Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part III

Dr. Alan Strange of Mid America Seminary keeps podcasting on the evils of Christian Nationalism and we here keep responding to his “R. Scott Clark with a Southern accent” routine.

1.) Strange denies that the Scripture gives detail as to what Biblical government looks like. He is fine with saying there are principles that Scripture gives  on government but there are not specific details. Here we have to carefully dissect. It is true that Scripture does not teach that only Monarchy is acceptable as a form of Government or Republicanism, etc. However, Scripture is clear that whether Monarchy or Republicanism all Magistrates must bow the knee to Jesus Christ. Now, bowing the knee to Jesus Christ means that Magistrates seek to implement a law-order that consistently reflects the law-order limned out in Scripture. That is a law order that has the Ten Commandments as the foundation with the general equity of the civil law as the case law. This would exist in all forms of government despite the structural and procedural differences found in varying governments. This much would be required for every Christian who would hold the position of Magistrate, regardless of the form of government within which they are operating.

We should be clear here that Dr. Alan Strange would certainly oppose what is proffered above. The disagreement here is regarding the abiding validity of the general equity of God’s civil law. Christians support that. Egghead Amillennial professors don’t support that.

2.) Strange appeals to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 to prove that Christians shouldn’t be seeking to “Israelitize” the world. Strange’s implication here is, “just so Christians shouldn’t seek to Christianize” the world. Strange, presumably, comes to this conclusion by reasoning that just as the Jerusalem council did not require the Gentiles to become cultural Jews (Israelites) before they became Christians so nations today do not need to become culturally Christian before they become Christian. The Gentiles did not need to accept Israelite law.

The problem here with this reasoning (and it is a HUGE problem) is that the issues in the Jerusalem council were issues that dealt with the ceremonial law, and not the civil law. The Jerusalem council decided that the Gentile nations did not have to embrace the ceremonial law of the OT before they could become Christian. Of course, the weakness in Strange’s analogy/argument here is that no one on our side of the fence is looking for the nations to take up God’s ceremonial law which has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. What the  anti-rabid Amillennialists who oppose Strange’s strange thinking desire is for all nations to bow the knee to Christ and His moral law and the general equity of the civil law which is based on God’s moral law. Strange, like all rabid Amillennialists does not want that. Strange desires that Nations be able to make up God’s law as they go. Strange does not want a hard standard, preferring instead generic principles as opposed to a “blueprint.”

3.) Strange marches out the old canard that because Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)” that therefore we should not expect Christian nations. Strange takes Jesus’ phrase “My kingdom is not of the world,” to mean “My kingdom is not in this world.” This is a misinterpretation of mammoth proportions.

John 18:36 does not teach that the Lord Christ abdicated His authority in the public square. What is being taught in this phrase was captured by the Scholar B. F. Wescott,

B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

“Yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven. My Kingdom is not of this world (means it) does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.”

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

Dr. Greg Bahnsen echoing Wescott’s work wrote,

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.)”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

The appeal to the Jerusalem council to disprove Christian Nationalism in no way follows.

3.) Strange seems to think that Christian Nationalism works to the end of prioritizing the impact of Christianity upon nations and cultures above the impact of Christianity upon individuals. Strange seems to think the values of Christian Nationalism contradict the values of the kingdom of God and His Christ. This is a curious critique. It is curious because it seems to presuppose that kingdom of God values for individuals cannot (or maybe should not) fit, hand in glove, with kingdom of God values for nations.  Strange’s concern, as such, is that Christians will concentrate more on building Christian nations vs. concentrating on heralding Christ for individuals. However, there is a unnatural division here. Christianity is not only a faith that converts it is a faith that sanctifies. Strange seems to want to see individual conversion but doesn’t think so much of a sanctification that yields to peoples bowing their knee to Jesus Christ in every area of life.

4.) Keep in mind that if we should not be aiming at Christian nations, per Strange, neither should be aim at rearing Christian families, because if we raise Christian families we are sure to eventually get Christian nations. I mean, emphasizing the necessity to raise Christian families may well lead to a wrong prioritizing of our kingdom values so that we no longer are evangelizing individuals.

5.) Strange says the central value of Christianity is that individuals, churches, and families should be walking with Christ. But if nations are merely families magnified (and that is the etymological definition of “nation”) why should Christian Nationalism be excised from this dynamic? Why individuals, churches, and families, but not nations?

