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.

This response will deal with two main aspects of Mr. Parrott’s emotional response:

(1) Pick apart the utter lack of logic or reason in his response.

(2) Discuss the facts pertaining to the WN community.

Let us deal with each argument that Parrot gives…

I charged him with beliefs he does not hold:

“After that run-in, one would think he would know better than to charge at me with a bunch of half-baked assumptions.”

I see someone found his internet-muscles. Which is why he presumes to attack me with half-baked assumptions. Does Mr. Parrott seem to have a solid grasp of basic rational thought? In this case, not so much.

“He’s a typical anti-White fundamentalist type who carelessly and cluelessly conflates fundamentalism and traditionalism. While his antiquarian fundamentalism and orbiting affiliation with the New Right makes it non-obvious, his arguments and positions are fundamentally indistinguishable from your generic anti-White troll.”

This is classic SJW signaling. Notice, no evidence is proposed; I’m merely excommunicated from a club I do not seek to belong to in the first place. I would love to see the conflations I have made between fundamentalism and traditionalism. This confirms a view I have held for a while now: traditionalism has been hijacked by a deviant ideology which is the doppelganger of liberal SJWs. I guess Mr. Parrott and Tim Wise are really on the same side after all, or at least use the same playbook. Think about it. Both are racialists. The former is a white racialist and the latter a Jewish racialist. Both lash out at people as either communists in the case of Mr. Parrott or Nazi’s in the case of Mr. Wise. See a trend here?

Let us just say that when it comes to my discussion of Nazism, we see that Mr. Parrott’s reading comprehension is the result of a school run on the principles of Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Clearly I was not insinuating that Mr. Parrott was a Nazi. Rather, that if he does not have Stockholm Syndrome he should not side with people who desire his extinction. It is clear from vintage Nazi material and current Neo-Nazi literature that the “dead Jew on a stick” and His followers are next. I will respond in more detail once Mr. Parrott responds to what I actually said.

Mr. Parrott shows his logical bonafides, or lack thereof, by arguing that Romans 9:3 implies a racially-aware and segregated Christianity. Let’s see what Parrott is lacking to justify this dangerous notion. I will do him the favor of writing part of the syllogism he needs:

If Paul wished for the damning of his own soul for the salvation of the Jews,

then B is true.

If B is true, we should be white nationalists and segregate the body of Christ.

Well the key thing here is that Mr. Parrott did not supply the B premise. I sense there will be a lot more missing Bs in the future, and I doubt he can supply them.

We also see this syllogism about my alleged beliefs about Clement and the Swiss Kinist:

If one condemns racial identity,

then B is true.

If B is true, that person must consider people who seek to preserve their race as heretical.

Really? Again Mr. Parrott has failed to supply the B premise. As per usual, Mr. Parrott goes on about how all Christians before the twentieth century were racial supremacists like himself, without giving any evidence. See another trend here? Long on bloviating, but short on evidence. I guess that’s why Timothy and his mother Eunice were segregated in their Jewish quarters in the church?  Oh! I forgot…they weren’t!  He seems to be laboring under the delusion that Clement, the Swiss Kinist, and I are all collaborating together on something; surely Mr. Parrott has enough gray matter to understand that one can agree with someone and voice that agreement without allying or otherwise collaborating with them. We really see Mr. Parrott’s SJW attitude here. We have seen this kind of behavior from the Left many times before.

“As an anti-White, you’re not really a welcome part of that discourse.”

Mr. Parrott, if you’re not a doppelganger of SJWs please let us know since you sure sound like one. Mr. Parrott has this Alex Jones-style conspiracy theory about the fall of Codreanu was betrayed by the egalitarian clergy, or in his words:

“Of course, Corneliu Codreanu was ultimately undone by degenerate clergy and nobility.”

Oh, so I get it…the Romanian clergy of the 1930s were racial egalitarians like myself. So much for being on the side of Christendom. Mr. Parrott is only on the side of Christendom, until and unless, it contradicts him. Funny how that works.

