We’re In The Army Now

“The coming of National-Socialist State should not fall into the error of the past and assign to the Army a task which it does not and should not have. The German Army is not to be a school for the maintenance of tribal peculiarities, but rather a school for the mutual understanding and adjustment of all Germans. Whatever may have a disruptive effect in national life should be given a unifying effect through the Army. It should furthermore raise the individual youth above the narrow horizon of his little countryside and place him in the German nation. He must learn to respect, not the boundaries of his birthplace, but the boundaries of his Fatherland; for it is these which he to must some day defend.”

Adolph Schickelgruber (nee – Hitler)
Mein Kampf

“Military service was an essential civic duty, and it was the responsibility of the Army to educate and to unify, once and for all the population of the Reich.”

Sir Winston Churchill — British Prime Minister
The Gathering Storm — pg. 143

I am an opponent of Christians in These United States encouraging their children to consider military service. I know that when children hit 18 they can decide for themselves on this issue over their parents objections and pursue a military hitch or career. Yet, parents can have a huge influence on their children years before they reach the point of considering the military as part of their future.

The reasons I am opposed to the covenant seed going into military service is,

1.)US military is the enforcement agency of the US State.

Christians have to begin to realize the vast implications of what the US State is doing. The US State, comprised of people from both major Parties, are currently seeking to turn America into a pluralistic national entity along with the countries of Mexico and Canada. This arrangement would be prelude to the Babel like larger vision of building a Global Nation State. Christians should oppose this for the same reason that God opposed the same kind of attempt pursued as recorded in Genesis 11. The attempt to build a Global Nation New World order is in direct defiance of God’s unique sovereignty. Such a World State clearly has God like aspirations that would require men to live, move and have their being in the State. No thoughtful Christian can or should support this by being part of the enforcement arm of the State used to muscle acquiescence to the larger program. To join the US military at this time puts one in the position of helping to build an Idol that is intent on replacing the God of the Bible and so, as a general rule, Christian young people shouldn’t join the military.

2.) Per the quotes above the Military, like the educational system in America, is a place where loyalty to the Nation State is to be built over confessional, regional or familial loyalties. The feminization that one finds in the US military is not being done because it works. It is being done so that all those who do a hitch in the military can be brainwashed that this kind of interchangeable male and female parts in part of what it means to be ‘American.’ The same holds true for the homosexulization that one finds in the military with the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. I am convinced that the current primary role of the US military is, like the secondary educational system in America, is to make, by the State’s autonomous standard, ‘good citizens.’ Since this standard is not particularly beholden to a Christian mind, I’m not sure why Christians would want to go to a place where they are going to be bullied into a belief system not their own.

I fully understand and recognize that exceptions would exist for this general policy. There may be Christian young people who may believe themselves called to go into the US military with the idea that they are going to honorably serve their country and if that means disobeying unconstitutional orders then they are willing to face the consequences. I don’t meet many 18 years olds like that but I’m quite willing to admit that they could exist. Also, I suppose the argument could be made that going into the military in a field (like the Army Band) where one would not be as directly involved in what I’ve mentioned is acceptable.

Overall, I’ve come to conclude that since both the US educational system and the US military are committed to the same goal of making ‘World Citizens’ who will aid in the building of the pagan New World Order that Christians will think long and hard about attaching themselves to such agencies.

I realize that this veiw is probably not a popular position. I realize that Christians have and do serve faithfully in the US military. I don’t think Christians who are serving and who have not thought this through are evil. I’ve come to believe however that the interest of the US State are diametrically and diabolically opposed to the interests of the Kingdom of Christ, and as Christians can’t serve two masters I think it is time we started thinking about which of our citizenships we should prioritize in this world.

Freedom

“It is our traditional belief that man was given liberty to ennoble him. We may infer that those who would take his liberty away have the opposite purpose of degrading him…. Now we are at the point where regimentation, which used to be suggested with apologies, comes couched in the language of prerogative. The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject the favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not be long be found at all.”

Richard Weaver — American Social / Political Philosopher

Here we find part of the reason that those who reject statism have such a difficult time in persuading others. Statists come to us in honey and sweetness. Those who are part of that system that just wants to ‘care for us’ are just trying to be ‘nice.’ This damn niceness is going to kill us all. It is exactly that observation, and the way it is stated, that causes others to recoil at those who are anti-Statists. Anti-statists reject the niceness of the government ‘help,’ and that rejection is seen as ‘not-nice,’ hostile, belligerent, and even mean-spirited. Those who are for the freedom that Weaver mentions are those who resist, reject, and who actively push away those Statists who advertise themselves as just trying to ‘care for people.’ The problem with the caring State, of course, is that, over time, it exponentially, discovers more and more reasons that people need to be cared for, thus perpetuating and increasing people’s need for the State’s care. The problem with the caring State is that it knows that once people get a taste for being cared for the invalid class will perpetually vote for their caretakers and against those who believe that people should be responsible to take care of themselves. The problem with the caring State is that it can only take on the burden for all this increased creative caring by increased destructive stealing. The problem with the caring State is that it knows what it is doing and what it is doing isn’t offering help but rather it is degrading men by making them slaves. And eventually all this caring is done more for the administrators then it is for the patients.

