“As political and economic freedom diminishes sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.”
Conversely as Sexual “freedom increases,” man is increasingly put into political and economic bondage. Men’s vices become their Masters.
“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”
And so we see why Libertarians should be kept as far away as possible from handling machinery when running.
From an interview with Christopher Hitches from 2010
Unitarian Female Minister asks Hitchens,
Q. — The religion you cite in your book (Christopher Hitchens) is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, & I don’t take the stories from scripture literally. I don’t believe the doctrine of atonement. Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith & liberal religion?
Christopher Hitchen’s answer
I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus was the Christ, & that he rose again from the dead & by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Well, at least the atheist Christ-hating pagan gets it even if the Unitarian female minister doesn’t.
“No more than the Romans could lock up Jesus Christ inside a sealed tomb can Westminster Seminary California confine Him to the church. If they continue to try to lock Him into the church, He will shatter the church as He did the tomb, and leave it empty as He emerges to rule the world, for He “is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords”.
~ R.J. Rushdoony
R2K advocates really need to quit saying things like “the law of God is no longer applicable to the common square,” when what they mean to say is “The Law of the OT God is no longer applicable in the common square.” Clearly for R2K the New Testament God has a different agenda than the OT God.
“The other (my conversation partner), whom I try to influence with what he likes to hear, ceases to be my partner; he no longer a fellow subject. Rather, he has become for me an object to be manipulated, possibly to be dominated, to be handled and controlled. Thus the situation is just about the opposite of what it appears to be. It appears, especially to the one flattered, as if special respect would be paid, in fact, this is precisely not the case. His dignity is ignored; concentrate on his weaknesses and on those areas that may appeal to him — all in order to manipulate him to use him for my purposes. And insofar words are employed they cease to communicate anything. Basically, what happens here is speech without a partner (since there is no true other); such speech in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate. The word is perverted and debased to become a catalyst, a drug, as it were, and is as such administered. Instrument of power may still seem a somewhat strong term for this; still, it does not seem so far-fetched any longer.”
Is there any kind of language that we hear today that isn’t manipulation? In the sales business. In the advertising business. In politics. In the Church. It is all manipulation. It is all monologue.
“Apart from the power and promise of God, the preaching of such a religion as Christianity, to such a population as that of paganism, is the sheerest Quixotism. It crosses all the inclinations and condemns all the pleasures of guilty man. The preaching of the Gospel finds its justification, its wisdom, and its triumph, only in the attitude and relation, which the infinite and almighty God sustains to it. It is His religion, and therefore it must ultimately become a universal religion.”
Sermons to the Spiritual Man, page 421
Shedd’s observation that “Christianity must become a universal religion,” smacks of postmillennialism.
In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Bibles were written in the Pashto and Dari languages, and the Defense Department was concerned the books might somehow be used to convert Afghans.
But there was another reason the Bibles were confiscated. Military rules forbid troops from proselytizing in the country.
“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright said in the interview.
1.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would force modernizing their culture in a Cultural Marxist direction.
2.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would kill them for following the precepts of their faith in expelling the infidel.
3.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would fly the fag flag on our embassy.
It is absolutely ridiculous for modern armies to think they can win wars by killing people without killing the gods of those same people. We went into Afghanistan intent on killing as we go but we don’t want to kill the gods who make them the enemies they are? No war is successfully fought until the gods of the people whom war has been made against are slaughtered. The Christian God would have killed Allah dead but the gods of America (the FEDS) would not allow that to happen and so sought to kill the God of the Bible instead by burning His Word.
I have no tears left for pagan America. They have sewn the wind now let them reap the whirlwind.
Postscript — I was one of a minority of Americans who opposed the stupid Gulf War, to begin with. I never was a believer in the neo-con policy of “Invade the World, Invite the World,” and I was (and remain) convinced that 9-11 (the alleged causus belli of the Bush II Gulf War) had more to do with the American Deep State than it had to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan, like Lee Harvey Oswald before them, were mere patsies.
Dr. E.M. Green says this:
“[Dabney] was on his feet in a moment. He began this way:”
“Mr. Chairman, I feel as if I were talking to people across a river a mile wide. If you are pleased with such speeches as you have been listening to, it is useless for me to express my thoughts. I do not profess to be as good as some people; I hear brethren saying it is time to forgive. Mr. Chairman, I do not forgive. I do not try to forgive. What, forgive those people who invaded our country, burned our cities, destroyed our homes, slain our young men, and spread desolation and ruin over our land? No, I do not forgive them. But you say, “They have changed their feelings towards us, and are kind.” And why should they not be kind? Have we ever done anything to make them feel unkind to us? Have we ever harmed or wronged them? They are amiable and peaceful, are they? And is not the gorged tiger amiable and peaceful? When he has filled himself with the calf he has devoured, he lies down in a kind, good humor; but wait till he has digested his meal, and will he not be fierce again? Will he not be a tiger again? They have gorged themselves with everything they could take from us. They have gained everything they tried to get, they have conquered us, they have destroyed us. Why should they not be amiable and kind? Do you believe that the same old tiger nature is not in them? Just wrest from them anything they have taken from us, and see.”