Mr. Parrott goes on to argue that I support allowing all Syrians into the US, despite the fact that most of them are Muslim. Well I guess if Mr. Parrott used his reading comprehension skills before composing his masterpiece in mud-slinging he would notice that I said Syrian brothers, which implies brothers in Christ. So yes, unless he seeks to violate James 2:16, I hope Mr. Parrott would give aid to his brothers in Syria. Clearly Mr. Parrott in his unstable emotional state is failing to supply the B premise yet again and jumping to wild conclusions, much like, you guessed it, an SJW. If Mr. Parrott would ever like to debate the finer points of theology I am prepared to do so when he makes the call. I won’t be holding my breath.

We see the real thrust of Mr. Parrott’s, anger here: “Just cut the theological crap and admit you’re anti-White.” If Mr. Parrott really wants to play that game, despite the absurdity of such a claim, had he only taken the time to ask myself or Keith Preston or others what I believe, his response could have been much shorter and useful. Mr. Parrott needs to stop his sophistry and admit that he is anti-Christian and, more specifically, anti-Pauline since he has a very difficult time grasping the importance of Ephesians 2:11-22. Now I don’t know what “dividing wall” or “one new man” means to Mr. Parrott, but I read them to mean just what they say.

This next one has to be one of the most bizarre statements. We are getting to a twilight zone-level of disconnect from reality here:

“If, as you insist, that loving your race is an outright anti-Christian position, then your Christian duty is perhaps to become a missionary in Africa, going from village to village demanding that they abandon their racial and tribal loyalties. We both know you won’t do that, because your prerogative is enforcing the Modern anti-White taboo, and a disingenuous reliance on theological arguments is the way to go about that when attacking your fellow Christians.”

First of all, there are already vast numbers of actual Christians engaged in that very activity! And of course he knows this, but what’s his point? His point is that if you do not love your race more than another race, then you hate your own race. But this is false dichotomy. It is possible to love all races equally. What does that mean? That one’s race is ultimately irrelevant to one’s salvation, and that one’s duty to spread the gospel is not restrained by the skin color of his audience!

Mr. Parrott said to the Swiss Kinist in the comment section of his response to me: “If you think that you must choose either your faith or your folk, then you are already anti-white.” But Christ in fact destroyed Jewish ethno-supremacy in the name of faith! Since you are obviously a phyletist, why don’t you disavow you’re Orthodox “loyalties?” You know, since the Orthodox are self-hating race-traitors. But we both know you won’t do that, because you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You’d much prefer to sucker in gullible Christians while clinging to your anti-Christian taboos of Nazism, White-Nationalism, and Neo-Paganism.

I guess Mr. Parrott must also think that Mr. Conservative himself, Bill Lind, is an anti-white socialist liberal as well, since our positions on race and Christianity are not so different. If one doubts what I am saying, purchase Mr. Lind’s excellent book Victoria, through the Traditional Right’s Amazon portal, of course. Mr. Parrott is just a modernist and a denier of Paul’s teachings on “the one new man.” I guess he missed the memo on segregated Churches. Also, where exactly did Christ talk about the preservation of racial supremacy? I thought he came to destroy Jewish racial supremacy? It appears that just as Don Quixote enthralled himself by tilting at imaginary windmills, so, too, does Mr. Parrott enjoy LARPing and generally doing damage control on a marriage doomed to divorce.

Mr. Parrott, after whining about me not bothering to read up on his views, then proceeds to do the same. He argues that I don’t attack theonomists as a whole, and because kinism is a special snow flake I need to leave off. Well, if he had bothered to go to American Vision, one of the premier theonomist websites, he would have seen that I had a two week debate with a theonomist over three articles in the comment section. Here ( here ( and here ( I also spent the better part of a year arguing theonomy with a friend of mine about two years ago. In fact if you tally up all the time I spent on kinism, I have spent far less on it than theonomy as a whole. So unless Don Quixote, ahem, Mr.Parrott, desists from tilting at windmills, I don’t know what else to say. Mr. Parrott does correctly understand that I attacked him implicitly, but due to the nature of implicit attacks being indirect, and due to his lack of reading comprehension skills, he sadly missed the intended mark. The point clearly flew right over his head.

