Buchanan, Rushdoony, Sasse, Zakaria, Jay, Hamilton Weigh In On America As White & Christian

“The colonists were WASP supremacists. Without moral qualms, they drove the Indians over the mountains and established a society of white and Christian men and women along with African slaves. Catholics were unwelcome. Priests were put back on the boats that brought them. Virginia had been named for the “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth, who was determined to complete the work of her father, Henry VIII, who sought to end religious diversity in England by eradicating Catholicism. America was largely settled by colonists from the British Isles. Nearly two centuries after Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, when Washington took his oath as president, the thirteen states were 99 percent Protestant. In 1790, U.S. citizenship was opened up for “free white persons” of “moral character.” No others need apply.”

Pat Buchanan

Roman Catholic

Suicide of a Superpower

The Left affirms this but denounces it as the greatest evil.

The “Right” (so-called) denies it and denounces it as the greatest evil.

Where are all those who affirm the reality of Buchanan’s statement as well as the positive goodness of it?

Now before someone goes off the rails hyperventilating about what a “racist” I am (sorry … went to the concert and got the T-Shirt already) ask yourself if it would be wrong to complain about the Japanese having a Japanese Supremacist country in their Japanese nation or the Chinese (Han people) having a Han Supremacist country in their Han nation? If that is too complicated ask yourself if you in your own household should hold to a (fill in your family surname) supremacy. The only people who would think that are those who believe in their own supremacy to the degree they want to knock down the supremacy of those they are kvetching about.

That Buchanan is correct is seen in the Founders own language;

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The founders wrote, signed in session, and then ratified collectively in the several states, a document that was intended for White Anglo Saxon Christians and their posterity. There were no other people who were present at those conventions and so no other posterity is included as to why they wrote the US Constitution.

Of course, all of these simple and obvious observations are anathema to both left and “right.” They are anathema to the left because of their inherent philosophy of leveling undergirding their egalitarianism. They are anathema to the putative right because this violates their cherished principle of propositional nationhood. The neo-cons can’t accept any notion that this country was based at all on what nations are normatively based upon and that is blood. So, anybody who observes that propositional nationhood is bunkum in terms of our American history must be put down.

That the neo-cons hate this reality of America having a foundation in blood and not propositional nationhood is seen in Sen. Ben Sasse’s bloviating,

“It would be a grave mistake to reduce … the universalist principles of the Founding [for an] ethno-nationalism.”

Senator Ben Sasse — R. – Nebraska

Twitter account


Foreigner talking heads chime in with Sasse supporting this lie;

“There are many liberal democracies, even Republics in the world today, but no other country from its outset believed in the idea of openness and the mixture of people as central to its founding. America is a nation created on the basis of its diversity of race, religion, national origin, and there are efforts to change America, There are plans for religious and ethnic tests and to bar immigrants and even visitors and also to track visitors and immigrants when they are in the US. There have been calls to deport people, even American citizens. There are proposals to monitor houses of Worship. These ideas would fundamentally change America, tearing at its founding DNA. It would make it much more like the rest of the world. Making it one more nation in which certain ethnic groups and religions are privileged and others are outsiders. A country in which diversity is a threat to National Character rather than a strength.”

Fareed Zakaria

CNN News show

And yet the founders did not agree with this Sasse-ian and Zakarian nonsense;

 

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, without which a common and free government would be impossible.”

John Jay
Federalist #2

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

Alexander Hamilton

The first step in liquidating a people — and a step that Sasse and Zakaria understand — is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around will forget even faster.

 

Also when it comes to supremacy the Biblical Christian is duty-bound by His allegiance to His God to be convinced that Christian people build cultures that are significantly superior to other non-Christian cultures precisely because the God they serve is supreme over all other gods. If culture is religion externalized then those cultures which are a reflection of the one true God and His religion are going to be those cultures that have the supremacy. Just as not all Gods are equal, so all religions are not equal, so all cultures are not equal, so all peoples are not equal. Some peoples are superior to other peoples and those peoples should be humbly convinced of the superiority of their culture because they are convinced of the superiority of their God.

“The PROBLEM, of course, is that now we have a great deal of illegal immigration. We HAVE IMMIGRATION LAWS THAT NO LONGER FOLLOW THE OLDER PATTERN AND CONCENTRATE ON EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. We allow many, many peoples in who have nothing in common with us, who are Moslems or members of other religions and it appears that there is an effort to break the Christian heritage and character of the United States.”

~R. J. Rushdoony

A Conversation With A Postmodern Denier of Inerrancy

I don’t know who Justin Eimers is. This is the first time I’ve laid my eyes on him. I know he works for the State Government of Michigan and that speaks volumes. Note as you move through this piece the irrationality of Justin. Because of that irrationality, Justin is a legend in his own mind.

Justin Eimers

An area that I think Calvinists do get it right is in the area of perseverance of the saints (POS). I know that comes with issues of it’s own…however those issues are logical not textual which is why lean in that direction.

 Bret L. McAtee

  •  . If the perseverance of the saints is right Justin, (and it is) then T U L and I are right as well. They rise and fall together.

  • Justin Eimers


    Not true Bret, they aren’t as interdependent textually as people think. Philosophically they definitely are, but my interest isn’t in the philosophy or systematics it’s in the biblical theology.

    Bret responds

    I did not respond to this publicly on the thread because this response announced that I was dealing with an irrationalist. When dealing with an irrationalist the only thing one can do is mock since their irrationality will not allow them to interact with what is being said.

    Anyone who thinks they can do any discipline (including Biblical Theology) without apriori systematic (theology) and philosophical presuppositions is a fool. All Justin was telling me here is that his philosophy is anti-philosophy and his systematics is anti-systematics. There is no way one can have a rational discourse with a person who thinks that they have risen above the pedestrian disciplines of systematics and philosophy to some kind of hermeneutical nirvana.

    Second, this is a mistake often made by those enchanted with Biblical theology. They think they are interpreting the text from nowhere as if they have no systemic approach that is beholden to systematics and philosophy. These chaps tend to be inductive and they must be forced to ask themselves how they know the particulars without presupposing the whole.

    Third, we are five hundred years removed from the Reformation. We have had Reformed giants like Gerhardus Vos doing Biblical theology. Our exegetes and Biblical theologians both have demonstrated repeatedly that T, U, L, I, and P rise and fall together.

     

     

    Bret L. McAtee

    This is how I responded publicly. Remember … the man having embraced irrationalism all that I can do is shred and rend hoping to shake him. No rationality is going to shake someone who suggests that he’s not concerned with systematics and philosophy and who is just reading the text without presuppositions.


    LOL … actually they are interdependent textually as all the exegesis done by the Reformed over the centuries demonstrate and prove.

Second, to suggest that the Scripture is contradictory gives you and others a major problem with the character of God.

 

Third, Biblical theology that allows for a textual reading that renders a non-systematic reading of Scripture is inherently flawed.

Will Hess


The only part of tulip that is true is, P, Bret. Indeed, the P. Because if one does fall away – He did not persevere – thus he is apostate.

Bret L. McAtee

You clearly miss the thrust of the “P,” Will, in the perseverance of the saints. The perseverance of the saints is because the sovereign God preserves them. Is man stronger than God?

John 10:28

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.

  • Justin Eimers

    They’ve done no such thing Bret. Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism. He was interested in explaining how God preserves the church and those that dwell within her. Augustine (not a church reformer) was more interested in a mechanism approach but even he fell well short of TULIP. The points are interdependent philosophically, not textually.

I never stated text contradicted I stated that the text flatly says some things and doesn’t say others. TULIP is a machination born of philosophical rationalism, it is not a biblically situated doctrine. Proof texting isn’t going to prove that to me. I see you’re a research fellow, so do the research.

