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.

Wherein MD and BLMc Have a Conversation on Trump, Politics, and Worldviews

A chap named MD stopped by with a comment on my “Trumpism as Religion” post and left some comments. I’ve decided to post his comments here and interact with those comments since they are revelatory of the way Worldviews work as well as how language gets distorted depending on what worldview context in which the language lies. I don’t know who MD is, and so far as I know I’ve never interacted with MD before.

MD writes,

Bret, I disagree with you almost completely on religion and politics, but I think you’re on to something here, though not the something you have in mind. So please allow me to offer an alternative explanation.

Bret responds,

I am humbled that you would read here at Iron Ink MD, though you disagree with me almost completely on religion and politics.

MD writes,

In general, for most of the past 50 years (since Nixon’s southern strategy), the conservatives have run on resentment — it’s the fault of the blacks, the Hispanics, the immigrants, the gays, etc. — whereas the liberals have run on optimism — we can give you health care, a good social safety net, and otherwise improve your lives.

Bret responds,

I am of the age now where I can actually remember the campaigns of the last 50 years with greater and lesser clarity. 1968 and 1972 remain a bit fuzzy.

Already though we see the imposition of worldviews. MD has it in his worldview that conservatives have run campaigns on resentment while the liberals have run on optimism. Of course only a liberal with a non-Constitutional world and life view could reason like that. 

I, quite to the contrary of MD would insist that it is his liberals who have consistently run on resentment since 1968. Those student riots during the Democratic convention in 1968 sure looked like resentment to me as well as the riots at the Trump rallies during  2016. Democrat resentment swelled against Nixon’s law and order campaign and against Trump’s law and order campaign in 2016. 

Indeed Democrats have campaigned on resentment against our social order, resentment against previous mores and taboo boundaries long established, resentment against law and order, resentment against our 2nd amendment rights, resentment against women as seen by their forcing them out of the home and into the workforce and they have done all this while labeling this resentment as “optimism,” and casting those who were running on optimism as those who run on resentment. This reminds of the scripture,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

I would go so far as to say that the Democrats are the party of resentment but as they think their resentment is the norm everyone who disagrees with their resentment are those who are filled with resentment.

MD writes,

There have been exceptions, and the GOP has used coded language rather than stating it as bluntly as I just did, but I would say that’s generally true.   You yourself proved my point in your third-t0-last paragraph in which you offer a list of things you’d like Trump to do.  Every single one of them involves doing bad things to people you don’t like.  There wasn’t a single line item on it in which you wanted him to do good things for people; it was all nasty things you wanted him to do to people.

Bret responds,

Here is another worldview example. It is true I don’t want the Government to do good things for people.  Being a Constitutionalist and believing in the 9th and 10th amendment I do not think it is the role of the Federal Government to do people “good.” The role of the Federal Government is limited to those matters which are enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government powers. The Government does not exist to do people good in the way MD thinks. The good the Federal Government does is to stay out of the affairs of the American people except where enumerated and delegated by the US Constitution.

Secondly, only a liberal would see this list I cite as “doing bad things to people.” Here is the paragraph from the last Iron Ink entry which MD questions,

“If Trump were to cut the budget, kick sodomites out of the military, bar women entry into the military, turn off all loans to Israel, kick out the United Nations, turn off funds to states and cities who claim sanctuary status, implement their own version of Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” or any number of other sundry things I would say … “I was wrong about Trump. He really is anti-NWO.”

Let us review these,

1.) Cut the budget — This would be doing good things to people since the when the government subsidizes negative behavior the consequence is more negative behavior. Cutting the budget would go a long way to re-introducing personal and individual responsibility for one’s actions. That is a monumentally good thing. 

2.) Kicking sodomites out of the military — This would be a good thing to people who are not sodomite since they no longer would have to survive the advance of sodomites in the military. It would also be a good thing for the nation as a whole because the presence of sodomites in the military cannot help but weaken the moral fiber of the military. 

3.) Barring women from the military — Again this is good for the military because women in combat positions decrease the fighting ability of the military. Also, it is good for women since they will not be killed in battle.

4.) Turn off all International loans — This would be good for the American people since that money could either be returned to their pockets or that money could be used to pay down our national debt. 

5.) Kick out the United Nations — The UN idea has forever been connected with the Marxist New World Order dream. It is a Marxist organization carrying out a Marxist agenda. It would be good for the world as well as the US to be done with the UN.

6.) Turn off funds to States and Cities that claim sanctuary status — As the presence of illegal aliens reduce wages for Americans, increases pressure on the social safety net, increases the national deficit, and contributes to the elimination of the middle class, it would be good for US citizens to have the FEDS turn off funds to States and Cities.

7.) Implement an Eisenhower version of “Operation Wetback.” See above #6.

So, while MD sees me advocating doing bad things to people I don’t like. I see me advocating following the law and doing a good thing to people who likewise are following the law. MD wants to do good to illegal immigrants, sodomites, feminists, Marxists, citizens of other nations, etc and the reason MD calls what I advocate bad is because his liberal worldview calls those things bad. Again,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

So, it is only in a liberal (cultural Marxist) worldview where the things I advocated which MD complains about as “nasty,” are seen as nasty. The question that needs to be asked of each of us is — ‘by what standard is nasty, counted as nasty?’ I would contend that MD’s worldview forces him to call what is good by a scriptural account as nasty.

So MD as proven my point. He advocates for nasty things to be done to people and calls the good things I call for “nasty.” 

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

MD writes,

It reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle.  The genie said, “You can have anything you want but your neighbor gets twice as much.”  The man thought for a minute and said, “Can you make me blind in one eye?”

Bret responds,

And MD reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle. The genie said, “You can have anything you want.” Whereupon MD said, “I want perversion to be normalized. I want the Marxist utopian dream to come to pass. I want women and men to be non-distinguishable. I want the Federal Government to be an ever-present Genie always doing what I want.” Finally, the Genie stopped him and said …”Dude, even reality has boundaries.” 

MD wrote,

And what happened with Trump’s election is that everything aligned just right so that we now have a president whose entire administration is based on the politics of resentment.  He’s not a Judas goat so much as the culmination of fifty years of conservatives running for office on a platform of resentment.  And your real quarrel with him is that your list of people you want punished doesn’t precisely match up with his, though you’re certainly getting more from him than you would have from Hillary Clinton.

Bret responds,

The politics of resentment MD according to how your worldview defines resentment. Had the Hilda-beast been elected the politics of resentment would have really gone into high gear. Christians bakers, florists, and photographers would have been continued to be resented. Resentment against any idea of limited Government would have been overthrown. Resentment against heterosexual marriage would have continued to be exercised. MD thinks that he can demonize conservatives by characterizing them as practicing the politics of resentment when in point of fact it is the left which created the whole category of resentment and envy. The left could not exist if it were not for its practicing the politics of resentment. Yet, the left is crafty, and like the terrorist who is being chased by plainclothes law officers, the left turns and screams while pointing at the law officers and says, “the Terrorists are trying to get me. HELP.”

MD writes,

And the reason he’s (Trump) going to make the GOP, and conservatism, irrelevant is that people are now actually seeing what a government based on spite looks like.  Before, it was all theoretical.  Now, it’s playing out in practice.

Bret responds,

This is really quite bad political analysis. As anyone can tell you who knows me I carry no brief for the GOP, or for modern conservatism (so-called). However, the GOP and modern conservatism most certainly will not be seen as irrelevant because the electorate finally sees what a Government based on spite looks like. That thinking is a liberal fairy-tale. The GOP and conservatism will be seen as irrelevant because the politics of resentment and envy which is characteristic of the left’s cultural Marxist base will finally have overwhelmed traditional Americanism in terms of sheer numbers.  Our political landscape is now almost completely dictated by demographics and it is the weight of these demographics and the resentment the cultural Marxist left has seeded in those demographics which will finally make the GOP and modern conservatism irrelevant.