Those who see this agenda then react violently, and those who don’t see this agenda can only see the violent reaction and wonder at why these pro-Freedom people are so mean. Well, let me try to explain. The reason we are so ‘mean’ is that we love you. We understand that the more you let the State care for you the more what makes you noble is going to atrophy. We understand that all this caring is going to suffocate your humanity. We understand that ‘he who takes the King’s coin is the King’s man,’ and we’d kind of like to think you’d like to be your own man, beholden to nobody but Christ.

And being mean, and being free, we don’t like going silently into the night. So, put up with our dire warnings just a little longer. It will be soon enough and our breed will die out and you can go back to your velvet chains, and lick spittle obedience.

What’s In A Name?

Recently the name of the leading Democratic Presidential contender has wormed its way back into the news. Specifically we are being told that it is fear mongering to mention that Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name is ‘Hussein.’ Such mewling from the Democrats on this issue serves them well due to their every expanding, ‘poor me, I’m a victim’ party creed. Quite beyond that I want to briefly examine the issue of the name itself.

First keep in mind that the use of middle names among Presidents has a long and storied tradition. Just off the top of my head, without looking I can give you,

Warren Gamaliel Harding
John Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Clark Hoover
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman (The ‘S’ stood alone)
Dwight David Eisenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (along with his brother Robert Francis)
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Richard Milhous Nixon
Leslie Lynch King (sometimes known as Gerald Rudolph Ford)
James Earl Carter
Ronald Wilson Reagan
George Herbert Walker Bush
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
George Walker Bush

Some of these President’s were trademarked by their monograms, which of course included their middle initial (FDR, JFK, LBJ). The sum of the point is that the awareness and usage of middle names among those who are Presidential aspirants is not uncommon. So, given that reality why is it that Barack Hussein Obama is complaining that the usage of his middle name, by his opponents, is fear mongering?

The answer to that is twofold. First, Barak Hussein Obama, by complaining about this issue, morphs the issue from being about his Muslim origins into an issue about being victimized. Second, by complaining about this issue as fear mongering Barak Hussein Obama achieves the elimination of a story that potentially has real legs. What of Obama’s past? What kind of difference did it make growing up with Muslim Dads? Keep in mind here that the issue isn’t that Barak, or even his Dad’s were active Muslims. The issue here is (or at least should be) answering the question of the ways that the Islamic cultural matrix that Obama grew up in influenced him. The Americans listed above grew up in a culture largely defined by Christian categories. Some of them might have been unfaithful to those Christian categories but nobody can deny that those Christian categories influenced them. How did Muslim categories influence and shape Barak Hussein Obama?

This is also an issue because what Democrats are asking Americans to do, with the nomination of Barak Hussein Obama, is to elect somebody that only partially belongs to Ameri-euro culture. Take a look again at those names listed above. They are all Anglo Saxon Christian names and those men reflected, often times quite imperfectly, Anglo-ized Saxonized Christianized Culture. With the election of Barak Hussein Obama the case can be made that, at least symbolically speaking, America will have turned its back on its ethnic and cultural roots and will have officially embraced becoming a ‘World Nation’ as opposed to a Anglo-ized Saxon-ized Christianized nation where the oppressed of the world are welcome.

Many people who believe that nationality is bound up in abstract ideas that people of different cultures can abstractly embrace don’t find the above notion to be a problem. I think we are going to find out if they are correct. A look at how Nations around the world, where the kind of ethnic and cultural differences exist that we are insisting can make for a cohesive Nation, are pulling apart at the seams suggest that they are not.

Voting for Barak Hussein Obama may reveal if a radically polyglot nation can really be E pluribus unum.

America, The Socialist Model?

We have already mentioned that one of the universal traits of all socialist regimes is the eclipse of the transcendent, or better put, the relocation of the transcendent to an immanent source — usually the State.