Again, this so-called “wedge” that he has accused me of attempting to drive into his scheme is not of my doing; it was already there. Has NPI faded from your memory so soon? Seem to channeling your inner Galatian, huh? Also, if you read the comment sections of Radix Journal, Counter-Currents, and a host of other WN websites, a general sense of hostility between traditionalist and WN is brewing. We already saw it when Greg Johnson essentially excommunicated Alexander Dugin and his supporters after he chose to support the Jewish backed Nazi’s in the Ukraine over the Russian-speaking rebels.

Having weighed Mr. Parrott’s arguments in the balance and found them wanting, we see little more than an emotional rant based on butt-hurt with little to no contact with reality. I do hope he slays that imaginary dragon; it sounds horrible. So that my position is clear and present to the reader, let me say plainly that TYN is a circus show with everything from bearded ladies to fire-breathers. Why Mr. Parrott chooses to associate with a small Judaizing sect within a small Judaizing sect, atheists, neo-pagans and nihilists, all of whom (except for Theonomists) hate and seek to destroy Christianity, is beyond me. White Nationalism is really Marxism for the right. Like Marxism, WN invents an class of beings complete with its own phony ontology – racial identity – which bizarrely correlates with Marxist class, and then demands that we bow down to it. Where Marx saw economic materialism, WN sees racial materialism. To see the absurdity of Marx’ thought, consider what common class solidarity does a farmer in Kansas, Bavaria, and the Donbass have in common? Practically nothing, as WW1 showed. What racial solidarity do those same farmers have? Practically nothing, as nationalism shows. Marxism and White Nationalism are two sides of the same coin. They both posit non-existent entities (which are ultimately elevated to the status of gods) and demand that we bow down to them. The White Nationalist community as a whole is really just a doppelganger of the SJWs they hate. Structurally, their movements are based on the same standard of witch hunts, signaling, and excommunication. If Mr. Parrott’s personal beliefs were edited out, his response would be largely indistinguishable from those SJWs who congregate around Huffington Post, Jezebel, and Salon. If you look closely enough, he really is that formulaic. Structurally, WN and SJWs are the same; the only difference is the content contained in those structures.

Now, I know Don Quixote is going to claim I’m saying he identical to SJWs. Because this kind of thing seems to happen all the time in every kind of discourse, let me take some time to clarify this for him using the idea of logical statements. Logical statements have both structure (syntax) and content (semantics). A particular logical structure is identical to itself by virtue of the Law of Identity, and as such is a kind of universal. However, a logical statement’s content is not identical to that statement’s structure by virtue of the Law of Non-Contradiction, and as such is a kind of particular. Thus, it is the case that two contrary statements, say one by a WN and another by an SJW, could both inhere in the same logical structure and yet disagree on content and conclusion. The two statements are the same in one way but different in another. If this troubles you, read Aristotle. Just as this is the case in the structure of logic, so, too, can it be the case in the structure of movements. Here, we can see that the SWJs and WN don’t actually disagree on methodology (witch hunts, signaling, and excommunication), and yet WNs continually disparage the methods of SJWs without once thinking about looking into a mirror for a change. Ironically, when it comes to methodology in your movements, you really are looking into a mirror. If he insists, against reason itself, that I am saying that WNs and SJWs are the same, I guess I have to fall back on Matthew 7:6. In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Parrott is a very triggered anti-Christian phyletist, who witch-hunts with the classic SJW tool of signaling, and no amount of sophistry can make it otherwise.

%d bloggers like this: