Dear Mr. Wright, thank you very much! 1956 was a counter revolution! But in 1990 told us it was uprising. This was, and still is, the narrative legitimizing the regime change. But 1956 was the last heartbeat of Hungarians... In 1526, there were 4 million Hungarians, just like the English population in England. In 1848 the population of the Hungarians Kingdom was 10 million, of wich 4 million was ethnically Hungarians. In 1867 according to the Austro-Hungarian agreement 1,5 million Galician immigrants had to be given Hungarians citizenship. Thanks to this, the country's population increased from 10 to 13,6 million by 1869, of wich 4 million were still ethnic Hungarians. In 1920 only 3 million, etc... The first population exchange program in Europe was in Hungary (in 1867). Plus, in November 1956, after the counter-revolution was crushed, legal abortion was introduced. Since then, about 7 million children have been aborted. During covid, 70% of the population was vaccinated, while only 14% of Romanians were. In general, someone is either a Christian or a suicide. And this is as true of nations as of men...
Oh no - thank you. I mean to write in more detail about the counter-revolution (as you correctly put it and I did not).
This version of history is one I found came from the accounts of Hungarians themselves - and not from historians of the liberal consensus, nor from other Bolshevist apologists.
It is extremely encouraging to hear from you on this matter, as though in this case it is your national story and not mine which is being traduced - by the same means, so are those of us all.
Yes he did, and yes he did, and no he is not the only one to note it. The leader, his politburo, and the secret police were all Jewish, and the Hungarians in the uprising gave that as the reason for it. I would go into detail, but it seemed incongruous to do so.
Well AJP Taylor said Irving was meticulous in his research. Irving has just been branded as Satan, by demons - if you like. AJP Taylor's own book on WW2 said the war had "no heroes". Hitchens has also done his "Phoney Victory" on the myth of WW2.
I think the facts are becoming less controversial because the ruling mythology of post-WW2 empire is dissolving.
I think in short that US interests were seen as being served by supporting Israel's constant warmongering in the region. Especially from the 1970s. It is not the 1970s anymore, and this has changed. A regional war is not in the US interest, it did not secure signifcantly increased oil flows from Syria and Iraq, has lost Yemen, and the French have lost the Sahel.
The result of all this Herman Kahn trickery has been to destroy, and not to expand and secure, US hegemony.
I think this is an example of the LOL/NOTLOL loop.
Kahn was at the Hudson Institute - a sort of deep state cauldron of evil spells. I think he founded it. Anyway, he and others ("neocons") went for domination by proxy through Israel. It did not work.
Proxy was the way because (a) The Soviet Union and (b) the problems of force projection. US was weary of war in the 1970s, and would not support large scale overseas troop deployments
Afghan was a proxy war. The withdrawal of the Russians in 1978 is celebrated as a defining victory for this mode of imperial or grand strategy warfare - which is now being repeated in Ukraine.
I don't think the mujas were the only reason the Russians left. If you read Afgantsy, which I liked a lot, it goes on about the failed but extremely ambitious project of Soviet "nation-building" in Afghanistan.
It was proof of concept - the concept being proven that "nation building" was an expensive quagmire which cannot be achieved.
This was undertaken in postwar Iraq, of course, with the same results.
I truly detest people who say that liberalism is Christianity without Christ. Detest and despise. And denounce.
That Frank Wright could be capable of such unmitigated dreck neatly encapsulates the reason why his missives, tinselly as they often are, nonetheless lack inner depth and provide no reason to return for more. This is horrible thinking. Horrible, rotten filth from a dissident thinker operating at Level 2. The problems of the modern world require Level 200 to confront, or more.
Liberalism is not Christianity without Christ, as if there were even the semblance or the faintest intention of anything good about it. Paganism, Platonism, and the Mosaic Law can all make plausible claims to being something like Christianity without Christ, as they were robust systems that were awaiting their crowning glory; but liberalism is nothing like this at all. Liberalism is midwit humanism without balls.
Do not besmirch the holy name of Christianity by relating it to this faggy universalism! That's like something a high school atheist would say. God, I cannot wait to have done with all you driblets who speak in this manner. Let modernity have a better class of critic before it is slain, lest we not know it for the evil it is.
I pointed out that "Christianity absent Christ" is the argument of both the critics and the authors of Liberalism, and it is widely accepted as such. I also pointed out this idea was crystallised in the writings of Matthew Arnold. It is the intended goal of the liberal idea, as promoted by Classical Humanists like Arnold and Russell, as well as pragmatists like John Dewey. It is a fact this is the case, not an opinion, and both teams for and against agree on this. See John Gray for a summary of progress generally and this in particular in his Seven Types of Atheism.