 

Really? So the God and master of the universe must create a text that allows for himself and the truths he wishes to communicate to be boiled down to propositional truths and systematic mechanisms? Interesting…I mean garbage but interesting nonetheless. Systematics can be helpful when they work within the confines of biblical theology. The issue is that many times they become philosophical rationales that exist outside of scripture, not within them. Inerrancy is a good example of this as is iconographic veneration of saints. The moment we move beyond the text to create a systematic (which necessitates rationality above all else) we move outside of historic Christian orthodoxy (real orthodoxy, not the made up orthodoxy of recent fundamentalist baptist types).

  • Bret L. McAtee

    LOL … you’re bananas if you really believe all that. I don’t debate people who are bananas.

    What I am now adding below was not in the public thread because I knew this young man (35 y/o tops) was seriously disturbed as I will now show. With disturbed people, you do not debate. You mock as I did with the banana comment above.

    #1 – Calvin’s Institutes alone suggests that he was indeed concerned about demonstrating a soteriological mechanism. Then when you pile on his sermons and commentaries (of which I’ve read large swaths of both) it doesn’t take much to realize that only a fool would say that Calvin was not concerned about demonstrating a soteriological mechanism. Next, on this score, when you realize that Calvin was breaking with Rome over issues of soteriology it is case of brain deadness to say as Justin says here that Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism. Now people may not like Calvin’s soteriological mechanism. They may say it needed to be teased out more. But to say that Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism is just mindless. Has Justin ever read Calvin’s Geneva Catechism?

    #2 – Justin says he doesn’t hold to contradictions in the text and then implicitly affirms again that the text does not teach the harmony of Scripture. If Scripture doesn’t uniformly teach TULIP then Scripture teaches either Molinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism or Neo-Orthodoxy. But as each of these are contradictory Justin’s denial that he isn’t embracing contradiction is just another contradiction. One wonders which of the doctrines of Grace Justin would insist isn’t biblically situated? Is he denying Total Depravity? Is he denying Unconditional Election? Is he denying Limited Atonement? Is he denying Irresistible Grace? Is he denying God’s preservation of the Saints? If any one of these are, per Justin, not Biblically situated while even one of the others are then Justin is reading the Scripture apart from the principle of the harmony of Scripture.

    #3 – Note Justin is denying the doctrine of inerrancy which means he is affirming the idea that Scripture has an error in it.

    #4 – Note that Justin is being sarcastic about the idea that truth is communicated in Scripture via the verbal propositional form. With this Justin is inching towards some form of post-modernism. Certainly, the Master of the Universe can indeed speak in stories, parables, and allegories but those stories, parables, and allegories each have a verbal propositional truth contained in them. To deny that is just to embrace mystical gobbledygook. Justin is preening as a sophisticated intellectual but he is just one more dumbass in our current dumbass parade.

    #5 – Note Justin complains again against rationality. Could Justin complain against rationality without being rational?

    #6 – Allow me to suggest that Justin wouldn’t know orthodoxy if it became a cancerous tumor blocking his breathing airways.

    #7 – Note that Justin is an irrational fundamentalist. He is inching towards some kind of neo-orthodoxy. Not believing in inerrancy Justin is his own god determining what is errant in the text and what isn’t errant. He is involved in some serious solipsism, talking only to himself and perhaps a handful of other people who somehow have tuned into his unique airwaves. And yet the wonderful thing about this is that this poor chap sees himself as giving us the very nard of sophisticated theology. LOL … what a maroon.

     

  • Justin Eimers

    Ad hominem, and now you’ve proven to no longer be worth the time or effort. I used to believe as you do (from what I can gather from your webpage and affiliations). Copious amount of reading and study moved the needle for me.

     

    Bret L. McAtee

Irrationality, and now you’ve given proof upon proof that you’re not worth the time or effort.

I promise you sonny … you’ll have to read and study for 40 more years to catch up to me.

See you then.

The following was not said on the public thread.

