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.

 

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.

Sundry Observations on the French Revolution

I.)”By the time I got through with my research and I was ready to write this book I felt anyone who understands the French Revolution will understand all left-wing revolutions. And anyone who doesn’t understand the French Revolution will… is going to be doomed to be victimized by a left-wing revolution.”

 

Otto Scott

Lecture — French Revolution and Its Influences

Pocket College

This quote teaches us that Clergy who are unfamiliar with the French Revolution should get out of the pulpit until they familiarize themselves with the French Revolution because what is happening in the West is that Christianity is being reinterpreted through the grid of the French Revolution and the ignorant Clergy is complicit because they don’t know better, and in not knowing better they don’t understand the urgency of the times to bring God’s Word to bear. God’s Word teaches that revolution begins in the desire to revolt against God’s authority. Because of this Scripture is anti-Revolutionary.

II.) Robespierre was the head of the “Committee of Public Safety.” This is a perfect example of Statist euphemisms. “The Committee of Public Safety?”

LOL — This Committee of Public safety was that Statist agency that was responsible for the flow of public blood in the streets compliments of Madame La Guillotine.

This is the way humanist Government always works. Whatever title they put on something you can be damn sure that something will be doing just the exact opposite of whatever title they stick on it.

Obama Healthcare anyone?

III.) “What Marx was to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Rousseau was to the French Revolution of the 1790’s. Like Marx, he was a parasite who never worked an honest day in his life. He was an expert at leeching off his aristocratic buddies, and wrote a series of treatises which blamed the evils of property and civilisation for the corruption of man. He wrote these while living in the lap of luxury with the aristocratic women he seduced.”

Moses Apostaticus

 

IV.) The cry of the French Revolution was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

It was all a lie.

As long as Equality is pursued neither Liberty nor Fraternity is possible. Equality negates Liberty because Liberty creates unequal stations, accentuates different abilities, and creates classes as some men use Liberty to excel while other men use Liberty to stagnate. Equality negates Fraternity because Equality breeds envy against those who have used Liberty to excel and envy always destroys Fraternity.

You can have Equality or you can have Liberty and Fraternity but you can not have all three together and the choosing of equality is the choosing of a mechanism, usually the state, as the means my which equality will be monitored and forced.

Critical Race Theory #1

Critical Theory

A methodological tool developed by Cultural Marxism that has entered into numerous fields so that we can speak of Critical Legal Theory, Critical Educational Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.

We will be considering Critical Race theory during this series though that will be necessity bleed into these other areas.

We do so because CRT, known also as Race-Marxism and neo-Marxism and Western Marxism has become the 800 pound guerilla worldview competing against Biblical Christianity in the West.

We will see, eventually, that Race-Marxism is a competing religion with all the components that one will find in any religion.

Beginning we note that Critical Race Theory (CRT) can simply be defined as a ideological/theological theory that presupposes and so is based upon conflict of interest theory that categorizes people into “oppressed vs. oppressor” categories in order to advance a revolutionary agenda whereby power is shifted and so queered away from heteronormativity, white, and Christian people so that sexual perverts, non-Caucasian, feminists, Academics, and anti-Christ people are empowered.

If we were to use the words of Scripture CRT is the organized and allegedly  systematic attempt of the enemies of Christ to call evil good, and good evil; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness; to put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Continuing to move along definitional lines, it needs be understood that CRT is a ideological/theological movement pushed by activists and putative scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism and power. It is key to understand here that there is no such thing as CRT that is only a philosophy.

CRT advocates embrace Marx’s maxim that

The task is not just to understand the world but to change it.”

So, there is no such thing as CRT that isn’t attempting to overthrow what little remains of Christian norms that have created the West.

We need to keep in mind here that this has long been the plan of the Cultural Marxists (who are the ones who developed CRT as a methodological tool) to transform the West. One of their own said;

‘We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks’.

Willie Munzenberg

CRT is one tool in the Cultural Marxist playbook to the end of “fundamentally transforming” America and the West.

So, CRT is interested in power. As such CRT can be further defined as an activist movement based upon biased study of what it calls “systemic racism” and how that putative systemic racism defines power and creates oppression in social orders.

This leads to the observation that like all Totalitarians CR Theorists are interested in ordering the world according to the vision contained in their theory. Because of this CRT calls everything they want to control “racist” until it is finally under their control.

And here you need to understand that everyone of you here is “racist” just be virtue of being white and there is nothing you can do to shed that reality. So, that fact is another reason why you should be interested in this subject matter. It is the interest of CRT to, as the Scripture teaches to make it so,

Dt. 28:43 “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. 44 He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

The fact that CRT is interested in doing this — in transforming the world — is seen by their usage of cancel culture, the way they treat minorities who disagree with their agenda (they now refer to them as “adjacent white”) and the rise of fake news. CRT is all about seizing power to implement their agenda.