6.) Strange insists that the central message of Christianity is to herald Christ to individuals and complains that Stephen Wolfe’s with his Christian Nationalism is teaching to the contrary that the central message of Christianity is to subdue the nations of the world for Christ even if the individuals of those nations aren’t saved. Here we wonder if we are in false dichotomy-ville? Isn’t this a case of “both/and” and not “either/or?” Christianity has the answer not only to the question, “How shall I be saved” but it also has the answer to the question, “How shall we then live.” To play the answers to these two questions off against one another as if one is prioritized above the other is not wise.

Honestly, on this point, it strikes me that Dr. Strange, like so many Amillennialists are just frightened out of their minds by the idea that Christianity might someday be in the ascendancy in forming governments, social-orders and cultures.

7.) Strange is appalled by the idea that Christians might want to see the Christianization of the world. This is Strange’s rabid Amillennialism talking. The Amillennialist teaches that the world — and the nations thereof — will not be Christianized before the return of Jesus Christ therefore they resist anything that aims at the organized promotion wherein the nations of the world are Christianized. The pessimistic eschatology of Amillennialism drives their opposition to Christian nationalism.

8.) Strange also brings up his horror that Christians might actually use the sword to force the anti-Christ pagans to bow the knee. I would guess that this is driven by the Pietism that often walks hand in hand with Amillennialism. I do not see a problem with bringing the sword to bear to press a Christian social order upon Christ haters just as Augustine promoted in the Donatist controversy, just as Charlemagne did among the Franks, just as the Crusader states did among the Muslims, just as Cromwell did among the Catholics. Indeed, I have concluded that many Christians would rather themselves be ruled by the sword of pagans then rule by the sword in the name of Christ over Christ haters. The logic seems to be it is more pleasing to Jesus for His name to be set aside by the Christ hater than it is pleasing to Jesus to rule over the Christ hater consistent with His gracious law-Word.

9.) Dr. Alan Strange insists that the Christian message is “spiritual” implying that Wolfe’s nationalism is “carnal.” In Pietistic speak “spiritual” means non-corporeal and abstract. Strange equates “spiritual” as only preaching the Gospel as the means to transform a nation. Honestly, this seems to deny the Reformed idea that the magistrate bears the sword. If a magistrate is Christian and if he bears the sword consistent with God’s gracious Law-Word then why shouldn’t he force people to conform to God’s gracious Law-Word even if they don’t internally believe it? Further, if wicked magistrates become tyrants (as they currently are) then why shouldn’t God’s people not resist as our forefathers resisted wicked magistrates when they had as a motto “No King, but King Jesus?” Why shouldn’t satanic magistrates be pulled down by Christians by force if satanic magistrates are seeking to overthrow Jesus Christ to be replaced by Christian magistrates who will enforce God’s gracious Law-Word upon the people?

10.) Strange argues that Christians should pursue, as Kingdom value, being conquered. He exalts weakness, suffering and losing. Now, I have no problem with teaching that the Christian will suffer and know weakness and will lose, however those realities arise in the context of seeking to conquer for the crown rights of Jesus Christ. Strange makes it very clear his Pietistic Amillennial Christianity has no interest in manfully conquering. In the end these massively contrasting eschatologies (Rabid Amillennialism vs. garden variety Postmillennialism) end up yielding up a very different type of Christianity.

11.) If Strange glories in being “last” in terms of kingdom values, if he desires to be weak, if he desires to suffer he will revel in this rebuttal.

12.) Strange insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s vision of Christian nationalism will lead to the marginalization of the Church. Further, Strange insists that Wolfe Christian nationalism vision is toxic and dangerous. Let us return the compliment and insist that Strange’s vision of the impact (or lack of impact) of Christianity on nations will lead the Church back to the Roman Amphitheatre with Christians being dined upon by wild beasts. Strange’s vision is blasphemous and traitorous to Jesus Christ and His divine Kingship.

13.) There is irony in all this. Strange complains about the militancy of Christian nationalism and yet Strange himself desires to impose his eschatology of defeat upon all Christians. In the end the rabid Amillennialist Strange is every bit as militant as the Christian Nationalist Wolfe.