MD writes,

And now that people are actually in danger of losing their health care and social security, they’re running for the exit.  Maybe in 2018 and 2020 they’ll give optimism a chance.

Bret responds,

Only in a twisted liberal Worldview could the centralized bureaucracy and Governmental Tyranny required for the euphemistic malapropisms called “universal health care” and “social security” be considered “optimism.” It is so surreal that the only response it can be met with is a hearty belly laugh were it not for the case that so many people have swallowed this bilge. Over and over again in the 20th century, we’ve heard the utopian promise that if we will just give optimism a chance then we will be able to get something for nothing and over and over again the Government has placed its long ugly tentacles in the fiber of our lives only for the citizenry to be sickened and jaundiced by governmental remedies and cures found in government programs like government healthcare and government social security. 

And how did the liberals get people to believe in these fairy-tale promises? You guessed it … by practicing the politics of resentment and envy. By placing words in the left’s upside down, inside out, and backward worldview with the result that honoring the mores and taboos of the past end up being labeled as practicing resentment. Semantic and linguistic deception were birthed by the left.

MD writes,

Now, here’s where I split from your conclusion:  When Trump got the GOP nomination in 2016, I knew he would destroy the Republican Party and conservatism.  I just didn’t realize he’d have to get elected first.  And because I don’t agree with using government to punish people, I just hope he doesn’t drive the country itself off a cliff first.  I would really hate for the next Democratic administration to spend all four years doing little but clean up the mess his incompetence and cluelessness will leave.  Candidly, that may be part of the GOP strategy —  to make a mess so big that the Democrats’ energy once they return to power will all be spent on that rather than on actual governance.  Perhaps we should have this conversation again in 2021.

Bret responds,

1.) It is my prayer that both the Republican party and the Democratic party implode as they are really just different words for the same establishment. 

2.) You really need to examine the past few election cycles at the State levels. The Democrats have been getting their heads handed to them. I think it is just as reasonable to argue that the Democrats are on the edge of extinction as the Republicans are.

3.) You do believe that government should punish people. You just think that when the Government is punishing Christian cake bakers and florists and photographers that does not really count as punishment. You either know this and so are lying to advance your cause, or you don’t know this and so are just one of the useful idiots that Lenin talked about.

Anabaptist Leveling

A harmonious, complementary, interracial marriage between a believing husband and a believing wife is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The nations are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering various ethnicities into one Body. Husbands and wives are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and wife with diverse ethnic heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos

 Tony Reinke
Content Strategist
Desiring God Ministries
Minneapolis, Minnesota

_________

Similarly,

A harmonious, complementary, same-sex marriage between a believing husband and a believing husband is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The sexes are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering both sexes into one Body. Husbands and husbands are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and husband with the same sexual heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos.

Tony Rumprun
Content Strategist
Desiring  Perversion Ministries
SanFrancisco, California

Or

A harmonious, complementary, interracial marriage between a believing husband and a believing 6-year-old is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The generations are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering various generations into one Body. Husbands and child brides are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and child wife with diverse generational heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos.

Pervous Paidosfililia
Comet Pizza Strategist
Desiring Children Ministries
Washington DC

Or

Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

Trumpism as Religion

I was thinking about the tenacity of many of Trump’s followers to not let go of Trump. As a result of my cogitations, I have concluded that Trumpism is not Falsifiable. Trumpism is a religious faith system that cannot be falsified. Any fact that would disprove and so falsify Trumpism is thrown over the Trumptard’s shoulder into the sea of impossibility. Here is are some examples of random Trumptard reasoning,

“In an omnibus Trump has the discretion on how money is spent if not mistaken. He can build the wall using defense money with Army corps of engineers. If he couldn’t win it politically maybe he won it with wording in the bill.”

Trump wanted money for the military and felt he had no choice. He was betrayed by his own party pukes and the horribly flawed process they used to create the bill. I wish he’d have vetoed it, but maybe he can steal money from the military crap to build the wall. If that happens, I’ll feel better & will be waiting to see what he’ll do on the next spending bill.

