Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “Breadcrumb Methodology?”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe discusses the blood ties between Moab and Israel as and example.

Then he says this:

“Nations today are NOT built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial. The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations–those of his kin. But the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place. Christian philosopher Johann Herder was correct in saying that the volk is a ‘family writ large’. This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood, but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land–to this nation in this place–and so they bind you to that people and place creating a common volkgeist.”

Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism — p. 139

When I first read the above I found it to be a word salad that is full of both implied and direct contradiction. I still find it perplexing unless…

I am rethinking Wolfe’s book in the context of all the Hub-bub it is creating. It is the darndest thing to see Wolfe getting hit by all sides. I have read reviews that claim that Wolfe is being a clever Nazi and comparing Wolfe’s book with Mein Kampf. (The good ole “ad-Hitlerum” logical fallacy.) Then there are people like me who don’t see Uncle Adolph (inside joke) but instead see Wolfe trying to avoid the inescapable “ethno” in the idea of Nationalism. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy getting hit by both sides like this. I hope the man makes some good money off the book  in order to offset all the grief he has been getting — even to the point of people destroying his friends livelihood in trying to pull Wolfe down by being associated with these alleged Nazi racists.

Because of all this fire from both sides I have been re-thinking what this book of Wolfe is. What is it trying to accomplish. What accounts for the methodology behind the book?

For the sake of argument just pretend you’re writing a book for an audience that is receptive to Nationalism but is on the fence regarding the ethnic side of it. Pretend that you as the author understand that the ethno in ethno-Nationalism is never going to fly in this politically correct, multi-cultural context. How would you go about writing a book that advances the ball on ethno-Nationalism while avoid the issue of the ethno? You know if in the book you state the obvious about Nationalism it will never even get published.

As such you decide to go all clever and describe all the accouterments of Nationalism in your book hinting strongly at the ethnic part and yet keeping it at arm’s length in terms of explicitly saying it. You get close to speaking about the ethno in ethno-Nationalism and then you beat a hasty retreat in order to avoid outraging the normies and the cultural-Marxist gatekeepers in the Western Church.

Instead you decide to drop all kinds of breadcrumbs to lead your reader, who may be hesitant to come to your conclusion if you said it overtly, to the conclusion that can’t help but be reached concerning ethno-Nationalism because the breadcrumbs you have dropped along the way in your book? Perhaps Wolfe is seeking to get people wet before he advocates swimming?

Now, this methodology is not for me, and I think it is better to throw a bucket of cold water on those who can’t swim. I think it is better to fastened your bold colors on the mast so that people know who you are from a league away. However, though it is not my style, and though I don’t think it is particularly effective, I can see other people believing this methodology might work.

Was Wolfe being this kind of clever in his book? Did he realize that most people embracing his broad outline of what Christian Nationalism is would then invariably embrace the ethno part of ethno-nationalism without him even having to be overly clear about his conviction on the matter?

I’m beginning to think this is a possibility. I think that Wolfe may have been going for conversion via the indirect route as opposed to going for conversion by my “in your face” route.

As an addendum please pray for Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Achord. Dr. Achord, a close friend of Wolfe’s was doxxed and fired from his job with the hopes that Wolfe could be found guilty by association with Achord.

Now, Achord has done nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has written if we were living in a sane world. But we are no longer living in a sane world. The Stalinists in the Church are in charge, and the Stalinists are insisting that if you do not embrace their vision of Christianized Cultural Marxism then it is “off with your head.” 

Achord is not the first victim of this bull fecal behavior and he won’t be the last.

A Brief Explanation for why Ministers Should Read Books on Deep State Activity — From 2017

Just completed Daniel Estulin’s “The Tavistock Institute; The Social Engineering of the Masses.” I read this back to back to his “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group.”

Why are these kinds of books important to read for the minister?
1.) It forces him out of pietism and forces him to see that retreat into pietism has meant the advance of Christ’s enemies in the public realm.

2.) It delivers us from R2K thinking inasmuch as we see that when Christians withdraw from the public realm false Gods claim ownership over that realm.