I do not think this is a Good Thing. I am making the case as to why it is a Bad Thing, as the general idea is to replace God, and also remove the foundation of Western civilisation in the Catholic Church.
I do not promote Liberalism and am writing a history of its development, and the anti-civilisational movement which now goes under its name. I am naming the architects and the architecture of the system we inhabit, to promote understanding of the process by which our Christian civilisation is being replaced.
I mean, if you read the footnote I call the Cromwellites and the Whigs which followed him the Islam of the West, which is a fairly obvious indication of my lack of sympathy for these proto-Liberals.
My opinion on state-suicide is profoundly anti-christian. Much like abortion, my opinions on “assisted dying” largely depend on who is doing it (and who is being paid to inflict it, but thats a separate discussion)
Is the person killing themselves a straight white male? Then its clearly and obviously bad.
Is it a mentally deranged biracial trisexual? To be honest I’d be glad if they’re put out of my misery, and I’ll support things that take out vast quantities of them.
This is candid. I think demonic practices barbarise us all, and it is hard to recognise the value of life disfigured by evil. In a world where justice is gamed against the just, I understand the view of "just deserts".
I’ve given it a bit more thought and I think I know where our fundamental disagreement is stemming from, Frank. I’ve completely rejected universalism.
In the “bad” old days the idea that anyone could be saved because god was good and loved them was extremely popular. This allowed christianity to spread so readily, to so many different peoples.
Then the roman empire fell, and europe was besieged by outsiders (persia, stepp raiders, then the muslims), creating the need for a bastion of christian countries. Welcome to the world united christendom.
As these kingdoms survived and prospered and perfected war against one another, they began to create the beginnings of mass travel. The inca and aztecs were felled, africa was explored, and china was brought to heel. And all of these peoples were to embrace god and experience his love, or so the europeans thought. Common universal morality for a common universal humanity.
Unfortunately there is no universal humanity, and as such, there is no possible universal morality that can exist. Back to the story.
Then the western man prospered, and the world looked on with hatred and envy and legitimate anger for being conquered, and they coveted what the western man had done, and desired his great wealth. Not understanding it was the love shared by god and his children which had made it all possible.
God loves everyone equally, and with that love he is smothering western man, and if western man clings to a god who loves all equally, he will be no more.
In conclusion, neither man nor god had fundamentally changed since the bad old days, but the world itself certainly has.
There is no universal ethics arising from custom, which liberals will concede but only quietly. Look at Appiah's "Cosmopolitanism" for an example.
The Catholic religion is essentialist, meaning it asserts the essential and non-attributed value of human life. Following its doctrine, moral claims are tested accordingly. Practically this means natural philosophy - the pursuit of the true, discernment, correspondence between acts and facts and names etc.
I don't think man any better or worse than he has always been. Wickedness has its seasons, as does civilisation generally. Ours is a time of barbarism and of vice as virtue. This is easy to deal with if you simply replace any mention of virtues with their opposites: "rights" with "wrongs" and "good" with "bad".
Rights and goodness do exist of course, but their names are put to bad uses. I think this can be corrected, as people largely believe what they repeatedly hear, being rudderless in the abandonment of God.
I used to be a rationalist clever clogs myself. I realised that there simply is no wider moral framework in the rejection of God, and that all the attempts to create one produce nightmares from the dream of utopia. I don't think the explanatory power of Catholic tradition can be equalled, aside from its claims to exclusive Divine inspiration, which I also hold to be true. Of courshe, as Bane said.
So I disagree that my faith is the root of the decline of the West. I think the Church has been occupied by its enemies, who seek to complete the total "modernisation" of Christianity, which is to cut off its roots and replace it with the Universal Algorithm of technocratic global ideology.
Once again, Frank's kickin' ass and taking names (as we used to say in the old neighborhood).
Dear Mr. Wright, thank you very much! 1956 was a counter revolution! But in 1990 told us it was uprising. This was, and still is, the narrative legitimizing the regime change. But 1956 was the last heartbeat of Hungarians... In 1526, there were 4 million Hungarians, just like the English population in England. In 1848 the population of the Hungarians Kingdom was 10 million, of wich 4 million was ethnically Hungarians. In 1867 according to the Austro-Hungarian agreement 1,5 million Galician immigrants had to be given Hungarians citizenship. Thanks to this, the country's population increased from 10 to 13,6 million by 1869, of wich 4 million were still ethnic Hungarians. In 1920 only 3 million, etc... The first population exchange program in Europe was in Hungary (in 1867). Plus, in November 1956, after the counter-revolution was crushed, legal abortion was introduced. Since then, about 7 million children have been aborted. During covid, 70% of the population was vaccinated, while only 14% of Romanians were. In general, someone is either a Christian or a suicide. And this is as true of nations as of men...