So, here we find Trump signing a massive omnibus budget bill that has Democrat leaders Pelosi and Schumer as excited as two toddlers on a sugar high on Christmas morning and we are being asked to believe that Trump has “whooped em again Josey. ”

If Hillary Clinton had been elected with a Republican House and Senate such a bill likely would have never gone to Hillary to sign. It is unlikely that Hillary Clinton could have never gotten such an omnibus bill past a Republican House and Senate if only because a Republican House and Senate would not have wanted to give a Democrat that kind of victory. However, the Republican President has accomplished what a Democrat would have found almost impossible to accomplish.

Even if it were possibly true,  that Trump hoodwinked the Establishment those asserting that possibility have no real evidence upon which to believe that. Believing that such a thing is true amounts to a faith in faith. How can we ever trust someone who is always running a cloak and dagger game on his own base? How could we possibly know that there wasn’t some kind of double agent matrix occurring?  I’d rather stick with the “Trust but verify” mindset. I’d rather say that without verification I refuse to embrace a politician’s wink and a nod.

Now having said all that, I would be delighted to be wrong and have it found out that Trump really did “whoop em again Josey.”  I’d be delighted to see Trump take the money allocated to Defense and put in place to fund a policy to return all illegal immigrants to their homeland of origination and then station the military to guard our border, but asking me to believe that or something similar to that is what Trump is going to do is like asking me to believe that the New World Order has been defeated and fooled by a Johnny-Come-Lately to the political pool party.  It’s like asking me to believe in the big rock candy mountain.

 

Now, some might counter that I am guilty of the crime of not allowing any falsification of my conviction of Trump is possible. However, that just is not true. To the contrary, my doubt in Trump is falsifiable. If Trump were to cut the budget, kick sodomites out of the military, bar women entry into the military, turn off all loans to Israel, kick out the United Nations, turn off funds to states and cities who claim sanctuary status, implement their own version of Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” or any number of other sundry things I would say … “I was wrong about Trump. He really is anti-NWO.”

As it is, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Trump is a Judas Goat, assigned the task by his masters of leading whatever little remains of any possible resistance to the Internationalist Globalist dream down a path of irrelevancy.  One simply does not fight one’s enemy by giving one’s enemy everything they could possibly hope for in terms of budgetary desires. One does not defeat the enemy by funding the enemy. Trump has funded the enemy by signing the omnibus bill.

Trump is not a Cyrus. Trump is Julius Rosenberg.
 

A Short Consideration on Conspiracy Theory and History

John 11:53 — “So from that day on they plotted to kill Him.”

Again, we are forced to consider from this text the reality of two very popular notions that are increasingly coming to the fore in our times; the deep state and the reality of conspiracy.

Those who plotted against Jesus would be what we call the deep state. The Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees were the power brokers of that time. They were moving behind the scenes in order to, in many respects, create the reality which Jesus had to face. They were the ones that worked on the arrest. They were the ones who bribed Judas for their plotting purposes. They were the ones that manipulated Pilate- i.e. — “If you release this man you are no friend of Caesar”.  They were the ones who ginned up the crowds to cry out “crucify Him… crucify him.” The idea of a deep state manipulating the perception of reality has been with us forever. And of course, all this speaks of conspiracy. There was a conspiracy to put Jesus Christ on the Cross. The recognition of that conspiracy or the pointing out of conspiracies, in general, does not necessarily mean that we think conspiracies are sovereign over God. We can point out conspiracies realizing that God is conspiring to overturn the conspiracy of wicked men. The fact that conspiracies exist doesn’t mean that those who understand those conspiracies do not believe God is not sovereign. It merely means that they recognize that God often governs the affairs of men through the conspiring of men. To recognize conspiracy does not mean that we think those who conspire are sovereign. Even in their conspiring, they act according to God’s predestined purposes, which is exactly what God points out in the book of Acts,

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.’ 27 For truly against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, had gathered together 28 to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done.

