Apologetics – Page 10

Rich Lusk on Luther … McAtee on Rich Lusk

“Martin Luther did not operate with modern racial categories as we know them. Again, his opposition to the Jews stemmed from their theology and resultant practices, not their genetics or physical lineage. He was not a proto-Hitler arguing that Jews were an inferior race. He saw the Jewish religion (Judaism) as a false religion and, because Jews rarely converted in his day, a threat to the Christian society in which he lived.”

Rich Lusk
Heretical Federal Vision Clergy

1.) Did Luther or did he not loathe the Bagels? If he loathed the Bagels then he was operating with modern racial categories.

2.) Why would Lusk make this kind of hard and fast distinction between a people’s genetic lineage and their theology and resultant practices? Now, to be sure, not all individual Bagels would be or will be Christ haters. Doubtless many individual Bagels love the Christ of the Bible. Praise God for them. But speaking in generalities, it is often the case that when one is speaking of genetic lines that there is overlay between genetic lineage, and theology and resultant practices. This is why, for example, Reformed Theologian Dr. Robert Godfrey could once speak about Dutch Calvinists being suspicious.

3.) Given what Luther says in his book, “The Bagels and Their Lies,” I’m pretty sure Luther, while perhaps not agreeing w/ Hitler about the Bagels being an inferior race would have had little problem with SOME of the actions that Hitler took regarding the Bagels. Luther also would have agreed with Hitler on the necessity of putting an immediate end to Kristallnacht, for example.

4.) And Bagels remain a threat to what is left of the Christian society in which we once lived and they understand that Biblical Christians are a threat to the world they have created.

Someone tell Rich Lusk that he does not understand either Luther or the times in which we are living.

It’s About The “Nation,” Stupid … Amfest & American Christianity At A Cross-Roads

This past week at the Amfest, put together but TPUSA (Charlie Kirk’s organization) it was made clear that there are exists a serious and obvious split in the organization. This same split is being played out Institutionally across our cultural landscape. The scope and depth of this split is not one that is going to be papered over and it’s presence may result in the Republican party getting soundly trounced in the mid-term elections.

We see this split already being manifested in the “conservative, ” institutional “Reformed” “church”. Indeed, it has been present for several years already but it seems to be coming to a head just at the time when we see Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Steve Deace, and Doug Wilson frothing at the mouth against Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon who likewise have plenty of froth about their lips.

Some would say the debate is about the answer to the question; “What is an American?” We might refine this by saying that the debate deals with the question; “What is a nation?,” or even more precise, “Is reality a complete social construct?” That the debate seen at the TPUSA event has entered into the church has already played out on several stages but there is another Act in this play brewing as the debate coughs up charges being brought up against Rev. Sam Ketcham for being a “wacist.”

Just to be clear here the split that is entering into not only our politics and churches but also our workplaces and families is a split that has been a long time coming. It was guaranteed to eventually enter into our lives by the seeds that were planted with the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act. The broad split we are seeing now began as a hairline fracture and has grown and grown over the decades following the Hart-Cellar immigration act.

As this split gets fleshed out it becomes apparent that this split is primarily defined as a contest between those who believe in the post-modern worldview where men can define their own reality however they want it vs. those who believe that reality comes to us ready made. It is a split between the egalitarians and those who believe in social hierarchy … between those who believe that reality is patriarchal vs. those who believe that men and women can be interchangeable cogs … between those who believe that a nation is defined only by the propositions its citizens adhere to vs. those who believe that a nation not only is defined by a shared worldview but also, just as important, by a bond of blood and soil…. between paleo-conservatives of the Sam Francis type vs. the neoconservatives of the Ben Shapiro type … between the New World Order types vs. the “My country right or wrong but still my country” types… between “Kinism is acceptable for Jews vs. Kinism is acceptable for white people,” … between those who believe a nation is about the Gross Domestic Product vs. those who believe that a nation is defined not by economics but by people-hood … between those who believe that the idea of borders is a quaint custom vs. those who believe that borders are sacred … between those who remember the history of the contest between Jews and Christians vs. those who say including this definer proves I a anti-Semitic … between those who support Trump and those who would more likely support a 1968 George Wallace … between those who worship in a circus/rock concert atmosphere vs. those who believe in the regulative principle for worship … between those who believe in a polytheistic social order where all the gods are invited into the public square vs. those who believe we should be a distinctly Christian nation … between those who believe that salvation coming to all races means that all races can and should marry vs those who believe that salvation coming to all people doesn’t mean God intends for the world to become a coffee colored brown … between those who have a vision of a Christianized New World Babel Order vs. those who insist that any version, including a putatively Christian one, is an abomination before God.

This is a battle that has been fought before … and lost before. In the 1930s there arose a movement called “The America First” movement led by people like Charles Lindbergh, Gen. Robert E. Wood, Newspaper magnate Robert R. McCormick, “Father” Charles Coughlin, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn and many others. Like the current pro-America wing of the MAGA movement the America First Movement of the 1930s was routinely accused of Fascism and was made up of anti-communists, former military men, and prominent journalists. Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are to the modern incarnation of the America First movement now what Garret Garrett and John T. Flynn was to the America First committee was in 1939.