Oh no - thank you. I mean to write in more detail about the counter-revolution (as you correctly put it and I did not).
This version of history is one I found came from the accounts of Hungarians themselves - and not from historians of the liberal consensus, nor from other Bolshevist apologists.
It is extremely encouraging to hear from you on this matter, as though in this case it is your national story and not mine which is being traduced - by the same means, so are those of us all.
“A brief smile on her pitiless face” gave me a wide smile
David irving wrote uprising Hungary 1956, can't recall if he delves into the inordinate number of commisars that spoke Yiddish.
Yes he did, and yes he did, and no he is not the only one to note it. The leader, his politburo, and the secret police were all Jewish, and the Hungarians in the uprising gave that as the reason for it. I would go into detail, but it seemed incongruous to do so.
I think this less controversial than calling Cromwell the Islam of the West, but what do I know. No triggered Whigs here today it seems.
Thanks for the reply usually irving is enough to send many to melting, chromwell in a burka might do the trick. God bless!
Well AJP Taylor said Irving was meticulous in his research. Irving has just been branded as Satan, by demons - if you like. AJP Taylor's own book on WW2 said the war had "no heroes". Hitchens has also done his "Phoney Victory" on the myth of WW2.
I think the facts are becoming less controversial because the ruling mythology of post-WW2 empire is dissolving.
I think in short that US interests were seen as being served by supporting Israel's constant warmongering in the region. Especially from the 1970s. It is not the 1970s anymore, and this has changed. A regional war is not in the US interest, it did not secure signifcantly increased oil flows from Syria and Iraq, has lost Yemen, and the French have lost the Sahel.
The result of all this Herman Kahn trickery has been to destroy, and not to expand and secure, US hegemony.
I think this is an example of the LOL/NOTLOL loop.
Kahn was at the Hudson Institute - a sort of deep state cauldron of evil spells. I think he founded it. Anyway, he and others ("neocons") went for domination by proxy through Israel. It did not work.
Proxy was the way because (a) The Soviet Union and (b) the problems of force projection. US was weary of war in the 1970s, and would not support large scale overseas troop deployments
Afghan was a proxy war. The withdrawal of the Russians in 1978 is celebrated as a defining victory for this mode of imperial or grand strategy warfare - which is now being repeated in Ukraine.
I don't think the mujas were the only reason the Russians left. If you read Afgantsy, which I liked a lot, it goes on about the failed but extremely ambitious project of Soviet "nation-building" in Afghanistan.
It was proof of concept - the concept being proven that "nation building" was an expensive quagmire which cannot be achieved.
This was undertaken in postwar Iraq, of course, with the same results.
“Cromwell in a burka” is a top ai prompt and I have to do this now - thanks RBB!
"In the cult of race grievance, reparations are demanded for having been time travelled without consent into civilisation. Forever."
Okay, Frank, I give up. What does this "time travelled without consent into civilisation" mean?
“Slavery was a fair price to pay for civilisation”
I dearly love your high-brow style. Maybe one day I'll understand it:)
I am sorry. I can't help it. In reality, I have a monobrow if that is any consolation.
I truly detest people who say that liberalism is Christianity without Christ. Detest and despise. And denounce.
That Frank Wright could be capable of such unmitigated dreck neatly encapsulates the reason why his missives, tinselly as they often are, nonetheless lack inner depth and provide no reason to return for more. This is horrible thinking. Horrible, rotten filth from a dissident thinker operating at Level 2. The problems of the modern world require Level 200 to confront, or more.
Liberalism is not Christianity without Christ, as if there were even the semblance or the faintest intention of anything good about it. Paganism, Platonism, and the Mosaic Law can all make plausible claims to being something like Christianity without Christ, as they were robust systems that were awaiting their crowning glory; but liberalism is nothing like this at all. Liberalism is midwit humanism without balls.
Do not besmirch the holy name of Christianity by relating it to this faggy universalism! That's like something a high school atheist would say. God, I cannot wait to have done with all you driblets who speak in this manner. Let modernity have a better class of critic before it is slain, lest we not know it for the evil it is.