I’m now in my 63rd year. From the time of 18 forward I have spent most of my days and nights reading and studying. I’ve studied in airplane pits while I waited for the next cart of baggage to be put on the belt loader. I’ve read while traveling 65 mph down the highway on my way to work @ 4:30 in the morning. I’ve read while waiting for customers to purchase airline tickets when I worked the airline. I’ve read in lunch break rooms of factories across the midwest. For 45 years I have hit the books morning, noon, and night. I had to because I was so much slower than everyone else in the ministry and I had to work extra hard to catch up. I had to make the most of my time. And now, I am entering into the last 25% of my life and I’ll be hanged if I’m going to let some kid just starting to tell me that he has advanced beyond me because of his “Copious amount of reading and study moved the needle for him.” I’ve forgotten more in my life than Justine has yet learned. Call me proud. Call me arrogant. I don’t care. As Ali said … “It ain’t bragging if you’ve done it.”

  • Justin Eimers

    Aww that’s cute Bret. Will he thinks he’s read more than me.

  • Bret L. McAtee

    If you only knew. I’ve got 30-40 years on you and most of what I’ve been doing for that 30-40 years is reading.

    I do, however, look at threads like this once in a while, to get a good chuckle over the newbies.

  • Justin Eimers

    Bret, again I am finding this whole “I’m your elder” schtick quite entertaining. I also find your presumptions of me rather amusing.

    Bret L. McAtee

What… you don’t think Elders exist?

I see you’re a Ph.D., doing your work at some very second rate schools. (Which is probably better than if you had done your work at so-called 1st rate schools.) You have told me you are an irrationalist. I’m not presuming anything old chap.

Justin Eimers

Bret CIU is no place to write home about so I would be careful.

Second there is a difference between a person who uses rationale as a tool and one who worships it. I am the former you are the latter. Rationale outside of historical theology, and textual expression are heresies.

Old chap…my aren’t you quite the character. My reference to you as an elder had to do with your age, not your office. Old people exist…you are old…therefore the “I’m your elder” schtick. As for the office, you aren’t the pastor of any community I recognize nor have placed myself under. Your no Elder to me. Just another old guy trying to stay relevant by looking through these pages.

Bret

What follows was not on the public thread because his contempt for the 5th commandment brought me to an end of dealing with such hubris.

#1 – Justin uses ratiocination when it is convenient for him to do so and when it is not convenient he invokes “rationalism.” Again, not believing in inerrancy Justin is not even a Christian.

#2 – Any man who would treat any Elder in age with such contempt is not worthy to listen to. Any man who would treat a Pastor of 33 years with such contempt speaks for itself. With such swine, Jesus teaches us not to cast our pearls.

There Are More Than Two Versions of Two Kingdom Theology … but Still Only One Version of R2K

1,) The most obvious version of two Kingdom theology which is perfectly necessary in order to be orthodox is the view that speaks of the Kingdom of Satan vs. the Kingdom of God.

Colossians 1:13f

13 He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

There are two dominions / Kingdoms. One either belongs to the dominion of darkness or one belongs to the Kingdom of Christ. Here we find Augustine’s great work “The City of God,” wherein he describes these two Kingdoms as the City of God and the City of man. Of course, these two co-exist together at the same time on planet earth and because of the antithesis between the two, there is a conflict between these two kingdoms.

Now, keep in mind here that the kingdom of God, in this understanding, is not limited to the Church in terms of its presence. The kingdom of God is present wherever men are living in subjection to Christ regardless of whether that is in Church, Business, Family life, Education, Law, etc.

If one insists that the kingdom of Christ is only limited to the Church realm that is a different two kingdom than Augustines.

2.) A subsequent version of two kingdoms that can live alongside the #1 is the two kingdom theology which bespeaks the idea of internal vs. external. The former is invisible/spiritual while the latter is visible/material. The former applies to God’s immediate authority over the consciences of believers — what is sometimes called the rule of Christ in the hearts of His people. The external kingdom appeals to the mediate authority of Christ as incarnated through delegated human authorities in family government, church government, and civil government.

This has been held by establishmentarians (theocrats or ‘state church’ advocates like Luther, Calvin, and most of the early Reformers), but isn’t necessarily tied to that. (It should be understood that establishmentarianism is an inescapable category that all men embrace.)