The 1930s version of the American First committee lost out with the rise of WW II. Nobody could sell isolationism in the head winds of the successful propaganda that “America experienced a dirty under-handed Jap sneak attack,” and so the America First Committee died as WW II gained life. I am confident in saying if this version of America First does not win out there will be no future replay because defeat in this contest means the end of America as a White Anglo Saxon Christian nation.

Something else that has to be understood here is that the war described above is not the only war that the America Firsters are fighting. The war described above is a internecine war. Illustratively speaking this war is the war between the Colonial Patriots vs. the Colonial Tories. Once winning that war with the Colonial Tories the Colonial Patriots still had to fight the Red Coats and win. We are fighting a two front war. The first front is against the “neoconservatives.” Our reward for winning against the Socialist neocons is the opportunity to fight against the Communist Democrat One worlders.

So, it is a two front war. A two front war where the only difference between the neocons and the Democrats is the difference that existed between the Montagnards and the Jacobins during the French Revolution. One side is kind of hard left while the other side is the “Two Daddys can adopt babies” hard left.

Frankly, the odds are against us defeating the deep pockets of the Ben Shapiros, Mark Levins, and Doug Wilsons of the contest. These people have access to almost inexhaustible wealth given their Israeli connections. Plus, the leadership of the Old Right is suspect. The things that fall out of the mouths of the likes of Tucker Carlson, J. D. Vance, and Steve Bannon at times makes one wonder if they are really controlled opposition themselves.

In my world, the really sad thing about all this is to see how the “conservative” churches are falling on this contest. Almost without exception the “conservative Churches” are either on the side of the neocons or they refuse to support the conservative cause, thus creating a vacuum for the Communist cause to enter. On the issues surrounding this civil war, the Church, generally speaking, is a rotten place to get one’s bearings. The modern church has, exceptions notwithstanding, cast their lot in favor of the “let’s put all the races into a blender just as long as individuals say they’re ‘Christian.'” Race, for the Doug Wilson expression of the Reformed and Evangelical church, is merely a social construct that has no real meaning just as long as “everyone loves them some Jesus.”

So which way America? You are at a fork in the road and you must decide whether or not, not only your nation but also your Christianity will be in line with Old Narnia or whether your nation will be in line with the Coke commercial of the 1970s singing …

“I’d like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:

I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That’s the real thing.”

A Racial Review Of Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men”

Out of my deep respect for the memory of Rob Reiner (sarcasm off) I decided to view again “A Few Good Men.” A 1992 film where the white military officers are all evil or inept and the only pure people who exist as the film’s heroes are;

1.) An accused gung-ho black Sgt. in the Marine Corps

2.) A highly principled feminist attorney (Demi Moore)

3.) A black Judge
4.) A White Lt. Col. who shows his purity by killing himself
5.) a Jewish lawyer serving with Cruise on the defense team (character name – Weinberg)

Along the way in the film Tom Cruise is converted by Demi Moore to see the righteousness in not plea bargaining a sentence for the principled black Sgt. and his doofus white underling private who have been arrested for murdering a Hispanic soldier who is portrayed as a saint throughout the film. Throughout the film the white private from Iowa who is a few bricks shy of a full load is contrasted with the wise black Sargeant. The white private is a dunce and is clueless about what is going on, while the black Sargeant is principled.

The villains in the film are all military

1.) The biggest villain is Jack Nicholson’s character
2.) His villainy is shared by his underling, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, played by Kiefer Sutherland

Of course both of these chaps are white and they are presented throughout the film as the problem with the Marine Corps and indeed, by extension, the problem with white people in general. White people just want to both kill off brown people, or failing that, they want to see them unjustly imprisoned as scapegoats for their crimes.

Now, being honest, I have little sympathy for US Military types since it is my conviction that the US Military has served for decades as the muscle for the New World Order (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s “War is a Rackett”). However, it is clear that Aaron Sorokin (Jewish writer of the film) is going after both the US Military and is tying the problem in the US Military with the presence of white people. “A Few Good Men,” is clearly an attack on white people.

The one white person who isn’t an explicit liberal in the film is played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon is the prosecuting attorney and he is depicted as being a guy who is caught in the wheels of the system. He does his job — a job that means he is trying to put away a black man and his dumb white farm boy friend for life for murder, and this despite his sense that he knows that something is amiss in the case he is prosecuting. It is Bacon’s character more than anybody else as the film unfolds how is “just following orders.” Again, a more subtle dig at white people, I would say.

The White people would get away with it all if only Jack Nicholson’s character was just a wee bit sane. But the white man’s sanity is so unstable and his vanity so grand that Col. Nathan Jessep (Nicholson’s character) can’t resist, while on the witness stand, from boldly and proudly confessing to his crime of ordering the black sargeant and the white Iowa farm boy to give a “code red” (illicit punishment) to the poor saintly Hispanic private that resulted in his death. Col. Jessep is immediately arrested and the Jewish liberal worldview is vindicated. The white lawyer played by Cruise is a hero because he has acted consistent with the feminism and Jewish worldview of the characters played by Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack.

