How The Christmas Truce Of 1914 Shows The World Has Become Less Civil

It was the first Christmas of World War I. German and British troops had already been dug into the trenches of the Western Front for five months when something of a miracle occurred. Men on both sides spontaneously stopped fighting and ventured out to the middle of the battlefield to greet each other as brothers.

That event, which we now call the Christmas Truce of 1914, gives us a glimpse into what Western civilization was like before the last vestiges of Christendom were snuffed out. And it also points the way forward for those of us who are not satisfied to just enjoy the decline.

The Truce


Leading up to Christmas, 1914, there were several calls for a truce between the warring factions. In December, Pope Benedict XV, who had only been elected to the papacy three months before, called for a truce “that the guns may fall silent at least upon the night the angels sang.” His request was officially rejected, but the idea of a Christmas truce started to be discussed in Europe’s newspapers.

The Christmas Truce happened spontaneously. On Christmas Eve, German soldiers decorated their trenches with candles and even set up Christmas trees in celebration of Christmas. The Germans then began singing Christmas carols. The English, seeing the displays and hearing the carols, responded by singing carols of their own.

On Christmas day, the Germans the two sides started to shout Christmas greetings to each other. The guns then went silent and men from both sides left their trenches to meet in the bullet-riddled “no man’s land” in between. The Germans and the English combatants met each other as brothers. They shook hands and exchanged food and souvenirs. English soldier Bruce Bairnsfather described the degree of camaraderie:

I wouldn’t have missed that unique and weird Christmas Day for anything… I spotted a German officer, some sort of lieutenant I should think, and being a bit of a collector, I intimated to him that I had taken a fancy to some of his buttons… I brought out my wire clippers and, with a few deft snips, removed a couple of his buttons and put them in my pocket. I then gave him two of mine in exchange… The last I saw was one of my machine gunners, who was a bit of an amateur hairdresser in civil life, cutting the unnaturally long hair of a docile Boche, who was patiently kneeling on the ground whilst the automatic clippers crept up the back of his neck.

The truce did not last long. By the next day, the killing had started again. But for a brief moment, these men lived out true Christian brotherhood in spite of their leaders.

The death of the old world


Czar Nicholas of Russia

The Christmas Truce probably could not happen today. Our enforced diversity, which is supposed to bring everyone together, has the opposite effect. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust where no one feels connected to anyone else. We are all atomized economic units.

World War I was in many ways the birth of our modern world. It washed away what remained of the old order, with its patriarchy and hierarchy, and set the stage for feminized, egalitarian society.

The war decimated the nobility of the European nations. The nobles assumed their traditional role as warriors to protect their nation, but suffered heavy losses as a result. In this way, Europe lost many of its best and brightest young men.

The Great War put an end to several monarchies. Notably, Czar Nicholas of Russia, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, and Emperor Karl of Austria lost their crowns as a result of the war. This was an important development for several reasons.

The first is that monarchy in the West is bound up closely to Christianity. Kings are crowned by bishops and they are expected to live in obedience to the gospel. The monarchs of the past saw it as their duty to propagate Christianity within their own realm ensuring that the people had strong morals.

The connection between monarch and Christianity is still evident even today, although to a greatly diminished degree. Queen Elizabeth of England is set to give the “most Christian” Christmas address that she has ever delivered this year to reiterate the importance of faith in England’s heritage. Thus it is not surprising that faith in Christ began to decline in Europe after the monarchies were abolished.

The second way that the end of monarchy is important has to do with attitudes towards war. The best monarchs viewed themselves as the fathers of their nations. Therefore, sending their people into war was not a decision that they took lightly. Emperor Karl wrote to his wife, “I am an officer with all my body and soul, but I do not see how anyone who sees his dearest relations leaving for the front can love war.”

Compare this to the modern view of our politicians who think nothing of putting their citizens in harm’s way for dubious wars—and even hobbling the military’s ability to effectively fight back with unreasonable rules of engagement.

The meaning of the Christmas Truce for today


In the Christmas Truce, the German and English soldiers realized that what they held in common was more important than the artificial political distinctions that were imposed from above.

Although we are not in a shooting war, we’ve been placed in a similar position. We are engaged in a culture war where the patrimony of Western culture is being reduced to free trade and sexual license.

Our cultural elites tell us that we are allies with certain groups that are identified as the good guys: feminists, degenerate celebrities, pushers of pedophile acceptance, Saudi princes who force their non-Muslim staff to strip naked, countries that support the Islamic State, and Islamic “refugees” who rape the women of their host nation.

