the first rigorous critics of this state of affairs.
Oh no… now they’re gonna start talking about that stupid abortion issue again, and push us into another 8 year ObamaReich
Scott as you kind of hint at. I do not see how this is an improvement. Maga has given up the fight for other traditional moral pillars. Trump ran on being explicitly pro LGBT and he just does the same Christ is king shtick of the bush years but fights over less and let's the left win more.
I have said I do not find Trump to be a significant approval over the neo cons he replaced.
Race>Religion. "Ethnically Protestant" countries only. E.g. England, Iceland, Scandinavia, Finland, Netherlands, German, Switzerland. I guess Scotland, too.
Big mistake. This stuff is as outdated and unpopular with most forgotten americans as the foreign adventures of the neo-conservatives. It's last gasping breath was the aggressive proselytizing of the war mongering evangelicals during Iraq and Bush II twenty years ago. What right have they got to pretend they're so different and that they aren't the war mongers they were back then, and what right have they to wrest control of the party from the racially conscious secular right that helped deliver America for Trump? Many of these idiot christian zealots are the sons and daughters of people who voted us into Iraq. They don't care one whit about white people. Leopards don't change their spots. Their guy was Jeb Bush and people have had enough. Trying to rebrand themselves as populists is laughably transparent. Most of them are stinking rich. People actually struggling have better things to do than get up early on a Sunday and go to some tacky building to listen to tacky music. Don't allow them any power. Completely sideline them. Shun them the way you would the woke, a race traitor or the non whites who want you dead. They'll take us right back to 2005 and get us into another war. Maybe the final war to end everything. They should be stripped of citizenship, their votes suppressed, and deported from America along with the non whites. Congo is 95 percent Christian. I'm sure they'll have a great time.
There’s a good chance we see a resurgence in sectarian conflict if this continues. If “American Christianity” becomes the lodestar for the Right’s identity then we’ll probably see a lot more public conflict on the Right over the contours and content of that Christianity. It would be an easy pressure point for the Left to push on to try and fracture the coalition post-Trump.