So, CRT seeks not only to understand power but to rearrange circumstances and society so that they (the pervert, the feminist, the Academic, the aggrieved minority) are the head and white Christians — regardless or not whether white Christians are white or not — are hewers of wood and drawers of water, or failing that just dead.

Now we explore the reality that Critical Race theory or “Race-Marxism” is anchored in a Marxist worldview.

Classical Marxism, or what CRT refers to as “vulgar Marxism” likewise posited a “oppressor – oppressed” conflict theory pushed as a method whereby a revolution could be brought in whereby the oppressed working class would overthrow the oppressor bourgeoisie capitalist class thus resulting in the arrival of Utopia. In Cultural Marxism the pivotal revolutionary point is no longer economic as between classes, but rather in Cultural Marxism the pivotal revolutionary point is now primarily race with perversion, feminism and Academia as co-laborers.

In classical Marxism the working class (proletariat) rises up to enter into revolution against the Moneyed class (bourgeoise) and sets the world aright by bringing in a New World Order of absolute equality among comrades. However, in Cultural Marxism using CRT the new proletariat is not comprised primarily of workers but of minorities first, followed by perverts, feminists, and Academics. The shift then between these two Marxisms is away from Economic Marxism to Cultural Marxism or Race-Marxism if you prefer. CRT takes the position that race should be understood as “the central construct for understanding inequality.” (Ladson Billings & Tate)

You have to understand, that whereas in Classical Marxism property was the chief sin in Cultural Marxism/Race Marxism whiteness is the chief sin and white people and white adjacent people are seen as owning the property of whiteness that they must be stripped of just as in cultural Marxism the property class needed to be stripped of their property. However, in both cases there is a push for equality/equity.

Of course in Biblical Christianity we see;

1.) Conflict of interest theory, the tool of CRT — being the leverage used by the Serpent in the garden where the Serpent convinces Eve that God the oppressor is oppressing Adam & Eve — the oppressed.

2.) Revolution is always the tool of Satan to overthrow God’s order (Babel). Christians should not talk about Revolution but rather use words like Reformation or Counter-Revolution.

So, to summarize, CRT is a Marxist theory, using conflict theory that categorizes all men by oppressor vs. oppressed to the end of bringing in a anti-Christ revolution using the organized muscle of minorities, feminists, perverts, and Academia as the new Marxist proletariat to throw off the white Christian heteronormativity that is a property of all white people as well as non-white people who refuse to embrace the Race-Marxist world and life view having as its ultimate goal to roll Jesus Christ off His throne so as to live in a world where Satan is Lord.

Because of this shift in Marxisms we know have undergone a shift from Leftist politics that centered on the economic concerns of the working class to the politics of identity.

This shift was needed because in the West the power of the classical Marist narrative where the money class as oppressor were oppressing the working class had dissipated in the face of the ever increasing prosperity in the West. It was hard to convince the working class to pull down their own house by pulling down the evil bourgeoise.

The truth of this is found in one of the central Cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse, like so many of the founders of Cultural Marxism was a Jew. Marcuse in two of his better known works (One Dimensional Man, and An Essay on Liberation) effectively complained that advanced capitalism had been too successful at producing a prosperous flourishing society and a healthy middle class, with the result that the working class had lost its Revolutionary spirit. Marcuse then asked where to find a new Revolutionary spirit and the answer he pushes is “in the ghetto populations,” notably the black liberation movement. We see then that the radicalization of minorities and students via capturing the Universities was a major plank in reorganizing Marxism in a racial direction finally giving birth to what we today call “identity politics.”

So, Marxism had to evolve and it evolved to latch on to race as the leverage point of oppressor vs. oppressed.

This tactic in the states goes way back but exploded in the 1960s with organizations like the Black Panthers and personalities like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and before them W. E. B. Dubois. The Marxists used minorities in America via the vehicle of the civil Rights movement to begin to implement their race-Marxism. However, it was only in the 1990’s when CRT begin to really flex its muscle.

Continuing with this session wherein we define and describe CRT we note that CRT, in light of all that we have so far said, is like colored lenses through which the whole world is examined with the purpose of finding “hidden” racism in what was heretofore considered “color-blind” law so as to create more and more people who understand how oppressed they are thus increasing the institutional and cultural power of CRT. The Gospel of CRT is to herald how oppressed people are so as to awaken them to how their oppressors must be overthrown.

Successful CRT then works to teach people to everywhere see racism on the part of white people. In the CRT religion white people and white adjacents (previously referred to in the past as Uncle Toms) are Lucifer and the CRT Gospel sets minorities, perverts, feminists, and Academics free from the shackles of the devil white people. In CRT the end goal is Utopia a bastardization of the Christian concept of Heaven. CRT is a religion competing with Christianity.

Because CRT is another Gospel it gets into everything from education to politics to art to family life.