Meanwhile, we are told that our enemies, the bad guys, are Christians, political candidates who want to have borders, masculine men, gun owners, supporters of patriarchy, secular Arab leaders who protect their minority Christian populations, and a certain Russian leader.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers

Christmas Truce 1914, as seen by the Illustrated London News.

The Christmas Truce means that we should unplug from the diktats of our elites. Instead, associate with those people with whom you have the most in common, even if they are on the official “enemies” list. These people are your true allies. There are some tangible ways you can support your true allies:

  • Challenge pundits and oppose politicians who beat the drum to go to war with countries who pose little threat to the US. This especially applies to a Christian nation like Russia.
  • “Supporting” a good politician is not enough. Get registered and vote for politicians who agree with your viewpoints.
  • Don’t be afraid of sharing your views with others. If you are intelligent in your presentation, you will embolden friends who agree with you but who are afraid of expressing their views.

Finally, vote with your pocketbook. The cultural Marxists own the media and the large corporations. They are the well-funded Goliath. The people who are promoting a return to patriarchy, on the other hand, are the less powerful Davids. Therefore:

  • Support businesses and individuals who are on your side by buying their products and using their services.


The Christmas Truce took place in a world that is now long dead. The civility, honor, and trust that made it possible have been replaced by the cult of excessive consumption. But it doesn’t need to be that way. This Christmas is a good time to renew our efforts to restore what was lost.

Read More: A ROK Christmas Benediction From Brother Cui Pertinebit

99 thoughts on “How The Christmas Truce Of 1914 Shows The World Has Become Less Civil”

  1. The Christmas Truce has always been a bit of history that I have found inspiring along with the old battle code in which fighter planes entered dog fights but if one pilot got too badly shot up well the other held his fire and even let him go. Under no circumstances could any sane person imagine it happening but it did. Sadly in destroying the values under which it happened well that is what liberals call ‘progress’ sad but true the destruction of the old values under which men lived, fought and died along with the ’empowerment’ of women and the dregs of society has been a major liberal ‘achievement’.

      1. Neat story. And again, utter fear and paranoia among the military leadership that any story of compassion get out..
        “He recommended Brown’s crew for citation, but the glory was short-lived. Brass quickly decided that word getting out about a chivalrous German fighter pilot could endanger the lives of other crews if it caused them to let their guard down. All details of Ye Olde Pub’s first mission were classified Secret.
        Stigler was never able to speak of his actions that day, as it would have meant certain court martial.

    1. It’s like when a couple breaks up. The man goes his own way and find a new path and leaves is ex-wife/ex-girlfriend to live her life. She, on the other hand, must see that HIS life is destroyed and not to be ever happy again for the rest of his life.

      1. Or more often She leaves him or plays him for all he has first then dumps him which I can say Sad but True and I can say that from ugly personal experience.

        1. I know someone who has two men half-willingly funding her lifestyle. They get nothing in return.

      2. This is only happening, recently, because our courts favor women in settlements – even when they are the guilty party. Women have taken advantage of the court system (notice you never hear any of them protesting for equality in our legal system).

        1. What is messed up is that when the legal system screws over the feminists’ brother or any male relative of theirs, they blame the other women playing the system. They’re so nearsighted and can not see that the legal system is flawed.

  2. People knew back then that risking your life and trying to kill someone else just because some fucking moron ordered you to do so is not what would really bring any benefits to anyone (except for the moron maybe). They had enough intelligence to question instead of blindly accepting everything.
    People nowadays are brainwashed into doing whatever the media, politicians or some other idiot tell them it’s right to do. That’s why we can no longer have things like the Christmas Truce.

    1. That’s another ironic thing: people are so stupid now that they’ve come full circle and now they think they’re smarter than anyone who ever lived before them.

      1. In total agreement , I read alot of people saying “well they should have done this ” but what would they have done in their shoes. It’s easy to speak on things in hindsight

        1. Another thing was truly lost in Britain during World War 1, and that was the right to be free from mlitary service…..a right Britain sustained longer than the US…..seems an important one to me…..

        2. The only “right” you have once you are born is to die. If you aren’t willing to go defend your countries interest someone else will

        3. Did not know this. Still pretty sure the Irish would give a huge fuck you if the Brits tried to force military service on them.

        4. Obviously there is such a thing as “rights”, I’m referring to old Anglo-Saxon rights that existed due to men being men, +western civilization. When people are passive and weak they lose their “rights”.

        5. Rights only exist when a culture agrees upon them . Nature gave nothing “rights” . Rights are something created by man , they don’t exist if no one agrees upon them. The constitution gives “rights” but they only exist as long as someone upholds what is written on that paper .

        6. I have never argued that nature gave us these rights. Or any of the other things you are suggesting that I am thinking.