14.) Strange insists that we in America do not really live in “real tyranny.” 60 million dead babies would testify to the contrary.

15.) Strange, at the end, even plays the “Wolfe says some things that sound racist” card. Strange even invokes the specter of Nietzsche and Mein Kampf. Strange clearly has been sipping at the WOKE Kool-Aide. Frankly, this horse hockey probably outrages me more than anything else Strange said. It is just so ridiculous and over the top.

 

McAtee Interrogates Wilson Interview on Kinism

In a recent interview Rev. Doug Wilson blames the rise of evil Kinism on the progressive left. Doug reasons that “If the progressive left had not vilified White people for a generation white people would not have over-reacted by embracing Kinism (paraphrase).”

While Doug could be correct here Doug’s problem is Doug does not mention who comprises the progressive left. Who is it precisely who has comprised the progressive left to the end of vilifying white people?

 Doug won’t go here because the answer to that question is “the school of Cultural Marxism has been the animating force behind the progressive left,” that Dougie blames for the rise of evil evil Kinism. Now we ask, “Why won’t Doug name Cultural Marxism as the animating force for the rise of the progressive left which has in turn been met with the rise (in Dougie’s world) of evil Kinism)?”

The answer to that question is that it points to the Jewish Intellectuals. The intellectual fire power behind Cultural Marxism has been Jewish intellects and then from there Jewish intellects co-opted the non-Caucasian races in Western lands to be the foot soldiers who did the long march through white western Christian institutions. Now, before Doug or any of his imps protest, I quite concede that there have been white people who jumped on the progressive left/Cultural Marxist Jewish bandwagon, however that does not in the least negate my observations above. Likewise I freely and gladly admit that there are sundry non-Caucasians who are in adamant opposition to the Jewish program of the progressive left/cultural Marxist agenda. We are talking here in terms of real generalities and not in terms of universals.

But Doug won’t name the Jewish intellectuals as the animating power behind the progressive left/cultural Marxism because, after all, all his Grandchildren have Jews for grandparents. What’s more Doug’s wife is 13% Jewish and Doug is himself 3% Jewish. As such Doug dare not name Jewish intellectuals as the problem. Instead evil white Kinism is a excessive response to the bland vanilla progressive left. Doug has no problem attacking white people as white people but you will never hear him speak of the problem of Jewish intellectuals.

In such a way Dougie can rail against evil Kinism while only hammering “the progressive left,” meanwhile leaving unnamed Jewish intellectuals who are seeking to tear down Western Christian Civilization. For Doug then the problem is;

A.) Evil Progressives
B.) Wicked over-reacting white Kinists
C.) But not a word touching Jewish intellectuals

Further Doug Wilson offers in this interview that Kinism is an over-reacting to white people being vilified. This over-reaction is seen in the Kinist statement, in the face of progressive accusations denouncing white people that, “that white people are the best thing that has ever happened because their white.”

I am a Kinist. I know lots of Kinists. I don’t know of any one Kinist who doesn’t understand and embrace that white people suffer from total depravity. This is the classic fallacy of red herring on Dougie’s part.

Then there is the issue that in this interview Rev. Wilson assumes throughout that only white people are Kinists. This is another bone-headed premise. I know plenty of non-Caucasian people who are Kinist.

It is clear here that Wilson really is out of his depths on this question.

Elsewhere Wilson says,

“Kinism teaches that if the progressive left, are going to accuse Kinists of being a thief then Kinists conclude, I might as well steal something.”

Doug Wilson

In reality what Kinism teaches, at least among white Kinists, is that we are no longer going to wallow in a false guilt and since we are not going to wallow in a false guilt we are going to praise our forefathers instead of being ashamed of them or apologizing for them. White Kinists teach that we are no longer going to put up with the slander and libel that comes from Alienists. White Kinists teach that there is nothing wrong with being grateful for our heritage recognizing that part of being grateful for our heritage is defending that heritage against the guilt mongers in our midst.

Doug Wilson teaches that Gospel prohibits both all racial malice and all racial vainglory.

Someone please get a memo to the Holy Spirit who said;

Titus 1:12As one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true.

Now if this isn’t racial malice, inspired by the Holy Spirit, I don’t know what racial malice is.