I pointed out that "Christianity absent Christ" is the argument of both the critics and the authors of Liberalism, and it is widely accepted as such. I also pointed out this idea was crystallised in the writings of Matthew Arnold. It is the intended goal of the liberal idea, as promoted by Classical Humanists like Arnold and Russell, as well as pragmatists like John Dewey. It is a fact this is the case, not an opinion, and both teams for and against agree on this. See John Gray for a summary of progress generally and this in particular in his Seven Types of Atheism.
I do not think this is a Good Thing. I am making the case as to why it is a Bad Thing, as the general idea is to replace God, and also remove the foundation of Western civilisation in the Catholic Church.
I do not promote Liberalism and am writing a history of its development, and the anti-civilisational movement which now goes under its name. I am naming the architects and the architecture of the system we inhabit, to promote understanding of the process by which our Christian civilisation is being replaced.
I mean, if you read the footnote I call the Cromwellites and the Whigs which followed him the Islam of the West, which is a fairly obvious indication of my lack of sympathy for these proto-Liberals.
I still think your username is funny, though I have no time for Heidegger.
My opinion on state-suicide is profoundly anti-christian. Much like abortion, my opinions on “assisted dying” largely depend on who is doing it (and who is being paid to inflict it, but thats a separate discussion)
Is the person killing themselves a straight white male? Then its clearly and obviously bad.
Is it a mentally deranged biracial trisexual? To be honest I’d be glad if they’re put out of my misery, and I’ll support things that take out vast quantities of them.
This is candid. I think demonic practices barbarise us all, and it is hard to recognise the value of life disfigured by evil. In a world where justice is gamed against the just, I understand the view of "just deserts".
I see it as amputating a rotting limb, not revenge. In a just world the limb wouldn’t be rotten in the first place.
The Project could be summarised as the replacement of the living with the undead, so I take your point.
I’ve given it a bit more thought and I think I know where our fundamental disagreement is stemming from, Frank. I’ve completely rejected universalism.
In the “bad” old days the idea that anyone could be saved because god was good and loved them was extremely popular. This allowed christianity to spread so readily, to so many different peoples.
Then the roman empire fell, and europe was besieged by outsiders (persia, stepp raiders, then the muslims), creating the need for a bastion of christian countries. Welcome to the world united christendom.
As these kingdoms survived and prospered and perfected war against one another, they began to create the beginnings of mass travel. The inca and aztecs were felled, africa was explored, and china was brought to heel. And all of these peoples were to embrace god and experience his love, or so the europeans thought. Common universal morality for a common universal humanity.
Unfortunately there is no universal humanity, and as such, there is no possible universal morality that can exist. Back to the story.
Then the western man prospered, and the world looked on with hatred and envy and legitimate anger for being conquered, and they coveted what the western man had done, and desired his great wealth. Not understanding it was the love shared by god and his children which had made it all possible.
God loves everyone equally, and with that love he is smothering western man, and if western man clings to a god who loves all equally, he will be no more.
In conclusion, neither man nor god had fundamentally changed since the bad old days, but the world itself certainly has.
There is no universal ethics arising from custom, which liberals will concede but only quietly. Look at Appiah's "Cosmopolitanism" for an example.
The Catholic religion is essentialist, meaning it asserts the essential and non-attributed value of human life. Following its doctrine, moral claims are tested accordingly. Practically this means natural philosophy - the pursuit of the true, discernment, correspondence between acts and facts and names etc.
I don't think man any better or worse than he has always been. Wickedness has its seasons, as does civilisation generally. Ours is a time of barbarism and of vice as virtue. This is easy to deal with if you simply replace any mention of virtues with their opposites: "rights" with "wrongs" and "good" with "bad".
Rights and goodness do exist of course, but their names are put to bad uses. I think this can be corrected, as people largely believe what they repeatedly hear, being rudderless in the abandonment of God.
I used to be a rationalist clever clogs myself. I realised that there simply is no wider moral framework in the rejection of God, and that all the attempts to create one produce nightmares from the dream of utopia. I don't think the explanatory power of Catholic tradition can be equalled, aside from its claims to exclusive Divine inspiration, which I also hold to be true. Of courshe, as Bane said.
So I disagree that my faith is the root of the decline of the West. I think the Church has been occupied by its enemies, who seek to complete the total "modernisation" of Christianity, which is to cut off its roots and replace it with the Universal Algorithm of technocratic global ideology.
Love your note on Parsifal. Was this why the British clubs decided to annihilate Germany?
I think the intention was to inflict a wound that did not heal, if that is what you mean by the grouped “Focus” on Germany, Mr Cook.
You are reliably well informed and often more so than I am, so I follow you on this point.