        7. You said that Saxon men had rights and at some point the US and British had certain rights….

        8. From my first post it’s clear that I write that rights were lost because they were not sustained. Never do I suggest they come mysteriously from nature.

        9. These rights only existed because people of the same or similar culture agreed upon them . There was nothing to be lost because they would have not extended them to people outside of theirs in combat maybe even in trading . The ancient Greeks didn’t even respect each others holidays….

        10. And once again, have I argued differently? I just wrote that an important right was lost in Britain during WW1 (1916), due to people not fighting for it.

        11. Ireland was part of the UK then – huge numbers signed up and fought against German aggression across Europe.
          In Ww2 with RoI now being an independent state – 400,000 Irish men from southern Ireland still signed up and fought in irish regiments of the British Army against Hitler and the fascists. They were sadly, treated poorly on return by the nationalist governement – something which has only recently been rectified.

        12. I’m American Irish, and while I haven’t visited, I have Irish friends who told me that Ireland was so staunchly anti-Britain in WW2 that they remained neutral and even sent official condolences to the German foreign office when Hitler died, mainly to infuriate the Brits. Now I won’t dispute your facts, and there were lots of Americans even who were pro-Nazi, so that wouldn’t surprise me to find people supporting both sides, but I think the national sentiment, or at least the official one was they hated Britain more than the Nazis, Britain having most recently invading them.

        13. ”Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but
          the number of ‘new travel permits’, identity cards and passports issued
          to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this
          should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs
          estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France
          in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out
          of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8
          per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when
          it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those
          under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state,
          except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over
          sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we
          factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the
          number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible
          when did Britain ”invade” Ireland?

        14. Yes, there was…and there was partition and the Irish had their own little ‘Civil’ War….there’s very little that is ”black and white”.

      2. That’s not new actually (“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”), but you still have a point. We have that on a much bigger and unhealthier scale, and we see the results of it. The destruction of a civilization is not something that can be omitted lightly.

        1. But for a while it was true. Technology and scientific discovery over the years have created generations that were typically smarter than their predecessors. Although still today when we look to the great thinkers we look back hundreds of years to Plato, Aristotle, etc. If we haven’t learned to think any better today, but just have neat gadgets, is that really advancement?

      3. Of course. Look at recent poll where Millennials were asked about sending troops to Syria to fight “the boogeyman”. Almost half of them agreed to it but they were not willing to be part of that fighting force.
        Anyone who’s been to the front line fighting knows about war…and they’re not eager to return. Yes, many will fight for beliefs but today’s wars are bullshit.

  3. What a shame the soldiers didn’t shoot their generals and go home. Western Civ died in the mud of France.

    1. Indeed. Yet we still send young men into the mud, the jungles and deserts of the savage peoples so generals can pad their resumes and silk robe politicos can wring their soft hands while droning through scripted soundbites calling upon some distant virtue to justify the perpetual exchange of blood for treasure.
      While these modern wars seem to pit a civilization against an anti-civilization, the darkness within is the real enemy. War has been trivialized and sanitized, despite the real blood that spills.
      Whatever civility existed in war were echos of those common binds of humanity within the hearts of the men-at-arms. There is nothing civil about war. Nor should there be. War is death. But even in war we have lost what remains of our humanity.
      It has been traded away along with the foundations of western civilization itself in ivory tower Faustian bargains. Bargains that will go on unheeded until the facade peels long enough for those few who remain awake to trade in their bread and circuses, sharpen the guillotine, and cull those who have betrayed the blood of our sons and brothers.
      Dehumanizing the battlefield may bring convenience of conflict but not without exacting its pound of flesh. The arms-length video game warfare is a mere distraction from the realities of war that lurk.
      Meanwhile, a country has become a business. So then the purpose of war descends into a series of joint-ventures in which private profit is assured via public loss. While unsustainable sure enough, the duration of this enterprise will be a question of the times.
      We can look to the origins of the word Truce to see the footprints in the mud that lead away from what was once a civilization: faith, truth, fidelity.
      “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
      – Aeschylus (525 BC-456 BC)
      Our culture is drunk with the notion that we are so much smarter than those who have come before us. This will be our end.
      For a decent read on similar act of civility in war, check out “A higher call” by Adam Makos.
      Stay strong. Merry Christmas.

    2. It’s funny…I was thinking of something similar to this article the other day. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a military leader in the White House, leading this country (I’m thinking back to Eisenhower?).
      The rest of them have been nothing but lawyers or other…always looking out for their best interest, first…and yes, have not trouble sending people into combat (except their own kids).