And in terms of racial vainglory St. Paul can say of the Jews;

Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Wilson, in the interview, by affirming a love for one’s grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. gives us a tribalism and goes on to say things that most Kinists would salute. But then he turns around and seeks to push outside the camp those people who say the very same thing he says in generically defining what is good about loving one’s own people. In doing so Doug sets himself up as the gatekeeper and throws everyone else under the bus. From there Wilson having fleshed out the generic statement of what he has given  contradicts much of his own general outline in other statements.

For example in the past Wilson has argued against a Kinist like policy of protectionism that would favor nearby producers (Kin) versus producers in Peking. Per Wilson, in a particularly cringe moment, Free Grace leads to Free Markets which leads to free trade. Wilson has argued for a immigration policy that finds the US seeking to assimilate those who are not assimilable.

So, per Doug’s usual modus operandi, Doug speaks out of both sides (maybe even several sides) of his mouth. Doug says general principles that kinists would salute. That is good. However when talking about details Doug often advances Alienists (opposite of Kinist) arguments. That is bad.

Doug Wilson & His Negative Obsession with Kinists

Recently, Rev. Doug “nobody is to my right” Wilson did a interview where he spends time denouncing Kinims for its putative racial malice and racial vainglory. You can find it here;

Start at 31 minutes.

In typical Wilson fashion, Wilson speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. It is as if Wilson wants to be a half a Kinist, while getting to decide where the half is the he occupies at any given time while condemning those who don’t occupy his half.

The problem is that throughout Church history the fathers have said things that by Wilson’s definition, Wilson would have to consider as “racial vainglory,” and/or “racial malice.”

Today we give just one example. We will hope to give more as time passes.

Here we quote from the Early Church Father John Chrysostom to demonstrate that Wilson, were he consistent, (and he seldom is … just consider how he tap danced all over the place on the FV issue) would have to accuse Chrysostom of “racial malice,” and “racial vainglory.”

“Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Being a man of
a barbarous nation, occupied with numerous cares, and surrounded on all sides by manifold business, he was unable to understand that which he read.”

Four discourses Of Chrysostom
Chiefly on the parable of Lazarus And The Rich Man – p. 66

In Doug Wilson’s world Chrysostom has to be condemned as a Kinist practicing racial malice and racial vainglory since Chrysostom dared to say that the Ethiopian eunuch came from a “barbarous nation.” I mean, really, the malice expressed in that sentiment is off the charts. Also, one would have to be vainglorious here since barbarous is being defined by the standard of Nations that are not barbarous, no doubt one of which Chrysostom belonged.

Wilson’s problem in this whole Kinist thing is akin to the chap who concludes that all Christians are wicked because his first exposure to Christianity was witnessing Christians burning witches. Similarly, Wilson’s first exposure to Kinism was a Kinism that many times was unhinged and Wilson then concluded that all Kinism is like the unhinged Kinism he encountered 20 years ago. The man does not have enough discernment to realize that his generic statements about Kinism are not universally held by all Kinists just as all Christians don’t unjustly burn women who really are not witches.

Really, the fact of the matter boils down to just this. If you don’t agree with Doug Wilson precisely on the issue of race he is going to try to read you out of being Christian.

I don’t think he is going to succeed.

 

We Affectionally Call Him Chrissy Gordon

Over on Facebook the Rev. Christopher J. Gordon (whom we affectionately and derisively refer to as “Chrissy”) wrote a post repeated below that captures the typical effeminate character of modern R2K anti-Christianity.

Chrissy writes,

The problem for the modern theonomist is that he mislocates the Christian. Our present sojourn is in Babylon, and not Jerusalem. Daniel was not called to Hebrew nationalize Babylon in his temporary sojourn as if Babylon should become the new Jerusalem. Daniel worked within the Babylonian system to remain loyal to Christ, to worship his king, and to patiently wait, during an appointed seventy years, until the exiles were brought home and the kingdom was restored in its fullness.

BLMc responds,

1.) It is because I take this criticism so seriously that I labor assiduously to not mislocate as Christian those who are activists for R2K Christianity.

