Category: Apologetics

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).

 

My Night On The Town … Celebrating Jane’s Birthday

I took the wife out today for her birthday. Now, I don’t go out in public that much. I see the folks in the Church I serve. I see my children and grandchildren. I talk on the phone with people who share a like faith/worldview but I don’t rub shoulders with the hoi poloi very often.

After tonight I know why I don’t go out very often. Tonight, while shopping at a small knick-knack establishment the wife wanted to stop at, I saw a clerk who was tatted all up. Now, I know this is pretty common, but it was not the fact of the tatts that had me gawking in amazement. No, rather it was the type of tatts. If you remember the kind of macabre stuff that Film Director Tim Burton used to deliver up (see his film “Night After Christmas”) this woman was tatted all over with Tim Burton kind of cartoon characters. As I watched her move from task to task it was akin to watching a live version of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” only with Tim Burton type characters.

Then there was another tatted white woman who was decidedly blond but who had a Rastafarian style hairdo wherein the Rasta locks looked like they were each a different color randomly drawn from a Crayola crayon mega box. Her blond locks bounced around with her Crayola Crayon Rasta locks and it reminded me of those old multi-flavored life-saver candy wrappers. Now, what really made it surreal is that she was holding the hand of a 3 or 4 year old and was speaking to the child in a nurturing and loving tone, like any mother might. I thought, “This must be what it is like to be the child of a mother who is a cross between Medusa and Willy Wonka.”

At another store I couldn’t help but hear the conversation of two rather tall chaps who looked all the world to be from the Dinka tribe and likely playing Basketball for Michigan State. We were in Lansing after all. Their conversation was loud and almost undecipherable. Yet, every so often I’d hear, “Gonna get me a flannel shirt. Never had a flannel shirt.” Only it came out more as monosyllabic grunts that I’m sure in the Dinka language was really quite flowery and expressive. As to the second tall Dinka, well the only thing I could make out from his language was “LEVIS.” It became apparent that he had never owned a pair of Levis before and he was delighted with finding a pair that might fit his extraordinary inseam. They made me nervous because wherever I went in the small store, the Dinka Brothers seemed to be following me with their strange and barely decipherable yet energetic linguistic outbursts. I guess all those cases of Iryna Zarutska and Austin Metcalf are starting to give me the jitters.

Then we dropped into a bookstore. You’d think one would find maybe a Christmas display or something down that line but the first thing I bump into upon entering the store is a display in praise of Hannukah heaping praise on sundry Jewish authors during this Hannukah season. The good news though is that I did not see any Kwanza displays. They were probably in another part of the bookstore.

As we walked the Mall I couldn’t help but notice how many of the “street vendors” in the Mall had a great deal in common with Vivek Ramaswamy, Usha Bala Chilukuri Vance, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley. I guess those people are just really good entrepreneurs, thus explaining why they would be so well represented in those little side shops.

I was also in a Macy’s store where I saw a very well dressed male clerk going about his business stocking shelves. He was wearing a tie and a suit. I thought … “Now this chap sticks out more than anybody I’ve seen so far because he is so 1960s with his well-trimmed mustache, his nattily pressed suit, and his conscientious arranging of the stock for which he was responsible.” Yep… he was the weirdest sight of them all. The guy who was the most “normal” existing and going about his business in the midst of a circus show specializing in the “odd and never seen before,” was the circuses biggest attraction.

We decided to eat at a Chinese Restaurant where, I am confident in saying, that all the help spoke perfect Chinese. I don’t know if they could speak English since I didn’t hear any until it came time to pay my bill. Only then did I discover that some “Engrish” was in their grasp.

Now, Lansing, Michigan is a university city (Home of Michigan State) and so I shouldn’t be surprised with the multicultural feel. However, as I reflected that night on previous celebrations of my wife’s Birthday over the decades, I couldn’t help but hear the echoes of Dorothy ringing in my ears … “Toto, darling, we are not in Kansas anymore.”

Historic Usage Of Doctrine Of “Spirituality of the Church” In USA

 I am currently reading Daniel G. Hummel’s, “The Rise And Fall Of Dispensationalism; How The Evangelical Battle Over The End Times Shaped A Nation.”

I’m learning that the “Spirituality of the Church” (a doctrine repeatedly appealed to by R2K) was pursued by men like Rev. James H. Brooks, Rev. J. H. Thornwell and others as a means to avoid having to answer the political question of slavery that was dividing the nation. Thornwell, originally did not want to secede, and as such, he appealed to the “Spirituality of the Church” doctrine in order to teach that the Church did not have to take a position on the matter. Brooks did much the same. Thornwell, eventually, made known his opposition to freeing slaves, after secession became a fait accompli designating slavery as key to maintaining social order. (See his, “To All The Churches Of Christ.”) However, before secession actually occurred Thornwell tried to evade the secession he opposed by saying that the Church did not need to speak on it given the doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church.

Brooks, though privately opposed to slavery, carried out his allegiance to the “Spirituality of the Church,” by refusing to pray for the success of the Union Armies while in the pulpit serving his St. Louis Presbyterian church. For this omission Brookes was eventually tossed from his pulpit though a split occurred that resulted in Brooks taking the new congregation who was good with his doctrine of the “Spirituality of the Church” and his refusal to pray for the success of the Union Armies.

The thing to note here is that this “Spirituality of the Church” doctrine while insisting that it wants to avoid politics, embraces politics firmly. Not taking a position on a moral issue that the Scripture speaks to is taking a position against the Scripture.

The putative doctrine of the “Spirituality of the Church” was and is not so much a doctrine as it is a tactic in order to evade controversy where controversy is inescapable. If God’s word speaks to all of life then the church is not an institution that can evade the pressing issues of the time like slavery (which Scripture clearly regulates and so allows), political plans that promote socialism as seen in confiscatory taxation (which per the 8th commandment is theft), legislation that works to the end of weakening the family, etc.

In the end the appeal to the doctrine of the “Spirituality of the Church” as defined so to rule out the Church speaking from the pulpit where God has clearly spoken is a doctrine for cowards who do not want to deny themselves and take up the Cross. I have heard of accounts in NAPARC Presbyteries of a refusal to condemn an prospective ordinates’ clearly articulated socialism because “God’s word doesn’t speak to socialism.” This is all about the “Spirituality of the Church.”