Here is an example of CRT getting into family life;

“What we find is that, when contextualized amongst our other modern ethical norms, this preference for our children to biologically belong to us can feel downright ancient—a vestigial remnant of a different epoch, a fossil no longer animated by the same moral intuitions that gave it gravity in the past. In fact, many of the arguments that might be made in favor of this prejudice run precisely counter to other changing attitudes toward parenting, family, and the role of biology in culture.”

It’s a shocking line of thought, but one that has gained a fair amount of mainstream palatability as our outlook on the future devolves.

Another example of how Cultural Marxism gets into family life;

A trifecta of powerful globalist organizations is rigorously executing a plan to teach kindergarteners about sexuality and “empower” children to say yes to sexual encounters, according to agency documents reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Critics say this amounts to children being “groomed” for sex under the banner of human rights and education, while pedophilia is promoted and parental rights are undermined. Experts told The Epoch Times that the push for these programs to be accepted in nations around the world could lead to the practice of having sex with “consenting” children being viewed as acceptable.

Proponents of the programs say they seek to ensure that children’s “rights” to sexual pleasure are protected.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations are advancing children’s exposure to sexuality on two fronts, according to documents.

Examples of CRT in our judicial/legal realm

1.) Appointing Justices because of their race. SCOTUS Justice Jumanji Jackson Brown inability to define a woman.

2.) The prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse

3.) The Canonization of George Floyd

Remember, CRT is committed to the queering (turning upside down and inside out) of all previous Christian and so “white” social order characteristics. Remember also in two of the illustrations above the perverts are part of the new proletariat that is marching through the Institutions.

This is all an expression of our new religion of Cultural Marxism with its methodological tool of CRT.

And the sad thing is that it is not being completely and thoroughly resisted by the Reformed-Evangelical church. In point of fact it is being supported in some of its expressions as seen in this recent comment left on Iron Ink by someone attending a “conservative” “Reformed” “Church” in this area;

“They (some Elders) see themselves as having a bridge to others (CRT tpyes), and see me as someone who will drive pro-CRT people away, and cause division.

It’s why they never did fight CRT, but seek to see the workable components of it. Maybe it’s a pride they are blind to, this faith that they can see a higher and more peaceable way.

I don’t know why they don’t see as we do, there is no compromise with a Marxist.”

Now having said all this we should add that Critical Race Theorists don’t like being constrained by a definition. They themselves avoid definitions because in the avoiding of definition they can shape shift into anything else they might want to be.

CRT proponents will insist that only advocates of CRT can truly understand CRT. If you’re not CRT you can’t critique it because you don’t really understand it.

Another thing we need to understand about CRT is its conviction that racism in the West is systemic. By this they mean that even if there were no white people who were themselves individually racist the social order itself is still racist. This is because, per CRT, the whole social order was set up by those who owned the property of whiteness and therefore the whole social order itself, quite apart from any consideration of current white people, remains “racist.” The only thing that can be done to ameliorate this reality is to tear it down and start all over again. This was the conclusion of Max Horkheimer, another Jew Cultural Marxist, who believed that it is not possible to create substantive change to a system from within the system. The only way substantive change can be done is by a Revolution that tears the whole old system down.

This explains again who CRT must have Revolution. CRT cannot be considered as successful without a Leninist-Maoist type Revolution. The tail must become the head and the head must become the tail.

So CRT is committed to ending the racism that benefits white people as the fundamental organizing principle of Western society. You people sitting here tonight are the prime targets of CRT and its Mother Cultural Marxism.

And frankly it is either destroy or be destroyed. This battle is for keeps and it can genuinely be reduced to the Kingdom of Satan seeking to tear down the Kingdom of God and His Christ.


Memorial Day Poem — 2013

The Parade is on the cusp, a thankful nation shows its care
The Vets are now arriving, our heroes in wheelchairs
They were the men who fought in the Wars “over there”
Now basking in adulation for defeating the foreign threat
Lift a glass and have a toast to the 20th century vet

They delivered all mankind from the evil foreign Hun
Today Stockholm burns, London bleeds, and Paris is undone
New World Order, then created, by bayonet in Battles like Verdun
Now safe for Hajib, Mosque, and Minaret to reside in the West
And safe for Bankster tribal interests to swallow up the rest

Safe for the elimination of borders in favor of a New World State
Safe for the rise of the mud-men the Money power will create
To serve as slaves on the grounds of the New World Order estate
So salute the Dough-boys, and G.I. Joes, they kept the world Free
So that the their grand daughters could be property of savages from Fiji

Raise a cheer, and throw ticker-tape on this grand Memorial Day
Boys of Normandy swarmed the beaches, so their grandsons could be Gay
They fought the Bulge, and Coral Ridge so we could turn Christ away
In favor of a mélange hybrid faith for the living damned
And suitable for turning all the West into one Global London-istan