2.) So, understand what Chrissy is saying here is that all places and locations in all times for the Christian has been Babylon. Never has there been a time or place in all of human history where a locale has been Christian. It’s all been, every where and all the time Babylon. Indeed, the school of “thought” that Chrissy belongs to insists that it literally is not possible to refer to any culture as Christian. It’s all been, is now, and always will be Babylon. Disregard colonial America. Disregard Charlamagne’s Kingdom. Disregard Cromwell’s England. Disregard the Christian states set up under the Crusaders. Disregard all of Byzantium. Disregard Alfred the Great’s Kingdom. All of it … every shred of it was nothing but Babylon.

And as it has always been, is now, and always will be Babylon then obviously any attempt to bring the authority of Christ over the nations to fruition is a vain attempt.

And this is insisted in the face of Revelation 21 where it is explicitly taught,

 24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Chrissy insists upon this in the face of the Great Commission which is the launching pad that accounts for the conversion of the nations that is declared in the book of Revelation. So, our Lord Christ commands us to go and disciple the nations and then in Revelation we learn that commission was successfully accomplished. Yet, Rev. Chrissy insists that all that has been, all that is now, and all that ever will be, will be Babylon. I hear they often call him Rev. Eeyeore.

3.) Chrissy insists that Daniel was not to Hebrew Nationalize Babylon. However,

a.) We are not taught explicitly in Scripture that all Christians of all time will always be Daniels living in Babylon.

b.) We do see how Jonah did Hebrew Nationalize Nineveh.

c.) We do see how the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Canaan were killed by God because they refused to be Hebrew Nationalized.

So, we clearly see Chrissy’s model is all buggered up. Indeed, I would say that Chrissy is an enemy of the cause of Christianity, just as he implies I am an enemy of the cause of Christ since I am working counter to Christ’s true intent.

4.) Note that Chrissy’s model takes what was unique to Daniel’s time and absolutizes that unique period as typical for all time. He does this quite without any exegetical support for that move. Chrissy commits the classic fallacy of taking what is descriptive for Daniel’s time and making it prescriptive for all time. This is something that all R2K-bots do.

5.) Since Daniel was mentioned, we might mention Esther too. The Book of Esther shows that God’s people can, even while in exile settle their scores with people who sought their destruction. Hey, Chrissy, should we insist that the book of Esther is prescriptive? (Hat Tip to Viisaus for this observation.)

Chrissy continues,

So, too, the church waits during her time of exile for Christ to physically return and bring our present, earthly sojourn to an end. Then, the new Jerusalem will descend to us and the kingdom of God will come in all of its fullness and glory. For the present, we look much more like Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar than Israel under her geopolitical kings.

BLMc responds,

1.) Note to Chrissy… The Christian has already been delivered from their exile. We read this reality in Colossians where the Holy Spirit teaches,

 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and [c]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [d]through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

It is true that there is “not yet” component to the deliverance from exile and I’m glad to believe and teach that. However, Chrissy, and the R2K gang who can’t exegete straight have a theology that is nothing but “not yet.” They accuse us of having a “theology of glory,” and I accuse them of having a theology where Christ remains pinned to the Cross. Their theology is grossly under-realized.

2.) The whole bit about the post-Ascension age looking more like Israel’s time under Nebuchadnezzar than under the godly kings of Israel is pure amillennialism defeatism. It is either a outright denial of Christ’s Kingship or it is a gnosticizing of the Kingship of Christ. It is pessimism at its finest. When people own this theology the only people they fight against is the people who want to fight against evil and wickedness in high places.

I can’t imagine these men standing before Christ in that final day:

Christ: “What did you do in light of my Great Commission?

Chrissy and the army of surrender monkeys:

We fought against the theonomists who wanted your crown rights over every area of life.

Christ: Say what? You did what? 

Depart from me. I never knew you.

Interacting with Rev. Isker’s “Boniface Option”

“The modern family w/ its labor capacity auctioned off to the highest bidder, has more in common w/ ancient slavery than it does the household. You can be married. You can even have children. But you are owned by a master. Sure, your master treats you well, and your wife’s master treats her well. You receive lavish amenities. You have a nice McMansion in a safe cul-de-sac away from crime. You might even get to own a BMW or a brand new F-150. You get to enjoy plentiful food and drink. You get to wear stylish clothing. Your respective masters give you free time every so often to take your children (who are raised by strangers while you serve your masters) to places like Disney World. You might be able to choose to leave one master for another. But you will always have a master.