3.) It causes us to see that the corporeal enemies of the people we serve are intent on destroying them and their families via set policies pursued by nations, corporations, and agencies.

4.) It gives us insight into how spiritual forces in high places communicate themselves into this flesh and blood world in which we live.

5.) It casts us back on Christ who alone is able to defeat His enemies. But defeat them he has and so will. It thus gives us a roadmap on how we might be involved to that end.

6.) If we are called to resist we have to know who and what to resist. Books like this give us insight into that end.

Dr. Peter Jones… One or Two?

“One-ism, (all-is-one) is an esoteric read on reality. It maintains that everything can be explained by everything else. There are no qualitative distinctions to be found in the universe. The world creates itself and humans are ‘co-creators’ along with everything else. In this system reality is One. Think of one big circle. Everything is contained within it; rocks, trees, planets, human beings — even God, as a kind of energy. Everything is connected to everything else. There is nothing outside the circle.

Two-ism (all is two) is an exoteric read on reality. It maintains that the world is made by a Creator who is uncreated and radically different from His creatures. There are two forms of existence: the created and the one who created it. The two, while deeply related, are qualitatively distinct. Think of two circles, connected but distinct and essentially different.”

Dr. Peter Jones 
One or Two; Seeing a World of Difference — pg. 88

1.) What Dr. Jone’s labels as “One-ism,” is the idea where ontologically speaking, all reality participates in the same being. In most of these systems, one’s status in the social order is dependent on how much of that ultimate being they have unique to others who have less of this Oneist being.  The Mahat system of ancient Egypt was a Oneist system. The Pharoah was at the top of beingness and everyone descended from Pharoah had a lesser measure of being than Pharoah possessed. Animistic, Pantheistic, Hindu, are all Oneist systems.

The 1996 film “Phenomenon” is a classic expression of this One-ist Worldview as is the whole “Star Wars” series.

2.) Since everything is one and so all share the same being the ability to make qualitative distinct distinctions is impossible. For example, if a man and a woman share in the same universal being who is to say that there exists a qualitative distinction between what, in a non-Oneist worldview, has always been understood to be “male,” and “female?” Since the Oneist worldview finds an impossibility to make qualitative distinctions we get the idea of sexual fluidity and/or fluctuating gender. Indeed, in any consistent One-ist worldview any distinction has to be seen as temporary or arbitrary. Not only do we see the incapability of making hard gender and sexual qualitative distinctions we are increasingly seeing in some quarters of our culture the desire to erase the qualitative distinctions that once distinguished a child from the adult. There is a push in some quarters to sexualize the child arguing that the distinction between child and adult is unhelpful and arbitrary. On all these points we hear that heretofore universally accepted qualitative distinctions are merely “social constructs.” In Jones’ words above, humans are co-creators and as co-creator humans create these putative ‘social constructs’ that provide qualitative distinctions that we now, as a more enlightened One-ist people, understand are no distinctions at all. We hear this same kind of language about nations.  Distinct Nations, it is increasingly said, like gender, sexuality, and age are merely social constructs created by human co-creators who are free to uncreate what they had previously arbitrarily created.

Along this line, in One-ist worldview, religions likewise begin to break down and converge. Hard Ecumenicalism and a refusal to embrace the rough edges that segregate one religion from another becomes the watchword. Unity (really uniformity) becomes the be all end all passion. If all is one then uniformity is obviously the highest virtue and anyone who disturbs the pursuit of uniformity is a pebble in the shoe that must be eliminated. Of course, for the Christian unity is something that is never pursued. The Christian understands that unity is the residual byproduct of a common embrace of truth. The more people agree on truth, the more people will discover unity.

The demonstration of this mad pursuit for One-ist uniformity is commonly seen in the Revolutionary. Whether it was the One-ist leveling of the Bogomils, Cathar, Albigensians, and Ana-Baptists, whether it was the Phrygian cap in the French Revolution with the common leveling greeting to one and all, regardless of status or rank of “citoyenne,”  whether it is the universal leveling greeting of “comrade” during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or whether it was the ubiquitous leveling Mao suit found in the post-Communist Chinese Revolution, the One-ist worldview passionately desires to press upon people uniformity. Uniformity in One-ist slovenly thought, uniformity in slovenly clothing, uniformity in One-ist speech pattern. If all is one then all are interchangeable uniform cogs in the One-ist world.