The beginning of putting Jesus to death was the conspiring against Him.

History in its large moments doesn’t typically happen by random chance. It happens often at its significant points (like the crucifixion of Christ) in the context of wicked men conspiring. But behind those who conspire is the God who conspires against the wicked and their conspiracies by His predestinating word. So we have wheels within wheels. Men conspire, but the conspiracies of men are the result of God conspiring against the very same men so that even the conspiracies of men both reveal and serve the purposes of God for those with eyes to see.

Consequently, we would be foolish to not take into consideration the reality of conspiracy theory as a penultimate and secondary means for how God moves history forward to His destination. The idea that the first history we get in journalist accounts, or the history we read by the official court historians or the history we learn in our History 101 course in college is anything but some kind of humanist historicism to be accepted on face value is not wise.

Having said all this it is well recognized that conspiracies are not easily sniffed out and identified. Understanding historical events is often a matter of conjecture and probability and then seeing how matters conveniently fit together in a pattern that is other than what the court historians offer. One particularly well known American believed much the same,

 But when we see a lot of framed timbers (sub-events of the same historical event), different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

In this paragraph, Abraham Lincoln is representing the Dredd Scott decision as the consequence of a long series of conspiring by prominent men to arrive at a long predetermined decision. The point here isn’t that Lincoln was right on this point. The point is that Lincoln saw history here as a conspiracy.  We agree and we agree that we likewise must look at the timbers (the individual historical exigencies)  to see if they were framed by plotters to exactly fit.

People who believe that large historical events happen randomly or by chance or “they just happened” are beyond incredulous. People who believe that the court historians give the unvarnished truth are likewise beyond incredulous. As men as power broker did so with the crucifixion of Jesus, men as power brokers continue to do so today to plot and conspire and then to cover up the truth. Here those who believe in the conspiracy theory of history invoke, “It is the glory of those who think they are Gods to conceal a thing: but the honor of God’s people is to search out a matter.”

Men are seldom going to be unified on any one account of a historical happening or the kind of conspiracy that might or might not have driven the event.  At the very least though, men might begin to agree that wicked men do plot and conspire and that at the very least God’s people should closely examine all official accounts that come to us by wicked men who have a vested interest to bend reality in their direction.

Understanding Social Orders By Their Guiding Mythos

This essay was kicked over in my head by a 4: 44-second video I viewed. What is below is not that video though there are structural commonalities between the two.
_______________

In order to try and understand the thinking of a people in a set geographic location one has several tools at their disposal. One can examine peoples in worldview categories. How do they answer the cosmological, anthropological, ontological, teleological, axiological, and epistemological questions? Those answers are then compared and contrasted to the answers that the Holy Scriptures reveal. Another way of trying to understand the thinking of a people group is to consider what might be called their guiding mythos. This can be a bit more difficult because the guiding mythos for any people group is seldom explicitly articulated by the people in the people group that one is considering. The guiding mythos is a narrative that they are living and as living it they all assume it as valid, often without bringing it explicitly before their eyes. The guiding mythos becomes the environment that people live in and as the Chinese proverb has it, “if you want to know what the water is like, don’t ask a fish.”

One interesting aspect of a guiding mythos is that the people who are being guided by the mythos generally take the mythos, not as myth but as real reality. Correspondingly, people from the outside see the myth as a social construct not anchored in real reality. This is seen for example in Christianity. I as a Christian believe what others call my “guiding mythos” to be real reality while I consider their guiding mythos which analyzes my Christianity as a social construct, as a social construct.

When we offer that mythos of non-Christians is a social construct we do not suggest that there are not elements in the mythos that may be true. What we are saying instead when we talk about guiding mythos as a social construct is that which may or may not be true of it is providing a plausibility structure that as a whole does not correspond to real reality. There may be elements that correspond to real reality but the guiding mythos as a whole remains a myth. That is to say, it remains something that people take as true to give meaning to their lives, though as a whole, as it deviates from Biblical Christianity it remains a chimera.