A potential problem here is when family, church, or civil governments are ruling as mediate stand-ins for the authority of Christ but are ruling inconsistent with the authority they are intended to be representing (Christ’s authority). A visible/material mediate authority that does not mediate Christ’s rule is an authority (Kingdom) that is no kingdom that needs to be recognized by God’s kingdom people who desire that their magistrates in family, church, and civil rule consistently with the revelation of God.

R2K begins to creep in here when it absolutizes these disobedient visible kingdoms and gives them a mediate authority that is sequestered and cordoned off from being informed by God’s word. R2K absolutizes these visible kingdoms and insists that they should not be ruled by God’s special revelation appealing instead that the mediate realms are ruled by the ever amorphous Natural Law.

3.) Here we find the distinction between the external mediated Kingdom of the civil realm (civil government) and the kingdom of the institutional Church. This two-kingdom theology finds that in the Church Christ is the one head and king and rules explicitly through His Word as ministered by duly ordained church officers, meanwhile in the civil Government rule not by Christ’s Word but by the sword.

Of course, a potential problem here is that civil Government has to have some standard by which the sword is brought to bear. R2K desires that standard to be the ever shape-shifting Natural Law, while Biblical Christians desire that standard be God’s Law Word as found or legitimately deduced from Scripture.

One advantage of this 2K model when properly used is that it keeps the snout of civil magistrates out of the affairs and rulings of the institutional Church. This 2K model insists that a civil realm magistrate as he enters into the church realm leaves behind his status and is just one more member of the kingdom wherein Christ is ruling in the Church. The magistrate comes into the Church realm under Christ’s officers in the Church. Civil magistrates have no authority in the church realm any more than any other member of the Church. Throughout history, would-be tyrants in Christian lands have hated the restriction this 2K model brings.

4.) Here we begin to creep into clear R2K territory, at least as R2K as bastardized this concept. The fourth version of 2K theology sometimes co-exists with any of the above views. It teaches that there is a kingdom of “common grace,” and a kingdom of “special grace.” In this concept, one kingdom exists where people of all different faiths live, move and have their being as they live various aspects of life that are common to all people. This is the kingdom of common grace. The other kingdom in this model would be that kingdom wherein Christians as Christians alone live and move and have their being. Obviously, this would include the Christian’s life in the Church and has particular reference to Word & Sacrament.

This one is especially where R2K begins to bollix things up. It typically so desires to live the hyphenated-life where there exists an imagined impermeable wall between the kingdom of common grace and the kingdom of special grace that no distinctly Christian category can any longer exist in the common realm. For R2K in this model Christian education, Christian law, Christian family, Christian culture, Christian kings, Christian art can’t be conceived of since education, law, family, culture, kings, art, etc. by definition are only common and therefore cannot be handled as being distinctly Christian.

Here it is not only rabid amillennialism that is playing into matters but the whole idea of common grace has been let loose from any Christian mooring and is allowed to play havoc with the idea that Christ has all explicit authority in heaven and on earth.

5.) There is a 2K version wherein the now, not yet hermeneutic is employed. This 2K version would speak of the now present inaugurated kingdom of grace and the not yet but certain future consummated kingdom of glory. This view is consistent with any number of the above views and is hardly contested except among die-hard premills who see the kingdom as all future and die-hard full Preterists who see the kingdom as all present.

I am indebted to this post for my expanding work here.

https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2021/05/different-versions-of-two-kingdoms.html?fbclid=IwAR21Ja46ZaCJuPcHD5ImDIeHvUd8YShK2ILW-uEYJPpe_3_x1HkwlDvxxHM

Kalergi … Then & Now

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894- 1972)

Some truth is so painful to hear it is considered impolite to mention it. That kind of awkward truth eventually becomes the proverbial elephant in the room that everybody has to step around but nobody dares mention.  The above quote by Kalergi (whose Father was Austrian and whose Mother was Japanese) was prophetic in terms of the goal that remains for the Deep State elite. The Great Reset crowd earnestly desires to fulfill Kalergi’s vision of a blenderized globe where, consistent with the strains of U2’s Bono, “All colors bleed into one.”