Actually, in a genuinely One-ist world, as consistently followed, language and communication would be utterly impossible since qualitatively distinct meaning is impossible in a consistently One-ist world. Perhaps this explains God’s confusing of the language at Babel. Babel was perhaps the greatest attempt to build a One-ist social order ever.

George Orwell’s novel, “1984” is a wonderful fiction that describes the pursuit of Revolutionary One-ism.

3.) The One-ist will, of course, appeal to “Science” as a support to their One-ist cause. However, what most people don’t realize is that convictions don’t change because of science but rather science changes because of our convictions. This is a huge subject and so I will merely recommend three books that explain what I am getting at here,

a.) The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
b.) The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
c.) Hermeneutics and Science –Vern S. Poythress

An appeal to Science in order to prove One-ism will always be successful as coming from One-ist “Scientists.” Of course, if all is one, then anything and everything and nothing can be proven because no qualitative distinctions exist. One of the greatest failures of “Science” to give scientific heft to a distinctly non-scientific pursuit was the Soviet Union’s pursuit of Lysenkoism over Genetics. Lysenko insisted that he had overcome the qualitative distinction between Spring Wheat and Winter Wheat. He hadn’t and food shortages followed. “Science,” so-called, “proves” all kinds of things that just aren’t so. One-ism makes it easier for “Science” to do just that.

All of this to say that Science is only as good as the Theology that it is dependent upon and of which it is an expression.

4.) In Two-ism, because you have a distinct Creator and creature you also have other qualitative distinctions that are what they are because of how they have been named so by the Creator in His revealed Word. Genesis 1 is a long story of the Two-ist God making qualitative distinctions, and then God’s Law-Word goes on to make other qualitative distinctions which are definitely not social-constructs, though the One-ists will insist that God’s qualitative distinctions are instead really just so many social-constructs.

According to Bouwsma the idea of God’s creating qualitative distinctions was something well understood by John Calvin,

“The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should, therefore, remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma
John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

I highly recommend reading Dr. Peter Jones’ books. He provides scintillating analysis of how the culture and the Church are slipping faster and faster into One-ist presuppositions that are not Christian in their origin. Postmodernism, for example, is a child of One-ist ideology. Postmodernism teaches that no grand narratives exist and that all personal narratives are social constructs. Reality is malleable. Qualitative distinctions do not exist except as man subjectively creates them.

When One-ism slips into the Church the traditional language is retained but emptied of its original Two-ist meaning and is re-filled with One-ist pagan content. Dr. Jones’, in is “One or Two,” demonstrates how the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 deconstructs One-ism while making the case that our church and culture is increasingly falling into Oneism.

 

Expansionism Islam

I’ve done some reading on the Muslim expansion in history and over the past few years. Below is a list of some books I have read that you might want to consider if you are interested in becoming informed on this important subject. Muslims do not belong in the West but the International Money Power has Babel-like New World Order vision to turn the whole world into a cash register and so they are pushing Muslim third world migration into the West with the purpose of amalgamating and so destroying all distinct nations, peoples, and races. It is all part of the plan to homogenize the worlds peoples, religions, and races. Multiculturalism necessitates multi-faithism and multiracialism. This is one reason why Ayatollah McDurmon’s thinking and his recent Fatwas is contributing to the destruction of Christianity and the West. Also part of this plan is the push for worldwide legislative acceptance of global warming as well as the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, bricks of which are already being implemented in this country.

The expansion of Islam is but one tentacle in this New World Order push.

1.) Stealth Invasion — Leo Hohmann

2.) Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West — Christopher Caldwell

3.) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) — Robert Spencer

4.) The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World –Serge Trifkovic

5.) Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America — Ann Corcoran

6.) Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

7.) The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America — James Simpson

8.) The Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History) — Thomas F. Madden

9.) God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades — Rodney Stark

Returning to Churchill … Book Review of M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog”

Last night I completed M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog; Debunking the Myth of Winston Churchill.”
 