      1. Too bad we don’t have something like the “Starfire Wheel” in America.

        The idea was to prevent unnecessary bloodshed by instead challenging the convictions of the leaders of the disputing castes in a trial by ordeal.
        Once the aperture begins opening, a beam of energy is projected to the
        floor in the center of the temple, in an area ringed by rocks. The two
        opposing leaders would walk into this circle of rocks and be subjected
        to the beam’s intense energy. As the aperture continues opening, the
        energy becomes more and more intense and difficult to bear. When the
        aperture fully opens, the beam will instantly incinerate anyone standing
        in the circle before closing again. A leader lacking a strong
        conviction would flee the circle and show his cowardice: proving him or
        her unfit to lead, whereas a leader who sacrificed him or herself in the
        Starfire Wheel would resolve the dispute in favor of his or her caste.

      2. I know Reagan didn’t have a service record, but I hear that the military loved him.
        And he was no lawyer, but an actor.

        1. Reagan did have a service record, but he never left CONUS. According to Wikipedia:
          “..was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the cavalry on May 25, 1937.[32]
          Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his poor eyesight, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[33] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[34] Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First Motion Picture Unit (officially, the “18th Army Air Force Base Unit”) in Culver City, California.[34] On January 14, 1943, he was promoted to first lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[34] He returned to the First Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to captain on July 22, 1943″

        2. Wow really? Thanks for pointing that out.
          There are a few teachers and documentarians I must punch out now for leaving that part out.

        3. Right…we’ve had no real leaders. We only had lawyers and an actor (too funny) but no real men leading.

        4. Reagan was called “The Great Communicator”. In an era when we were one button away from Armageddon that was a really important quality. However, his resolve was uncompromising. When asked about his strategy to defeat the Soviets his answer was “We win; they lose”.
          Leftists have no affection for him but really he makes Obama look like a clown by comparison.

        5. No worries. He was also President of the Screen Actors Guild (and never got that Unions support) and did radio broadcasts for the college football and the Chicago Cubs back in the 30’s (when he couldn’t find work in his hometown during the depression), played college football, saved some people when he was lifeguard in the summers, etc… He had more experience in the private sector and life in general than any president after him. The Bush’s never forgave him for knocking GWHB out of the Republican primary in 1980 and the leftists hate him for exposing just how morally and intellectually bankrupt their worldviews are.

    3. The leadership on both sides was *appalled* at the comeraderie between the men on both sides. The elites always pit groups against each other wherever possible, to prevent them from working together against their true enemy–the elites themselves. They immediately did whatever they could to squash the Christmas truces and tried to gag any discussion of them.
      Hitler fought in the Great War, and still believed by the Second WW that England would recognize the natural allegiance it had with the Germanic peoples, but by that time, the old way of life had changed too much. The First World War was indeed the death of the west. We are still chugging along, but have been on a clear path of decline ever since. Thanks for a great Christmas story!

      1. hitler was against the truce and thought it was ridiculous that men would act like that “in a time of war.”
        he thought they were pussies for having a truce.
        let’s not suck hitler’s dick too hard.

    4. well those soldiers being men of honour had the tenets of “ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die” within them. loyalty to a fault is fucking rare nowadays.
      Their leaders absolutely failed them though

    5. Back in the day I was on training with the army. Although I am intelligent and well educated I chose the path of a non-com and rose to the rank of sergeant. On a particular exercise we has a prissy lieutenant who pissed all of my guys off. When the enemy attacked we all threw smoke grenades into his trench. I wish I had a smart phone to record his cry of “MUTINOUS DOGS!”.
      My great-grandfather (the only great grandparent I knew) served in WWI as a linesman. His job was to climb telegraph poles and fix the cables while the Germans shot at him. The only relative I have who was more awesome was my great-uncle Doug who go shot out of 5 tanks.

  4. I´m afraid this article talks about a dated era. ALmost 100 years ago , today with this neoliberal western wolrd we are considered economic unit/consumers, there are no individuals, only the mass.

    1. We are individuals and merely that.
      If you look at the evolution of the state from Bodin, to Hobbes and finally to Rousseau, you’ll see that what the ideology of the state has done is to release man from “society” meaning family, church, guild, fraternity, association, and other intermediary institutions.
      Hence we are now “free” from those bonds and are rights are assured by the state, to which is the only institution we’re subject to.
      Nowadays “state” and “society” are (held to be) the same thing. Rousseau won.

      1. Actually, the irony is that because we’re all individuals, we’re now more of a ‘mass’ than ever. We brand our ‘individuality’ with mass popular culture, mass brand clothing, mass produced electronics, et cetera.
        We’ve broken free of being ‘the masses’, only to voluntarily become ‘the masses’ again – because we want to be, because it is a human urge to want to ‘belong’.

