Contra Parrott 2.0: Hitler Was A Modernist

By Todd Lewis

It seems clear that Matt Parrott has, like the Bourbons of old, “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” It is clear that he did not bone-up on his critical thinking skills after that last encounter, though he had ample time to do so. As the saying goes: if you get flak, you are probably over the target. It is sad that there was more butt-hurt than logic in his response. I was hoping for something better. Clearly Mr. Parrott is responding to some other person named Todd Lewis, a creature of his own imagination. If you cut through the muddled thinking, he accuses me of being anti-white, which in reality is a WN form of signaling much akin to the SJWs. I’m not in his club. Big deal. In his words, “While his attack is directed at me, his purpose is to drive a wedge between identity and tradition.” This is the crux of his error. A logical and theological wedge was already in place from the outset of his scheme. I had nothing to do with it. The only missing piece was time, and when enough had passed, NPI slammed the door in his face. This really did happen. This was going to happen. Deal with it.

 

Continue Reading

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Contra Parrott 2.0: Hitler Was A Modernist”

  1. Pretty astute in most regards.
    His writings are certainly emotion based and do parallel that of far left blogs.
    The reality is he is not a Christian, at least as far as that term has been historically understood. He’s more a syncretist along the lines of the Gnostics. He may not share their dualism but his views on race certainly impact the soul and its nature, conflating the two in a manner foreign to the understandings of the Fathers.
    And he certainly doesn’t understand that nor that his views raise Chritological concerns because he doesn’t understand the subtleties and nuances of the Fathers and Orthodox Christology which is at the heart of what we believe and his we act in the world. One small error and the entire system goes astray. That’s why we’re vigilant against heresy.
    But then again how could he? He was shown the door before completing catechism (one that if Heimbach is an example is far too short) thus impeding his rooting in the faith. Instead of the totality of the Fathers he focuses on a select number of quotes from Chrysostom and fills in the gaps with comments from Codreanu, Devola, Dugin and others who aren’t Fathers, let alone saints and who’s concerns are primarily secular.

    1. Matt Parrott and Tradyouth is a sad example of Christians being unequally yoked to unbelievers and loot where it has gotten them.

  2. I’ll as well that of course there is nothing traditional, in an Orthodox sense, about the racial views held by Parrott simply because they are the product of modern thought and philosophy not to be found in either the Fathers or antiquity. The closest one may find to these notions might, and I stress might, be in Manichaean and other Gnostic-like groups. And that might be a stretch. Antiquity understood “race” quite differently.
    Certainly Strabo writing about the Celts had a different understanding if race when he said the “whole race is war mad” if only because the Celts were loosely federated tribes bound by language and religion not necessarily skin colour and it was those things that constituted their έθνος, not their skin colour. I’m trying to find an original Latin or Greek copy of that quite because I’m sure race isn’t the correct or at least best translation of what he wrote. But one thing is clear he didn’t see Celts as being a different biological entity from his own based on skin colour. And if he did Parrott is in bad shape because that means the Celts are a different race than Greeks, Italians, Slavs, assorted Grrmanic tribes and all the other groups he envisions as part of his racially separate kingdom and thus they cannot be included in it.

    1. Your absolutely right in your understanding of how ancients viewed race. Racism is modern phenomena based heavily on the enlightenment and Darwinism.

  3. While I don’t agree with you on the race issue, Parrott certainly is not a Christian and that is more and more evident the more I read from him and interact with him. Parrott is a Perennialist. Orthodox Christianity is just the venue from which he personally identifies for his current “nation”. A true Christian is one who has died with Christ and lives unto him. He no longer does his own will his life manifests the fruit of the spirit of God. This Parrott does not have in the least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s