It should be noted at the outset that King is not the best person to first read as a contrarian historian. King tends to be a sensationalist and to often will go too far out on a limb to affirm a questionable point. However, having admitted that, if one is already somewhat familiar with the subject matter that King is writing on, from a non-Court Historian understanding then one has the ability to read King with profit as King has the ability to bring a large amount of information together in a very simple format.
 
King is no fan of Churchill and for that, I give him credit. However, when King starts off his book suggesting that Churchill’s father was not Lord Randolph Churchill and that Churchill’s Father was instead the offspring of the King of Serbia due to one of his mother’s countless flings one realizes that King has an ax to grind. (King on this questionable Churchill parentage quotes from a book by Dragoslava Koprivica.) One thing that does seem indisputable on this score is that Churchill’s mother was indeed a tramp who gave birth to Winnie 8 months after her marriage to Lord Randolph Churchill. As such anything is possible.
 
King’s sensationalism also informs us that Churchill was quite likely a bisexual. Churchill did have five children with his wife but King insists that Churchill’s time at the British Harrow boy’s school may have introduced Churchill to sodomy. It is without question true that Churchill was surrounded by men it would later be discovered were sodomites, but of course, that does not prove that Churchill himself was a sodomite. King’s evidence on Churchill’s homosexuality is merely circumstantial. It may be true but there is nothing that proves it is true.
 
One matter that King establishes beyond doubt that also agrees with other sources is that Churchill spent money like Lamashtu drank blood. Because of Churchill’s spendthrift ways, he was forever in money trouble and that money trouble allowed Churchill to sell his soul to those who delivered him from his money pit. King cites the Jewish financiers who bailed Churchill out. They include names like the well known Bernard Baruch, as well as the Jewish group of wealthy businessmen called ‘the Focus.’ The ‘Focus Group’ was headed by Jewish Corporatists named Sir Robert Mond and Sir Robert Waley-Cohen but was not limited to these two men.
 
David Irving in a speech supports King’s work,
 
“‘The Focus’ was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the board of Jewish deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in the Waley Cohen memoirs… The 29th of July, 1936m Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group.”
 
50,000 pounds in 1936 is today’s equivalent of approximately 2 million dollars. Irving goes on to insist that the 50,000 pounds was for the purpose of saber-rattling against Hitler and Germany.
 
King also speaks of a wealthy Jewish South African Corporatist by the name of Sir Henry Strakosch who via his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run-up to World War Two. Strakosch also supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during Churchill’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime. Strakosch’s financial arrangement with Churchill enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures. The financial relationship between Strakosch and Churchill can be sourced not only in David Irving’s work but also in Martin Gilbert’s work on Churchill.
 
King also tells the tale of Churchill’s well-known failures in the Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Antwerp, in Northern Ireland with his Black & Tans, and the invasion of Norway. King gives us a glimpse of Churchill’s alcohol problem and informs us that as an author and speechwriter Churchill was often a plagiarizer as well as a man who put his name on the work accomplished by ghost-writers. From King, we learn that the BBC Children’s voice of the Winnie the Pooh books was the man who gave some of Churchill’s speeches over the radio. That was supposed to have never been known. King reminds us that Churchill as a painter signed the name of an impressionist artist named Charles Maurin to his paintings in order to sell his painting at a greater price. King goes out of his way repeatedly to inform the reader that Churchill was a manufactured and marketed product that was packaged and sold to a gullible public. In short, Churchill excelled only in blood and mayhem but in every other respect was a phony.
 
King colors Churchill as black as possible. We are told Churchill was a terrible Father, a man who examined the idea to invade Russia after defeating the Nazis in WW II, the man who started bombing German civilian population with the desperate hopes that Hitler would retaliate, the man who advanced the New World Order’s agenda to create a uni-global political structure, a sock puppet pursuing the agenda of those who were paying his debts. It is possible that King paints Churchill in colors darker than he really was.
 
I’m not inclined to think that is possible to do.