        1. Check out Robert A. Nisbet’s book, The Quest for Community, it’s very much in line with what you’re saying.
          A good (albeit incomplete) summary is Gary North’s article “Nisbet versus Plato and Rousseau”

  5. These truces existed because the men fighting shared a common culture for the most part and with the stagnation of the fighting .when you go to war against different cultures these things don’t exist . Actually even amongst the ancient Greeks they didn’t respect each others holidays . Look to Vietnam and the tet offensive, there was assumed to be a cease fire but it turned to be one of the biggest maneuvers by the Viet Cong . That being said with as much as people say religion causes violence and intolerance and that science is the way a balance of both is needed. If religion causes the war science makes the war all that more brutal, fritz Haber in ww1 for example .if someone is cured of an affliction it is not a miracle of a higher power , the miracle is the birth of the people that cured the person . Religion and science the ability for both great violence and compassion. It all matters on whose hands it is put in.

    1. Another example, of course, is the Yom Kippur War, when the Arabs decided to strike Israel when it was conceivably least prepared to fight back (at a time when a lot of soldiers were celebrating a religious holiday).
      The same can be expected in Europe now that we have large populations from North Africa and the Middle East: count on it that as we speak, security services in Europe are working overtime to prevent Christmas bombings and mass shootings from the Islamic State and other islamist groups tomorrow.

      1. Yom Kippur really backfired on the Arabs. As it turns out, one of the reasons the Israelis were able to strike back was precisely because the festivities cleared the roads, that the IDF was able to mobilize quickly.

      2. I respect the honor and integrity these men had in relation to their culture but at the end of the day they still went back to killing each other. This reminds me of 2 of my favorite, what I consider, realistic portrals of being too hung up on honor and such . The part in game of thrones were tyrion stands trail in the vale for the attempt on the little stark . He demands a trial by combat and brann the sell sword champions him , brann kills the knight and chucks him out the moondoor. After this he is told ” you fight without honor ” he looks out the moondoor and replies ” well he did ” . I also think of the outer limits episode ” the quality of mercy ‘ where a pow is tricked into giving up secret information to a woman who turns out to be a spy . To end I think I quote from fury fits best , “ideals are peaceful , history is violent “

  6. Correct me if I’m wrong, but during Middle ages, until the battle of Bouvines in 1214, I recall to have read that there was a Sunday truce to respect.
    Luckily now we are “civilized” and have gotten rid of these backward superstitions.
    Merry Christmas to you all ROK readers.

    1. There were, depending on the era and the location, several circumstances when a truce had to be maintained.
      – Sometimes on Sunday.
      – Sometimes on Christmas.
      – Usually it was unacceptable to carry out major attacks at night, if only because your own men didn’t want to go out in the cold and the dark.
      – Sometimes during planting and harvest season in feudal times, when men had to return home to their farms to tend to their crops.

    2. The saddest part of this film is towards the end, where the Anglican vicar who held the joint service in no man’s land, hangs up his cross and walks away from the church, while his bishop extols the virtues of the war and of killing the enemy.
      Can there be a more poignant moment to represent what that war did to Christianity in Europe?

  7. Another one of the disadvantages of democracy: war isn’t merely a conquest of capital where one has no interest in destroying infrastructure or civilians but an ideologically motivated total war where “they” must be dealt with decisively and their lands purged.

  8. The difference between the old world and the new world is that the old world was totally dominated by the European nations. A truce like the one described in the article is only possible between men who belong to that one particular family of nations, the Europeans.
    No such truce, born out of sheer good will, could exist in Africa or the Middle East, the two continents that are in the modern world growing further and further in population and influence on the world stage.

  9. The Christmas Truce has always fascinated me, even more so after watching the film Joyeux Noel. For one, again, it shows what happens when diversity is allowed to happen on its own, even if the only barrier was language. Also, it shows a veritable showing of male bonding. Other than language, these men had much in common, but because of indoctrination, they didn’t realize it. They loved drinking, playing cards playing soccer, most had wives, children, mothers back home, for the most part, they shared the belief in the same deity, even if it was expressed under different denominations. And as the movie progresses, they show disdain for those up above who, in their own words, gorge themselves up on turkey and champagne.
    Where I disagree with the author is, even if it wasn’t an overtly religious war, bear in mind, the belligerents were led by monarchs who believed that they were ordained by God and believed that even other Christians were wicked and deserved to be annihilated. Of course Joyeux Noel presents us with two opposing views of Christianity. There’s the Scottish priest who volunteers to serve as a stretcher bearer to his flock who genuine believes in the message of peace and goodwill towards men. He leads an impromptu Christmas Mass where everyone sits together, or he says, they came together as if they were drawn to a fire seeking warmth. This is especially evident when both the Allies and Germans begin jointly burying the dead and he accepts requests from Germans to pray over their dead. At one point he notes a belt buckle with the inscription Gott Mitt Uns, which translates to God With Us.
    And the there’s his boss, the bishop who scolds him for worshipping with the heathen Huns and informs him that he is to be sent back to his parish in Scotland. The scene ends with the bishop preaching to new arrivals by quoting Matthew 10:34 “I do not bring peace, but a sword.” He ends by telling the soldiers to “Kill every German, young and old, kill them all, so it does not have to be done again.”