All people groups, cultures, and social orders are organized around Worldviews, guiding mythos, macro-narratives, and plausibility structures and the way of life of said people groups are determined by these reality shaping molds.

Elsewhere on Iron Ink, we have offered how to analyze the Worldview of any particular people group. In this entry, we want to begin to toy with how to identify and recognize a guiding mythos or a foundation myth of people groups.

A guiding mythos must fulfill three functions for the people who embrace it.

First, the guiding mythos must explain the origin and structure of the world and the society around it. If we were to put this in Worldview language we would say that the guiding mythos must provide a cosmology and an ontology.

Second, the guiding mythos must define ultimate good and evil and from those definitions derive the values that are used to justify the holding of power. If we were to put this in Worldview language we would say that the guiding mythos must answer the question of axiology.

Here, it should be noted that the foundation myth will provide not only what is the ultimate good and evil but as a consequence it will also provide guilt for not aligning with the good as well as a means of atonement for one’s participation in ultimate evil or the participation of one’s ancestors in ultimate evil.

Third, the guiding mythos determines what is held sacred in that society. The guiding mythos delineates the taboos and provides the mysterium tremendum of a people.  Find that which cannot be blasphemed, mocked or satirized in a culture and you will have discovered what is sacred in that social order per their guiding mythos.

One can easily argue that for modern Westerners, WW II and the social implications arising out of that conflict has become the foundation myth of the West as we shall see as we examine who WW II as guiding mythos fills all three requirements noted above.

First, our understanding of the world and of our institutions all stem from the world that WW II created. This is true of our policies. One example is that it is taken as axiomatic that the US must have a globalist foreign and economic policy. This was not the nearly universal policy engagement of America until after WW II. Before WW II there was a strong isolationist impulse in America. Another example is our nearly universal push towards a New World Order where there is a unified Internationalist governmental structure. This was all propelled into motion by the child of WW II, the United Nations, as well as the Bretton Woods Economic gathering.

Secondly, our current guiding mythos, which arises out of WW II, our definition of ultimate evil is Nazism whereas ultimate good is an opposition to Nazism. That this obtains for our guiding ethos is seen by the countless movies that are produced by Hollywood where if a real villain is to be created he must be a Nazi. The values that then arise out of opposition to Nazism which our guiding mythos provides are anti-racism (whatever that is), egalitarianism, diversity, and anti-nationalism. Each of these values can be traced back to America’s victory over ultimate evil.

These values are then projected back upon the American founding and are taken as values that good Americans have always embraced since 1776. As such, as one example, the language in our Declaration of Independence which speaks of “all men being created equal,” is reinterpreted through this guiding mythos grid to mean something Jacobin that the founders never intended it to mean.  Obviously, our founders never intended the kind of egalitarianism that our current guiding mythos requires as seen in their reference in the same Declaration of Independence to American Indians as “merciless savages.”

Third, out of this modern guiding mythos,  that which is taken as sacred and cannot be mocked or satirized are those things that violate the myth. Jesus Christ can be defamed in our current guiding mythos (see the 2015 film “Krampus” where one of the characters blurts out as an exclamation “Christ on a stick.”) Biblical Christianity in our social order can be lampooned,  but what cannot be mocked or satirized is the holocaust, minorities, or sexual perverts. And, yes, there are certain elements of these that desperately need to be satirized and mocked.  Here are just a few examples of where the values of the current guiding mythos needs to be picked as a target, frozen as a target, personalized as a target, and finally made a point of polarization.

1.) The alleged fact that victims of the holocaust were turned into soap or human lamp shades or bone china needs to be mocked.

2.) The thinking of Black lives Matter needs to be mocked as well as the false narrative of “hands up don’t shoot.” The thinking of La Raza needs to be mocked. The thinking behind sanctuary cities and states needs to be satirized.

3.) Current diversity models that sanction the perverseness of transgenderism, sodomy and incest need to be mocked and satirized.