Quotes like Kalergi is the reason that people familiar with the movement of social history since WW II (actually before but we will start with that event) talk so freely about the agenda to replace white people in the West. 

The evidence for this is considerable. In 1998 President Clinton could enthusiastically offer in a speech at Portland State University;

“Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time … [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.”

President Obama chimed in on this theme when he noted during his presidency,

“That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic can not stand.” “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand.” “The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These hallowed walls we must tear down.”

Barack Obama – Berlin, July, 2008


Vice President Biden in 2015 went even a little further echoing the vision of Kalergi when he offered his insights about the nature of American Democracy;

“There is a second thing in that black box: an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop.” Folks like me who are Caucasian, of European descent, for the first time in 2017 we’ll be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority,” he said. “Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock,” he said. “That’s not a bad thing, that’s a source of our strength.”

If we were to read this trend through Biblical lenses we would easily see that this is all a push to return to Babel. We all call it “the New World Order,” but actually it is a return to the “Old World Order,” that envisions the elimination of distinctions of not only race and ethnicity but also of sex and age. The elimination of distinctions between race and ethnicity is of a piece with the elimination of sex, gender, and age. Loving vs. Virginia was just as much of a piece of this NWO attack on distinctions as was Lawerence vs. Texas or Obergefell vs. Hodges. In the not too distant future, there will be another SCOTUS case that will legitimize sex between children and adults.

The greatest threat to the Christian faith today is the Marxism that continues to attack all distinctions in favor of creating a globe where all men are bastards and border-men, where all men and women regardless of whether they are children or not can have copious sex, where all men share the same sulfur smelling religion and where nobody knows if the person they are marrying is male or female.

I am four-square against the Kalergi vision because I am a disciple of Christ.

A Conversation On (Mostly) 20th Century American History

If those soldiers who gave their lives for this country were still alive, whom everyone is talking about in relation to the whole flag imbroglio, they would be the first to take a knee for the National Anthem.

Do you really think they gave their lives so we could have an abortion, sell baby parts, and witness sodomites marrying one another? Do you really think they died for their country so that their descendants could be disinherited by a third world immavasion? Do you really embrace the notion that they died so the country could be overrun by crazy Marxist organizational kind of thinking?

Nope … if they hadn’t sacrificed their lives and were still alive they’d be the first one’s kneeling.

Louis Morin

The men that fought in the American Revolution would probably turn in their graves if they saw the state of things today.

  • Robert M Shivers
    It seems both sides can make a case for protesting the anthem, it’s just that we are in diametrical disagreement on the motive.
  • Laurie VandenHeuvel
    Totally disagree Bret.
     

    Bret L. McAtee

    Not surprised. I would bet that nearly everyone from your generation would disagree.

     

    • Thomas Laurie VandenHeuvel
      I would ask what generation has to do with anything, but I’m not asking it because I don’t want to get embroiled in this argument.
    • Robert M Shivers
      A friend of mine’s father, Laurie, served in the Pacific (as did several of my uncles) and was present on the BB Missouri at the surrender in Sept ’45. Later in life, looking at what had was happening to America, he said it looked like they had wasted their time and effort fighting the war. I understand what he meant by that. 

      Some nations win the battle but ultimately lose the war. In the case of the US and Britain in WWI & WWII, it looks like we won the war, but will ultimately lose the nation. It’s because the “Greatest Generation” made a golden calf of federal govt power and bowed to worship it.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      And let’s not even mention that history books in 500 years, in giving one paragraph each to WW I and WW II will report something like the following,


      W. W. I is to be remembered primarily because it brought Bolshevism to power in a European Nation-State while WW II will be remembered primarily because it brought that same Bolshevism to power as an international superpower. The winners of both WW I and WW II were the Bolshevists. Everyone else lost.