      1. You don’t think people in WWI killed for their Lord just like ISIS kills for their prophet Muhammad? Just watch the movie, unless you’re as narrow minded as a feminist, that is.

      2. W

  10. “Finally, vote with your pocketbook. The cultural Marxists own the media and the large corporations. They are the well-funded Goliath”
    Good article, man. With regards to voting woth our pocketbook, I agree but it would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of companies to avoid, or perhaps may be easier to gave a list of companies that are worth supporting.

  11. I’ll never get tired of hearing this story. To avoid new truces, the generals threatened the soldiers with charges of treason and death penalty.
    An observation about the second photo: I’ve seen it many times in articles about this episode. But is definitely not from the Christmas truce of 1914. It is impossible. The British soldier is wearing a Brodie, helmet introduced in 1915. The German soldier is wearing a Stahlhelm, helmet introduced in 1916.
    And finally, to all RoK visitors: Take a break and have a Merry Christmas.

    1. From what I understand, that’s one of the last times any of the combatants went about without helmets. Interesting factoid.

    2. If you put yourself in the soldiers shoes, even if one can imagine feeling comeraderie through religion or national history, or shared physical looks, etc. to the opposing side, it still blows my mind to consider the bravery it would have required for the first guy to get up out of the trenches and walk out into no man’s land. When there was no reward to be gained, other than a possible brief glimpse at humanity. That, to me, is far braver than any charge under battle.

    3. Thank you. That song has been added to my Christmas music list. I hope you had a Merry Christmas.

  12. My wife and I don’t exchange gifts and even with my relatives, I send them gift cards to spend on a nice meal throughout the year (the joke is that we often send each other the same cards from the same stores!)
    So instead, we have a nice meal at home and a pretty tree and decorations and look at the cards friends from long ago have remembered to send us.

    1. Same here. I refuse to go out (anywhere) on Black Friday to support the chaos (and ugliness) of consumerism. It’s rotten to the core. It won’t end until people have said enough, turned a 180 and they stopped participating in the madness.

      1. I’m broke but if you were giving it away for free I wouldn’t do black Friday or Boxing Day. There has been a backlash against retailers opening stores on Thanksgiving Day. Disgusting that people can not spend a day with their families. Take note of the savages fighting it out for a TV they can’t afford – obese chimps.

  13. Great article. More than ever, do not give your hard-earned money to those who want you to disappear. Merry Christmas to ROK readers

  14. The problem with the Western world is that the enemy is not “the Russians” or ISIS but the real enemy is internal to the nation: the media, the elites, the Progressives, the interventionists, and their allies.
    And the problem with most conservatives (and most Americans) is that they fall for the external enemy narrative, forgetting the last stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner (penned in 1861):

    When our land is illumined with Liberty’s smile,
    If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory,
    Down, down with the traitor that dares to defile
    The flag of her stars and the page of her glory!
    By the millions unchained who our birthright have gained,
    We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained!
    And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
    While the land of the free is the home of the brave.

    America is, in my opinion, past the point of no return: most of the Bill of Rights is pretty much dead, although lip service is still paid by the current crop of politicians.
    The only action left is to prepare for the coming collapse.

    1. I particularly like the last line.. the flag SHALL wave while the land of the free IS the home of the brave. Clear instruction to remove any flags you come across…

  15. Great article. Luckily I was raised in a very conservative Bible belt town where the schools were not yet feminist indoctrination stations. We were taught the truth about the Civil War…things like the Truce mentioned in this article…and even how WW2 was all about control of money. But then again…the professor was a man who could recite the DoI and Constitution in its entirety from heart.

  16. We now seldom make war against Christian nations, and, in all our wars, we now seriously endeavor to limit unnecessary deaths, so, in a sense, America has arguably become more civil, not less.

    1. This is false. It has nothing to do with Christianity. No democratic nation has gone to war with another democratic nation since the industrial era (Greek city states aside). Christians have fought each other many times though. Ever heard of Catholics vs. Protestants?

