First of all, Pepe, I changed my Twitter handle to "Sources allegedly suggest". And secondly, Bebe, were any reader to click on that link any time after one frickin' week has passed, he would no longer be able to access "these past 3 weeks" without doing a lot of labor-intensive scrolling down, down, down. Comprende, Paco...?
And c,
The fact that I've had to say this on this blog a few times over the past couple of years indicates blah blah blah -- what's "this" you ask...? The "this" in this regard is my apology for not posting any postings in a long time (this time, nearly 3 months).
I've been concentrating all my social media attention on Paltalk, Twitter, and less so, Substack. So this sleepy little blog tucked away in some corner nobody knows about feels sort of like a storage locker I own but don't really use much, but which I can visit once in a great while to lean against one side of the uprolled corrugated doorway and smoke a cigarette figuratively (since I only smoke cigars) and look up occasionally at the portion of the mackerel sky I can see without exerting anything.
I still poke around my old blog on a regular basis, when, while drafting a tweet or a substack note, or arguing with some bozo on Paltalk chat, some thought occurs to me and I recall I may have written something about it there, so I go hunting for it, and while doing so, find postings I'd forgotten all about (and at times, even re-read them).
Been thinking of a book I could write, if I thought it worth my time:
How Do You Like Them Apples?
Turning the Tables on Post-Modern Christians
It would be structured around the framework of all the errors I think post-modern Christians indulge. Some of them:
1. A materialist presupposition for epistemology.
Which is closely related to another:
2. Overly (and more or less unwittingly) affected by the post-modern Zeitgeist (which is, among other things, epistemologically materialist).
Then:
3. Obtusely unaware of the problem of critical distance from the text (viz., the Scriptures) -- where critical distance is created by our inescapable need to interpret the text, which human interpretation in turn creates an extra layer of mediation between Bible and us.
4. Treating the Bible as an idol rather than as a human medium of God; and closely related to this, cultivating an obtuseness about what "divine inspiration" means in this regard, where if you ask any given Christian what it is and how it works, they crumble into incoherence like graham crackers in hot coffee (and often will get prickly and defensive to boot). The problem isn't uniform, but ranges along a spectrum to include Christians (usually Reformation Christians) who at the end of the day, don't really believe they are interpreting Scripture at all -- they are getting God's truth direct from God to them through the Bible, and when they repeat what is in fact their interpretation (but which they deny, either overtly or implicitly, is an interpretation), they consider it to be God Himself speaking forth from their mouth; and woe betide the fool who would dare to disagree with their interpretation, for it is one and the same as disagreeing with God Himself!
And so forth.
Another book I could write I mentioned in my most recent annual posting: The Anti-Semitic Revival. This would include a chapter on the definition of "anti-Semitic" and a discussion of the "low-IQ" anti-Semites and how they're hurting more than helping the movement (and indeed, some of them may be controlled ops).
Note for my upcoming anniversary posting on my otherwise dead blog The Hesperado⸻:
A rather extravagantly amusing avoidance of the JQ has been on display at the Gates of Vienna blog (a blog dedicated mostly to the problem of Islam, and the problem of the problem, which is seen as a kind of Orwellian conspiracy involving also anti-white machinations from the Mainstream).
The "manifesto" alluded to there by Baron Bodissey, owner of the blog who wrote the piece, is a long rant about the Great Replacement, lamenting how there seems to be a concerted international threat to the survival of whites.
Two things of note:
The manifesto itself makes no mention of the JQ, other than a vague allusion to Israel.
Baron Bodissey himself apparently disavows any agreement with Tarrant's concern about a Great Replacement:
Otherwise, for the anniversary posting, use this link as a kind of intro:
https://substack.com/@hesperadoblog/p-187048092