       

    • Robert M ShiversWWI & WWII & the Cultural Revolution in late 20th/early 21st Century America, Bret, will just be seen as the logical and inevitable fulfillment of the promise of the French & Russian Revolutions.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee


      Yep…

      Enlightenment

      French Revolution

      Revolution of 1848

      Civil War

      WW I

      Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in Russia

      WW II

      Frankfurt School blossoms in America

      Adele LaVeau

      Laurie, on which specific points do you disagree, and why?

       

    • Robert M Shivers
      T
      he only other things I would enumerate Bret would be the post-war “civil rights” movement and Third World immigration to the West, which will be seen as having an impact comparable to effect on the Roman Empire of the barbarian migrations of the 5th and 6th centuries 

       

      Bret L. McAtee


      Good and necessary additions Dr. Shivers.


      Laurie VandenHeuvel 

       

      None of the predictions of how our history will be written years from now really matter to the point of honoring our country and our country’s heroes. Go through all the comments above–regarding past and current sins of our country and dire predictions for the future, and none of them impact our duty, right, and privilege of honoring our country and those who have given of themselves to preserve it. Does anyone REALLY THINK that I do not share in the heartache of seeing what is happening in our country? If you do, then you do not really know ME. But the point is, that I see my love for my country, much as a parent sees his/her love for a wayward child. I thank God every day that He has led all of our children and their spouses and families, to love Him and serve Him. But if there were one wayward child, I would love him or her just as intensely, and never cease to pray day and night, and work for the salvation of that child. With the same type of intensity, I love this land that God Himself has given us and prospered. I trust Him fully for the future of this country. I realize that He may be thundering judgment from heaven in His recent natural upheavals. But that doesn’t change, one wit, the blessings He has heaped upon us from our beginning. All of the naysaying spoken above doesn’t alter one iota of the fact that God has blessed each and EVERY ONE of us, including all the naysayers, through this country and its sacrificial people. Anything other than this is a refusal to acknowledge this, and a futile attempt to predict a future which only God knows.

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      If I had a wayward child Laurie I would anguish and pray. I would also keep the door shut in his face until he repented. I also wouldn’t honor that child in any way. It would kill me but love for God and that child would require it.

       

      Laurie VandenHeuvel

      I believe that kind of response of rejection, is totally contrary to the example of the father of the prodigal son.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      20 And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and [f]kissed him. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son[g]. 22 But the father said to his [h]servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

       

      Only when the son returns does the Father embrace. Until such a time the son was without honor or standing.

       

      Bret L. McAtee 

      It is love for God and my kinsmen that finds me refusing to stand for the Pledge or for the anthem.

       

       

    • Thomas Laurie VandenHeuvel

      “But while he (the son) was yet afar off…” shows a father yearning for his son. Case closed from my end.

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      Did I say anything about not yearning?

       

      I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart. 3 For I could [a]wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

       

    • Adele LaVeau
      I sincerely thank you Laurie for answering with an obvious passion about the subject. But I also believe you have no understanding of the comments above. As a former Marine, you would refer to me as a hero. That would be idolatry. My service as a Marine did absolutely NOTHING to perpetuate liberty or freedom. My service only helped to further enrich the satanic bankers who have destroyed this country, casting everyone into slavery and tyranny. If you believe American troops are protecting your freedom fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, you must ask yourself how Iraq and Afghanistan ever took possession of your freedoms, necessitating intervention to liberate them.

      I refuse to stand for a flag that honors every evil thing permitted in this country. I refuse to stand and grant honor to a flag that represents the spread of global tyranny, and I refuse to stand for a flag that has been waging war against my countrymen and kinsmen since 1861.

       

       

    • Jack Burhenne
      The enemies were not all internal Adele. The commie threat was real and needed to be opposed. I did my time in the military during the Vietnam era, and it’s clear that service in the military can involve tremendous sacrifice, whether or not that sacrifice is twisted by evil men in an evil society. That sacrifice ought to be recognized and respected, and your blanket condemnation of the motivations of those involved is arrogant. 