“The basic argument of the book is that Christian Reconstructionism isn’t dead. It has been renewed. It has been simplified. A lot of the rough edges have been removed. A lot of the really controversial claims of the first generation have been either downplayed or denied and as Doug Wilson put it in an interview I did with him; ‘What is being so successful now in North Idaho is not so much Christian Reconstruction 2.0 but Christian Reconstruction 0.5.'”
This makes a point that I’ve been screaming about for some time. Wilson, in his usual attempted clever fashion, admits that he is not advancing classic Reconstruction thought. Wilson admits that he has watered down historic Reconstruction thought and sanded off the supposed rough edges so as to make Christian Reconstruction more palatable.
This seems to be the modus operandi of Wilson. Remember, Wilson used to confess that when it came to Federal Vision he was “the pale ale variety,” compared to the heavy stout version. So, with Federal Vision (which Wilson has putatively subsequently recanted upon) and with Reconstructionism Wilson likes to water down the theological and ideological hooch making it palatable to women and children so they can think they are like their Fathers. One is tempted at this point to make some kind of point that Wilson and his followers are forever drinking but never getting drunk.
To whom is Wilson’s Reconstructionism 0.5 more palatable? What other answer can there be to that but to say that Wilson has made it more palatable to those on the left — that is those on the right side of the left who would never have embraced historic Reconstructionist thought have been gathered in by Wilson’s watered-down Recon hooch. You know the types – they are the ones always complaining that “Rushdoony is just so harsh.”
The way that I’ve tried to say this in the past is that Wilson is not on the right but rather Wilson is on the right side of the Left. Doug’s appeal is to the “we never quite made it to the status of ‘Arts and Croissants’ crowd, but we have aspirations.”
By reducing the potency of Christian Reconstructionism to 0.5 Wilson is offering up an unstable product. The only way Reconstructionism’s potency could be cut is by denying the anti-thesis and by adding elements foreign to the original expression.
“The Great Reset is not going to happen.”
This is culled from this 6-minute video
I learned long ago by listening to Rushdoony that it is not a good idea to make hard predictions. Rush, like Wilson above, was prone to making predictions that when listening 20 years later to RJR’s lectures are just laughable.
Can you imagine some pop Christian in 1917 standing up and saying, “The Russian Revolution won’t happen?”
Or in 1957 some ersatz Christian authoritatively declaims, “The Maoist “Great Leap Forward” won’t’ happen?
Now, I’m as postmill as the next postmillennialist but I’m not so postmill that I have to engage in pollyanna-ism concerning the future.
Postmillennialism does not require us to engage in happy talk about the future. God is sovereign over the affairs of men but that does not mean, contra the amazing predictive powers of Doug Wilson, that Job won’t suffer unspeakable trauma.
Please understand me here. I am not saying that the “Great Reset” is going to happen. I am not saying that the Globalist powers will win out in 2021 the way they did in 1798, 1830, 1848, 1861, 1918, 1949, etc. What I am saying, contra Wilson, is that God being sovereign over the affairs of men does not mean that God will not judge His enemies and not chasten His friends by sending “the Great Reset.”
I agree in the end that attacks upon God can never be ultimately successful in the course of World History, but I am here to tell you that if the tower of Babel could happen and if the Marxists Revolutions of the 19th-20th centuries could happen then the Great Reset could happen and could last for an indeterminable time and God wouldn’t be any less God if it did. After all, it’s not like the West does not deserve to be judged and/or chastened.
Wilson is whistling past the graveyard (again) with this one. God still chastens those He loves.
“Did not Joe and Kamala not make a hash out of Afghanistan?”
In point of fact... “No, Joe and Kamala did not make a hash out of Afghanistan.” Everything that is happening in Afghanistan is precisely what they wanted to happen.
Doug seems to think that Joe and Kamala have the interests of these USA in mind in terms of policy. Doug couldn’t be more wrong.
People are trying to turn Wilson into some kind of “conservative” Christian guru and I’m here to tell you that the Wilson well is empty as far as that project goes.