4.) Feminism needs to be mocked and satirized.

However, as these values are now the values of modern Western man these values are sacred and to touch them is to touch the ark of the covenant. To touch these is to violate the guiding mythos of the West.

Problems lie at several points in our current guiding mythos.

First, this 20th century guiding mythos gives us a worldview platform that is dark, negative and destructive. Instead of a mythos, such as the Christian one which gives us the idea of redemption and a conquering faith the current mythos gives us the ongoing total genocide of  White Christians who refuse to submit to the current guiding mythos. Consider the plight of South Africa today.

Secondly, whereas in Christianity ultimate good is seen in the Redemptive work of Jesus Christ and ultimate evil is seen as those who put Christ to death, what we have in this WW II mythos in the center place is the ultimate good is seen as egalitarianism and the ultimate evil generally assigned to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Thirdly, as we have seen, that which is sacred in our current mythos is the Holocaust and its survivors as opposed to the Christian narrative where the Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension are that which are sacred.

All conceptual thinking is downstream from any guiding mythos. As long as this WW II guiding myth remains our guiding myth the trajectory of the current thought control and ultimately the genocide of the Biblical Christian is inevitable since this mythos teaches that Christendom and modern Western man is responsible for the violation of this now entrenched holocaust anti-egalitarian myth. If Christianity survives it can only survive as being reinterpreted according to this guiding myth. If it is reinterpreted according to this guiding myth it is no longer Christianity.  Modern Western man can only atone for this false guilt that this false mythos engenders by ceasing to be White and Christian. White Christians are responsible for the holocaust and only the elimination of White Christians can answer for it.

Modern Westerners have lost their original mythos identity that was anchored in the reality of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Dominion and have taken on a new mythos identity that is anchored in the false reality of Nazism-Anti-Semitism-False Guilt-Genocide. There is no escaping the trajectory of this current mythos. This guiding mythos is so entrenched now that for a White Christian to deny this current mythos is valid is to prove that the current mythos is valid according to the current mythos.

The fact that this is our current mythos is testified to by the countless number of “Holocaust Museums” that dot the landscape of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums_in_the_United_States#Michigan

Even in 1981, in the small Wesleyan College, I attended I took a “Holocaust” course. All this despite the fact that Americans had zero role or responsibility in whatever did or did not happen in Europe during the time frame in question.

Also, the power of this current guiding mythos is seen in our ignorance of any other genocide that occurred in history. We are only aware of the Jewish holocaust. Our guiding mythos does not allow us to ask why we are seldom told of the genocide of the Ukrainian Christians in the 1920’s – 1930’s by the Bolsheviks or the genocide of the Armenian Christians in the 1910’s by the Turks, or the genocide of Christians by Muslims as they crossed the North African littoral during their rampage of conquest. Our guiding mythos being what it is cannot see these genocides for to see these other genocides diminishes the holocaust industry.

The ability to place guilt on a people is one of the powerful consequences of a guiding mythos. False guilt gives one the ability to manipulate people in almost any direction. Guilt and the ability to wield it successfully and the ability to offer ways wherein guilt can be assuaged is where power is leveraged. We saw this most clearly recently in the election of Barack Obama. We remained a guilty people for our primal national sin of slavery and one way to atone for our guilt was to vote for the black Democrat.

We might offer here that the mythos of the WW II holocaust and the mythos of American slavery coalesce and reinforce each other well. In both the 19th century American mythos (slavery) and the 20th-century WW II mythos, the white man is the guilty party. In both cases the White man was the oppressor of an innocent victim. In both cases, atonement can only be made by the giving up of the formerly embraced Christian mythos that stands as contrary to both the 19th and 20th-century mythos.  In both cases liberation theology is the core of each mythos. In both cases, egalitarianism, diversity, and a reinterpretation of Christianity and its mythos is required.
All of this is reinforced by our literature, our flims, our Universities, and nearly every cultural outlet that one cares to name.