      Bret L. McAtee

       

      Then call Maj. General Smedley Butler arrogant. He was a two time Congressional Medal of honor winner. In his book. “War is a Racket” he takes much the same tack as Adele LaVeau.

      Short book … you should give a read

       

    • Adele LaVeau
      You might have a valid point Jack, had the American Imperial forces actually ever fought to defeat Communism. Instead, going back to America’s first Marxist president, Abraham Lincoln, America has fought on the side of Communism, and has all but ensured Communism’s global victory. I’ll take arrogance over ignorance every time. I would recommend Anthony Sutton’s “The Rise and Fall” triology of books to sustain my observations here.
       
    • Jack Burhenne
      You mean those Russian subs we were playing cat & mouse with Adele in the North Sea were a figment of my imagination? Or that Uncle Ho wasn’t determined to turn all of Southeast Asia into a commie hell hole? You’re the one who’s ignorant and blind to boot.
       
    • Adele LaVeau

      Typical of one who serves in a low-level position and believes involvement in a few tactical exercises equals mastery of the strategies of those holding all the pieces on the board.

       

    • Jack BurhenneYou cannot deny, Adele, that the “American imperial forces” had a horribly bloody confrontation with the commies in southeast Asia and that those Vietnamese commies were supplied by the Russian & Chinese commies. No matter who you think was pulling the strings, we actually DID engage the communists. Period.

       

    • Adele LaVeau
       I like you, but you don’t make it easy. Considering there would have been no global communism without American finances, and both world wars were fought to usher in communism on a global scale, it matters not that Americans engaged their teammates. Of course, my nation was involved in a brutal war against communist forces flying the U.S. flag. Lincoln’s Yankee commies were every bit as Marxist as those of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Just further proof that America has never fought against communism, but merely engaged fellow communists.  
    • Jack Burhenne
      – I’ve been watching the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary the last several daysAdele, and there is no doubt in my mind that those poor bastards were fighting evil men operating under a terribly brutal communist ideology, and no matter what this country’s faults are, I’d rather live under our system than theirs. And, there is also no doubt in my mind that a significant number of those men, in their minds and hearts, WERE fighting to keep this country free from the global communist threat, and they were heroic and it is a crime of ingratitude to denigrate their terrible sacrifices just because they don’t line up with your rigid ideology. 
    • Adele LaVeau
      You don’t pay attention very well Jack. It is a lie to accuse me of ‘denigrating’ the sacrifices made by those who thought they were fighting for liberty. I thought the same thing. But for you to be consistent, you would have to honor the sacrifices made by the warriors of every nation fighting for what they are told is their own liberty. And you would especially have to honor those noble peasants and farmers in Dixie who fought, suffered, and died protecting their Christian homeland from communist American Yankee invaders. And while on that subject, I think you’ve identified your problem for us: Ken Burns.
       
    • Jack Burhenne
      I fully stand with the people of the South and their fight against the Federal monster Adele. As for Ken Burns, as much as he tried to spin the Vietnam documentary, enough truth slipped by to convince me that if we’d had rolled over and played dead for the commies in Vietnam, it wouldn’t have improved our situation today at all. 
    • Adele LaVeau
      I’m delighted Jack, to see that you understand Ken Burns’ federal slant. But again, you’re missing the point. It matters not how evil the communist foes were. We did nothing to ensure liberty here at home by fighting them in their backyard. Again, there would never have been a communist faction in SE Asia, had not Wall Street banksters financed the Bolshevik coup. Had we engaged Stalin in Europe, instead of allying with him, we could have forever diminished the threat of the spread of communism. It is in that spirit that you must understand that NOTHING our military has done has helped to stop the global spread of communism. On the contrary, the American military has been fighting for corporate and financial interests for a long time.

      I mourn the needless death and maiming suffered by our fighting forces in the false name of liberty. I blame not the brainwashed minions who are merely acting in accordance with the Huxleyian programming with which they have been inculcated since before birth. However, their sacrifices are just that: sacrifices on the altar of Molech, to ensure that the bloodlust of the foreign gods of Talmudic communism is perpetually satiated.