One implication of this is the elimination of the cultivation of the sense of the individual for the counter-cultivation of the populations sense of the Borg or the hive. This is especially true in socialistic regimes of the Fascist variety since Fascism is not interested in setting fellow citizens at odds through class warfare but rather desires to create a national identity where all classes are lost in their sense of belonging to a ethnicity or a nation. Since the Transcendent has been re-located in the immanent State, and since the State thus becomes the mega-phone of the Rousseauian ‘general will’ all concepts of individualism get lost in the sense of belonging to that which is Transcendent and is speaking as the voice of God. Individuals thus become either cogs in the machine (rational enlightenment version) or organs in the living breathing community (romantic enlightenment version).

There arise from this several implications. First, the nation, or people (ethnos) and even its culture is identified with the State. Any attempt to make distinctions between the country and the Government is completely lost since the State becomes the apex incarnation of the country. Now with the State becoming the apex incarnation of the country what normatively follows in successful socialistic systems is the rise of dynamic individual leaders who themselves become the living representative of the State. So, culture, ethnos, society, and country become exactly equated with the State. The State becomes a Nationalistic incarnation and it produces a dynamic larger than life leader who becomes the incarnation of the State, with the consequence that the leader is the visible manifestation of the State and the people. The leaders becomes the proverbial Queen Bee and all live to serve her and by serving her the hive is served.

Second, since the Transcendent is located in the collectivized Volk and since the mind of the Volk (general will) is known through the State, there is no salvation outside the State. In socialistic systems, it is the case that, ‘in the State one lives and moves and has their being.’ Individualism in this system is not merely an oddity but rather it is rebellion against God and so is a threat that must be removed.

Third, since the true Transcendent has been lost for an immanent transcendent there is no means by which a socialist state can be adjudicated short of implosion. Any other Transcendent that would arise to challenge the immanent transcendent of the State could only arise by means of some kind of individualism and as we have seen that individualism is immediately crushed.

Fourth, in Socialistic systems truth is normatively arrived at by way of consensus as opposed to the way of open debate or conflict. Conflict would be a threat to the idea of one universal general will and so truth is moved towards incrementally and is always cloaked in the idea of societal consensus. The only exception to this would be is when the State desires to demonize some faction within a society. At this point the purpose of introducing conflict into the general will would be in order to expose the minority opinion to mockery and castigation, thus serving the agenda of strengthening the State.

Now, we move to inquire whether or not any of this is relevant for America in 2008. What is interesting about this in terms of America is the way that we have arrived at some of our socialistic (and even Fascistic) leanings. Take for example the issue of individualism. What the Sate has done here to eliminate genuine individualism is to promote spurious individualism. In America over the last 75 years or so the State has worked very hard in breaking down every other covenantal institution besides the State, all in the name of individualism. Both family and Church have suffered in order to give the individual more ‘freedom.’ The consequence of this action though has not been more individualism but rather more Borg like sameness. With the increasing eclipse of these other God ordained covenantal institutions (Family and Church) — institutions that largely help in defining who we are as individuals — all that has been left, institutionally speaking, in order to provide contextual background in order for people to define themselves against, is the State. This in turn has resulted in people who are all being individual in exactly the same Borg like fashion.

In America the pursuit of Socialism has been largely accomplished through the Government schools. The Government schools have never had the purpose of educating children. The purpose of Government schools has always been to create a unified citizenry, who, because they have been taught a common anti-Christ narrative, all have a common anti-Christ purpose. The schools have always been socialistic in their desire to create a Borg culture, and as B.K. Eakman (The Cloning Of The American Mind) and others have pointed out the government schools are getting even more proficient at creating the mind of Borg.

So, we would have to say that, especially beginning with New Deal (yes, you can go further back then that even) legislation, that gave more and more power to the State, often in the name of securing the rights of individuals, and with the accelerated efficiency of Government schools in creating a common mind (school to work programs, no child left behind, values clarification, outcome based education, etc.) America largely has a socialistic mindset and ethos. By emphasizing the individual the individual has been eliminated.

Now there is another twist in the way America expresses its socialism and that is how it is managing to build a mono-culture (one Volk, one people, one nation) by appealing to multicultural categories. Most Americans believe that the pursuit of multi-culturalism would be proof positive that we are not a Socialistic people. What they don’t realize is that the cultural / societal solidarity that is being shaped in America is being shaped precisely because we are, as a people, unified in the way we approach multi-culturalism. We are agreed that all gods and all cultures are acceptable as long as they are privatized and know their place and will not seek to arise above the unitarian safety that comes in belonging to the State. In other words, all religions and cultures are welcome in our socialistic arrangement as long as the adherents don’t really take them with any great seriousness. I would also have to say that in this way we are far more Fascist in our socialism then we are Marxist. The goal seems to be to create a bond that reaches across class distinctions in order to build an America that desires to extend its multi-cultural nationalism, internationally. By emphasizing multi-culturalism we have arrived at a Borg like mono-culture.

