An Introduction to the Origins of the First World War

By Todd Lewis

The dominant myth of the First World War is the myth of German war guilt. The allies, in a self-serving spirit in the 231st article of the Versailles Treaty, stated that:

“The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”

Since that time countless court historians and self-seeking shills have repeated this pabulum. There are many aspects of this narrative that are in need of revision, but I will restrict myself to two points: (1) the naval arms race with Britain and (2) French Revanchism. In both cases I will show that it was not the Germans that escalated the conflict, but the French and British which rendered the war inevitable.

Continue Reading

Advertisements

Rethinking Christian Economics

By Todd Lewis

This paper will attempt to deal with an often under-discussed and misunderstood extension of the principle of Christian stewardship: Economics. Modern American Christians seem to espouse, whether implicitly or explicitly, one of three views on economics: 1) Laissez-faire Capitalism; 2) “Crony” Capitalism or 3) Socialism. Each of these economic models take modern economic systems and grafts Christianity onto them. They start with something else first and then add the Bible to it rather than grounding the systems upon the Bible itself. As in all world and life issues, the Christian is ought to ask first: What does the Bible say about this matter?

This paper is not exhaustive, as I have not dealt with all the possible formulations of Christian economics. Rather, I intend to bring central ideas to the reader’s attention and attempt to organize my thoughts on a hypothetical Christian economic order. In this paper, there are three main topics that I intend to cover: 1) Usury, 2) Distrubutism, and 3) Socialism. For transparency, I would like to inform the reader that I reject the first, have a qualified support for the second, and totally reject the third.

Continue Reading

Does Progressivism Grow Out of Protestantism?

By Todd Lewis

There is a general trend in certain circles, such as neoreaction or traditional Catholicism, to blame progressivism and all its ills on the Protestant Reformation. The best example of this is Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty Or Equality, followed by E. Michael Jones’ Libido Dominandi. The general claim is that after Protestantism decoupled itself from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and adopted Puritanism, it gradually morphed into the Modernism we have today.

Continue Reading

Contra Parrott: The Emptiness of Third-Way Anthropology

By Todd Lewis

This will be a exercise in the reduction ad absurdum and a response to a couple of articles by Matt Parrott at Counter-Currents.com. Mr. Parrott wrote a review of the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate today, Weird Science: Liberal Creationism vs. Christian Creationism, and an earlier work Atheism Plus & the New Culture of Critique, I’ll talk about the two simultaneously.

Continue Reading

Is YHWH Incompatible with Libertarian Theory?

By Todd Lewis

The goal of this essay is to not prove the existence of God, but show that the most literal reading and understanding of YHWH in the Old Testament is not contrary to libertarianism. Before I can show this I need to first define terms. Libertarian in this essay is understood as voluntarism and based on the non-aggression axiom. Given that some skeptics for the sake of argument suppose God existed, then claim that if such a God existed he would be immoral based on their specific ethical system, I will attempt to meet them on their own terms.

Continue Reading

Contra Hanson: Righteousness in Mass Murder?

By Todd Lewis

I have followed Victor Davis Hanson’s warmongering propaganda for over ten years now, and the more I read and listen to him the more he seems to be a soulless, amoral Machiavellian, though that might be a slur to Machiavelli. I will limit my criticism to his infatuation with unconditional surrender and the historical lying he performs to justify it.

As we shall see below and from any cursory reading of his work, if one so chooses to read it, one is dumbfounded, by this so-called “classicist’s” tenuous grip on logic. He resorts to the most petty of Liberal/Communist smear-bund tactics calling people liars, Nazi sympathizers, racists and anti-Semites with no evidence, and spends most of his time engaging in the fallacies of red herring, ad hominem and strawman. For someone who boasts of his classical education, one wonders has he read Aristotle’s Organon?

Continue Reading