      1. I’ve also heard it stated that no wealthy / first world country has gone to war against another, but the rich will beat up on the poor small weak nations. I think it’s much more an issue of wealth/power, vs type of government.
        America has now given much of the Mideast “democracy” and that hasn’t stopped the war over there, and I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to invade again, and indeed the US has a long history of invading precisely to thwart democratically elected leaders they didn’t like.

  17. “Compare this to the modern view of our politicians who think nothing of putting their citizens in harm’s way for dubious wars”
    and you bring tzar Nicholas as an opposite example?
    tzar Nicholas was a weak, neurotic and stupid person who virtually destroyed Russia. he’s one of the main reasons why communists eventually came to power.
    and he exactly “thought nothing of putting his citizens in harm’s way for dubious wars”. ever heard about the disastrous 1905 war with Japan – which was absolutely unnecessary and cost Russia its fleet – not to mention countless lives?

  18. I want to share this post but when I paste the url on facebook I get the article with the photo of a chick with a microphone… Can you fix it?

  19. There can only be civility between the civilized. Everything outside of the Western, European world has the mirage of civilization, if that. The rest are pure barbarians that should be kept out. The more we bring in the more barbaric we MUST become to deal with them.

  20. This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long time. It’s not often that I can say that I agree with every line that I read. Well done, sir, and Merry Christmas!

  21. I despise World War 1 as the end of true Western Civilization – all its morals, values, honour faced a crisis and it continues its regression to this day. Europe was at a high point in its history – which was subsequently destroyed.
    I can’t help but blame the generals and leaders for starting and continuing a war where 100 000 men could die in one day.

  22. I think the period of war that started in 1912 in the Balkans and ended in 1945 in Japan *was* the apocalypse and we are living in the post-apocalyptic dystopia.

  23. The premise of your article is good. Some of the points you make also make sense. But what an over simplification of world war 1. It is widely accepted the Kaiser Wilhelm and a host of other monarchs were weak and incompetent. World war 1 occurred for many reasons (including ethnic clashes). Your biggest weakness though is assuming Christianity makes or keeps people moral. Only a liar could read that and agree and then go read an article on how to bang more sluts with ease (which occur here frequently). Christianity is in direct contradiction to neomasculinity by favoring the meek over the strong. I’ll let the great Hitchslap speak for the rest.

    1. Hitchens is an ass and a fraud. His idol Trotsky wanted to start a war more brutal than the one Russia just fought when the communists took over. He literally wanted war with the whole capitalist world. The only people he would’ve helped would be the capitalists, because he’d send the people of the USSR to their blood-soaked doom.

    2. I’m not a defender of religion today, per se, but I am a defender of institutions being used for social control, and the idea of Plato’s Noble Lie. The church has been perhaps the most important institution in social control of humans over most of modern history. And in the past, especially over 100 years ago, when much of the world was a mystery, religion was the best answer people had to many questions.
      As to whether Kaiser Wilhelm was an incompetent leader–perhaps somewhat, but not to the degree that democratic leaders have been (Angela Merkel). So the question is not whether monarchs are always awesome, but whether monarchy is better than democracy, and to me the answer is clearly yes.
      Christianity does keep a lot of people moral. The janitor in my building used to be a hard core heroin addict, and now he wears Jesus shirts to work every day and wants to pray with me and is constantly praising his faith which saved him from his life of crime. His belief in religion keeps him from stealing up to $100 a day to support his habit, and has him working an honest job and being a productive member of society. Now, of course religion comes with its share of problems as well (one only need to look to the Mideast for the most serious examples today). But it absolutely makes lots of people moral, and I don’t want to insult anyone, but especially the lower classes, who need the fear of God and damnation in order to scare them straight.

      1. Perhaps some people do need that. But the author here assumes that because Christianity is on the decline morality is as well. This is just patently false. As is the assumption that Christian nations font go to war with each other. If you’re going to make a claim do some research first. No scholar would ever say that Christian nations don’t fight each other.

        1. Actually, I would basically agree with the statement that Christianity is paralleling a decline in overall morality. But only because nothing has been introduced to fill the role that religion was playing. You can’t simply let an institution dissolve away without replacing it with anything else, without seeing horrible consequences. So yes, the decline of Christianity is causing a moral decay, but it doesn’t have to.

    3. Hitchens was the former Marxist who drank himself to death and became a neo-con during GWB presidency? Interesting fellow. I know some people who have met him and his take on politics and economics tends to be spot on… but the rest. Meh.

  24. “But for a brief moment, these men lived out true Christian brotherhood in spite of their leaders….