Another oddity reveals itself in one of the places where this socialistic mindset and ethos is most clearly revealed. Today, it is in the Church, of all places, that one reaps some of the severest consequences for trying to bring an alternate Transcendent to adjudicate the Culture. So many Christians have bought into the Socialistic mindset that we are speaking of here that any attempt to unwrap the flag from the Cross is seen as heresy and gives reason for shunning. The Christian faith has largely been enrolled in the fight to export American multi-cultural Fascistic socialism. Any doubt of this is immediately eliminated where a challenging word is spoken against the current Warfare-Welfare State.

The reality that the State, in this country, is seen as the incarnational apex of the people and that all distinctions between country or people and State have been lost is revealed in the way that politics has become our Theology. This shows that we have lost a true transcendent and are socialistic. The reason that Americans fight so desperately over Politics is that we understand that whoever controls the State gets to define what the country is, and it has gotten to the point that most Americans don’t even realize that there should be a distinction between country and State.

We could go on to speak of how Americans increasingly identify with the Great leader (President). We could talk about the social ostracization that occurs when people color outside the socialist lines. We could talk about the preference for consensus in this country and the current lack of tolerance for conflict and passionate debate as a means to arriving at truth. (This has not always been the case in America.) All of this points to the reality that we are, at the very least, a Socialistic people.

The Race In November

Increasingly it looks like Barak Hussein Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Already the Republicans are running focus groups on how to deal with the race problem that Barak Hussein Obama represents. The conventional wisdom that seems to be gaining strength in the ‘Stupid Party’ is that McCain will have to walk on eggshells in the general campaign for fear of shooting himself in the foot the way that George Allen is perceived to have done with his ‘Macaca’ comment in the last Virginia Senatorial election.

The fact that race is already a reality that people are being sensitive to can be seen by the tactic of popular neo-con mega radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has assigned the position of ‘official critcizer of Barak Obama’ to one of his black employees. Obviously, Limbaugh believes that the only person who can criticize a black man is another black man . On the most listened to talk radio show in America we see the fear of being seen as ‘racist’ already haunting Limbaugh as it is also haunting the Republican Party?

Clearly in all this we see the Marxist effect of political correctness in this country. White males have descended to the point that they are afraid of criticizing a black person for the things about which he needs to be criticized. Who cares if Obama is coffee latte colored? What matters is that Barak Hussein is the biggest Socialist this Party has coughed up since George McGovern in 1972.

You see race has already come into this campaign in more ways then you can shake a stick at. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 his previous Marijuana toking became a national issue. By all accounts Barak Hussein Obama has drug using in his past but you don’t hear about that anyplace but on the fringes of the media outlets. Why are the two men held to different standards? Could it be due to the race issue? Could it be that those white people campaigning against and reporting on Barak Hussein Obama are paralyzed by the handcuffs of political correctness? Another recent example was when the wife of Barak Hussein Obama said that, ‘For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.’ Now if the wife of a white candidate said that would it get the kind of media pass that Michelle’s comment recently received from the media? Obviously not, because people tend to think that black people are entitled to think that way since liberal politically correct thinking believes that white America has been so universally mean, nasty and hateful to black folk. The thinking seems to go something like … “Well, naturally she has never been proud of her country… she’s black after all.”

If you want to find Racism in this campaign all you need to do is look on the other side of the aisle. Barak Hussein Obama attends a Church with a mega racist pastor (Jeremiah Wright) who has said some of the most racist things imaginable against white people. I guarantee you that if any white candidate even attended one service (never mind being a member) where the kinds of things are said against blacks that Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said about White people the major media would still be writing about it 200 years from now. And yet, nobody inquires about Obama’s membership in a Race mongering Church. Why is that? Well clearly it is because in Marxist politically correct America it is not possible for anybody but White people to be racist.

Let us continue to talk about racism. Barak Obama has most recently had his praises sung by one of the most racist men in America (Louis Farakhan). Now the Media went gonzo when Ron Paul received a little money from outlandish groups going so far as to demand that Congressman Paul send the money back. Tell me though, have you heard any demands from the media for Barak Hussein Obama to disassociate himself from Louis ‘Spaceship’ Farakhan? No, and you won’t either because racism is only a one way street in America.

Barak Hussein Obama is a Black Socialist with a drug using and Muslim past but it is doubtful whether or not anybody will attempt to lay a glove on him on these issues solely because the virtue of being Black in America is that if one even questions the qualifications of somebody who is black that is proof positive that somebody is a racist.

And if anyone reads this and concludes that I am a racist, then it proves that you’ve swallowed the Marxist politically correct Kool-aid.