Other racial scenes in the film include the point where the black judge is able to put Col. Nathan Jessep in his place by requiring Jessep to refer to him as “Your Honor.” Also Cuba Gooding plays a virtuous soldier who gives righteous testimony during the trial.

There is a bit of class warfare going on in the film as well. Cruise’s character is seen as being a upscale elite Harvard type born to the manor while his opponent (Nicholson) is portrayed as coming from a humble blue collar beginning. This theme is played off a couple times in dialogue between Nicholson and Cruise. Though they are each white they come from different worlds.

One has to like Cruise’s character. Flippant, irreverent, sarcastic, callow, and intelligent. Cruise’s character (Daniel Kaffee) is the perfect anti-establishment foil for spit and polish Col. Nathan Jessep. Because of this the viewer is pulled into supporting Kaffee while abominating Col. Jessep’s character (arrogant, self-righteous, grandiose, dismissive). In such a way worldviews of the viewers are subtly changed over time and with repeated similar messaging.

This film was released in 1992 but even then the worldview of WOKE and Jewish cultural Marxism was working its way into the arts.

Rob Reiner’s Cultural Marxist Jewish worldview is on parade in this film.

Wolfe Rightly Laments The Modern Reformed Clergy Scene

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action.”

Stephen Wolfe

This is almost true. To make this 100% true one would have to say instead that;

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action in overthrowing cultural Marxism.”

Ministers and theologians have no problem whatsoever with political pushing from the left and toward the left. Clergy and theologians have become agents and shills for the Cultural Marxist agenda. This is found to be the case inasmuch as they refuse to resist it as from the pulpit. They are letting this degraded swill of a culture continue to go unchallenged. Can you imagine a minister giving a series of sermons on the sin of Tattoos or the sin of the redistribution of wealth, or the sin that is the existence of the Federal Reserve. Those topics are NEVER touched by the overwhelming lion’s share of modern putative conservative Reformed clergy and by the refusal to address those issues and issues like them the Reformed clergy aid and abet cultural Marxism.

And I end here with a quote from Stephen Wolfe in his podcast. Wolfe is responding to DeYoung’s “Six Questions For Christian Nationalists.” At one point in both exasperation and lamentation Wolfe, being entirely serious could say of DeYoung’s argumentation;

“It’s really a silly argument and I am annoyed I have to deal with it again.”

Stephen Wolfe

Complaining about a Kevin DeYoung argument

Scripture & Immigration

“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the sojourner who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the sojourner be before Yahweh. There shall be one law and one judgment for you and for the sojourner who sojourns with you.”

Numbers 15:15-16

“The same law shall apply to the native as to the sojourner who sojourns among you,”

Exodus 12:49

“There shall be one standard of judgment for you; it shall be for the sojourner as well as the native, for I am Yahweh your God.”

Leviticus 24:22

Now what do we learn from the above Scripture?

We learn that God’s law was to be a unitary factor in providing social consensus and cohesion for how peoples of different stock were to live w/ each other.

We also learn that sojourners were always considered “other.” They may well have lived cheek by jowl with the Hebrews but they were always considered “sojourners.” All in the social order were to be ruled by the same law but not all in the social order were the same people. The law gave a unity wherein the diversity could operate. Unity in diversity.

This bears on immigration policy for a Christian people. If we are to have immigrants (sojourners) dwelling among us they must dwell among us as being beholden to God’s Law. God’s law is the means by which the immigrant is not allowed to re-make the nation he is sojourning into a nation that now serves his foreign gods. By being required to adhere to God’s law as the norm that norms his behavior the sojourner, while always remaining a sojourner, is allowed to functionally assimilate.

When you combine this with Israel’s law about land always returning to the family of origin with each Jubilee it is clear that Immigrants would never be able to take over Israel, as from the inside, in order to re-craft it into a nation serving other gods.

The current immigration laws that began with Hart-Cellar in these united States guarantees and ensures that the current nation, once comprised by particular Christian European peoples, will eventually become both a non-Christian and a non-European descendant people. We are seeing that already happen in places like Dearborn, Michigan and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Epic City, Texas and Lewiston, Maine.

All of this is in conjunction with the long goal of the New World Order types to replace the White Anglo Saxon Protestant with the third world denizens. Its success is seen in the Muslim call to prayer heard from loudspeakers in Minneapolis, its success is seen in the intent to rule by Sharia law in Epic City, Texas, its success is seen in the fact that Dearborn, Michigan is renaming streets in memory of a Hezbollah terrorist, its success is seen by Lewiston, Maine being nicknamed “Little Mogadishu,” its success is seen in countless numbers of Muslim, Hindu, and Pagan candidates running for major offices around the country.

Our current legal immigration policy is a death wish. It is not enough to close our border to illegals. It is not enough to ship back all the illegal immigrants (presuming of course that is even really being tried). What is needed is a return to a 1924 type of immigration policy that was supported by a President who could say today along with President Calvin Coolidge in the run up to the 1924 immigration legislation;

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

“Whose Country Is This?,”
Good Housekeeping Magazine (February 1921).