    The best monarchs viewed themselves as the fathers of their nations.”
    sure… makes sense.

  25. What World War I did was to basically destroy all conservative institutions. As I just wrote for my book Year Zero, conservatism has often tended to win out after periods of radicalism, going all the way back to the Atenist Heresy of Akhenaten.
    But World War I pretty much destroyed conservative traditions and institutions and they have not been seen since. First they were replaced with radical ideologies, left or right, and then liberalism entered its own Year Zero phase in 1968.
    The Christmas truce may have been the last gasp of a dying civilization.

  26. It is said that WWII wouldn’t have happened if the USA stayed out of WWI.
    Britain and Germany would have eventually exhausted each other out and called for a more permanent truce.
    One that didn’t call for massive reparations that would cripple the German economy, and thus make them feel the need for a dictator.

    1. Said by who? The same Brits and French who demanded unsustainable war reparations after WWI? Even Wilson, the progressive president of the times, was against the amounts demanded. Hyperinflation of the Deutsch Mark ensued. From my Econ class, Germany workers were paid 3 times a day at one point because the Dmark depreciated that fast— simply printing money does that. When Germany was late on making one of the payments, French troops seized the Saarland– a Germany principality that supplied a large portion of coal to the rest of Germany. I would recommend a book, “Germany Tried Democracy”– it was written regarding the Weimar Republic from 1919-1933.
      The Frogs and Tommys really need to review their own history on this one.

      1. I think it was an American historian.
        How are you disagreeing with I said?
        I was clearly saying that if America stayed out, Britain and France would NOT have achieved victory and thus would have no grounds to cripple Germany’s economy, causing them to put a dictator in power.

  27. I spent 10 years in the army with half of that in the cold war and half of that afterwards. There was a marked change in attitude. Circa 1987 I was trained by the Canadian Airborne but guess who we worshiped? Spetsnaz. We all understood that if the shit hit the fan our job was to kill them and their job was to kill us. Underneath that there was no enmity. I was for my country and he was for his country. We could have a nice dinner together if we were not trying to kill each other.
    After the Cold War ended, hostilities were no longer reasonable. Twenty years after the fact I still think like a soldier. The Jihadis, some of the Africans and some Russians are not people you can talk to as people.
    These men are fucked in the head and you can not have a quiet meal with them.

  28. America needs a new sense of patriotism, like Russia has. They still celebrate VE Day, unlike us. Even Western Europe has forgotten VE day.

    Pretty, ain’t she?

  29. Moslem savages won’t make a truce with any civilized people — though they’ll pretend to to be able to kill and kill and kill.

  30. Do your research better, Michael Sebastian. The officers were also your oh-so-precious Xtians, and they scattered the soldiers who had played soccer with the other side so they wouldn’t feel any connection to the enemy soldiers. They reprimanded lower commanders who had taken part.
    By the way, it was the German soldiers who initiated the truce. If it had been Sacred Christian Preciousness that had led to the truce, wouldn’t the British also initiate it? And you conveniently leave out the FRENCH from the story. They were also Christians. They did not take part, as they had lusted for an excuse to attack Germany again ever since their last invasion failed in 1870 and Germany took back Elsass and Lothringen. The Christian French planned to invade Christian German lands over and over again: Under Napoleon’s first wars, under Napoleon’s return, in 1870, in 1914, in 1939. The French – Christians – never stopped seeking to destroy Germany.
    “Christians” my ass. Laughable. The truce was about Germans and British, period. Their religion is irrelevant, they were Saxons, Germanics, and that’s why they felt kinship. German Saxons and Anglo-Saxons in the truce joked that they should team up against the Prussians. North Europeans get along better than almost any people in the world, which is why North European law could be more lax, and the idea of personal freedom was invented there, and only there. This was the case in Pagan Europe, long before Saul’s invented religion was peddled among the slaves and servants in the Roman Empire.
    Your precious Christian fanatics were also the ones who started the war. Conveniently left out. Religious fanatics have no use for historical accuracy, of course. Me, I prefer a Europe based on reality, the reality of race. You’ll never have any Christian Unity, which never existed – ever heard of the Hundred Years War or the Thirty Years War? Look them up. Then look up Christian Russia’s countless attacks on Christian Sweden-Finland, Poland, Germany, etc. Your religion has never led to unity and never will. Only by acknowledging racial kinship and the threat that common bond faces today can we build something real. Future ideology must be based on reality, not fantasies.

  31. Coming from an ancestry where everyone has served (I myself attended military school, even boot camp) This story has always given me mixed feelings–pretty much what has already been said…
    Too bad there is always one guy with his finger on the trigger when in a state of madness.

Comments are closed.