We don’t think of this existence as slavish because we equate slavery with utter destitution and barbaric, torturous abuse. But in the ancient world, that was not universally the case. Some slaves were indeed worked to death in the mines. Others lived decent, full lives tending to fields and herds. And others lived comfortable lives in the households of nobles. But one thing was certain — slaves did not have their own households. We think that modern life is not the life of the slave because of comparative luxury, but the structure of modern life is almost same. In fact ancient slaves w/ wives and children had something much closer to a true household than modern men today, especially the intentionally childfree.”

Rev. Andrew Isker
Boniface Option — p. 94-95

This is quite excellent and it doesn’t even include the thought that slavery is a guaranteed reality given the debt that most moderns have embraced. Scripture teaches that the debtor is the slave to the creditor and with the incredible credit card debt that Americans are weighed down with it is just as simple fact that we are a slave people.

However, we love it so. We love being slaves and the we here applies just as much to “Christians” as to non Christians.

The impact of all this slavery is we are a people who are afraid to speak the truth. Slaves dare not step up to the microphone and say anything against those who hold the keys to his chains. For this reason the one place where we might well expect the truth to be spoken instead has gone silent. The clergy in America belong to the slave class and so they go out of their way to kiss their master’s tush. As such the truth that Slavemerica needs to hear goes unspoken.

In point of fact with the rise of the heretical R2K the clergy are now trained to be able to wear their chains comfortably while at the same time extolling the ability to spend their whole careers in pulpits quite without telling God’s people that they can and should be free of their chains as well.

It is all quite disgusting and discouraging.

“You must stop thinking of yourself as a mere individual but rather as a member of a hierarchy with duties and responsibilities to his people. The world that existed before Trashworld, the world Christendom existed within, had a word for men like this; Nobles.”

Rev. Andrew Isker
Boniface Option — p. 104

All this friction that exists between Christian Boomers and Christian Zers ought not to be. If Christianity is premised upon the truth of “harmony of interests” than each generation should be seeking the best of the other. The Boomers as the older and wiser should be seeking to come along side and help the successive generations all they can. The younger generations, when they find wisdom among the Boomers should treat them with respect and honor. (This would mean losing the “OK Boomer sobriquet).
We need to understand we are the body of Christ with every part seeking to help every other part.

We will rise or fall together.

“You must teach your children to love the things you love and to hate the things you hate. You must overcome your aversion to hate. If you cannot bring yourself to hate a malignant world built upon child sacrifice and crowned with genital mutilation, you are not going to make it, nor will your children. Hatred of such things is something you MUST pass down to your children, and your must raise them among others who understand the same.”

Rev. Andrew Isker
Boniface Option — pg. 113

Look, the problem now for generations has been that our loves and hates have not been passionate enough as combined with the reality that we have not taught our children why we love and hate as we do. Instead we have emphasized the necessity to “be nice” and the consequence to this has been the reality that 2-3 generations of God’s covenant seed have walked away from Biblical Christianity. We have not taught our children how to think. We have not taught them what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it and the result is that we have lost too many of our children because they have decided that their loves and their hates will be other than ours. This is our fault because we didn’t detail out for them a particular world and life view. We gave them the gruel of “love Jesus,” without telling them precisely who Jesus is that they were supposed to love. Many generations didn’t train their children this way because they themselves refused to do the hard work of becoming epistemologically self-conscious. And that in turn is the fault of the Church. The clergy failed to sound the tocsin. The clergy failed to raise the cry of the character and nature of God, of the beauty of our undoubted catholic Christian faith, of the idea of honoring the fearful and majestic Kingship of our Liege Lord Christ.

We have lost our children because we didn’t instruct them to share our passions. We have contributed to Trashworld because we didn’t train up warriors and shield-maidens for the Kingdom of God.

And now God’s house is left largely bare. The warrior spirit has melted away. The willingness of our Christian men to fight the good fight has evaporated and the willingness of our women folk to tell their men to “come home with your shield or upon your shield” is absent.

Where are the warriors? Where are they who will teach their children to be warriors for the Kingdom? Where are men and women who will love God enough to manfully hate the enemies of God. Where are the men and women who will give up all to train up a generation who themselves have only one desire and that is the desire to slay the dragon?

Oh God raise up such a generation once again please and do it that thy name may once again be honored.