Interacting with Rev. Isker’s “Boniface Option”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is all quite disgusting and discouraging.

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

Rev. Andrew Isker
Boniface Option — p. 104

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

We will rise or fall together.

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

Rev. Andrew Isker
Boniface Option — pg. 113

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

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

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

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

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

Book List Touching Key Historical Events and Personages — Part I

There are some historical events wherein one is disallowed to have a contrary view to the received narrative of the WOKE/SJW’s. To have a contrary opinion on any one of these subjects or personages below is to move one to the outside of the Cognoscenti community. I submit that as Biblical Christians our takes on these historical events should be in contradiction to the received narrative as often as possible. In other words, to provide a couple examples, if 99.9% of the population believes that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President ever, or if 99.9% of the population believes that the Crusades were a wicked endeavor that persecuted poor Muslims, then the Christian needs to re-asses his view if they are numbered among the 99.9%.

These events listed below are not intended to be exhaustive but I think they hit some of the major historical events that Biblical Christians should have a contrary understanding of vis-a-vis the accepted narrative.

Part I

1.) French Revolution — See Nesta Webster / Hillaire Belloc
2.) War of Northern Aggression – See Greg Lorend Durand / Ludwell H. Johnson
3.) Abraham Lincoln — See Edgar Lee Masters / Lyon Gardiner Tyler
4.) Oliver Cromwell — See Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné / Buchan
5.) Reconstruction Era — See Dunning School / C. Bowers
6.) Colonialism – See Dr. Bruce Gilley
7.) Crusades — See Thomas Madden / R. Ibrahim
8.) WW I — See Docherty & MacGregor / Hof /Cafferky
9.) Woodrow Wilson — See Jim Powell /
10.) WW II — See Hoover / Irving / D. West / Tansil
11.) FDR — See Shlaes / G. Crocker / B. Folsom
12.) Holocaust (TM) — Ernst Zundel / 1/3 of a Holocaust (Video)
13.) Joe McCarthy — See M. Stanton Evans

Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “Breadcrumb Methodology?”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe discusses the blood ties between Moab and Israel as and example.

Then he says this:

“Nations today are NOT built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial. The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations–those of his kin. But the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place. Christian philosopher Johann Herder was correct in saying that the volk is a ‘family writ large’. This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood, but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land–to this nation in this place–and so they bind you to that people and place creating a common volkgeist.”

Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism — p. 139

When I first read the above I found it to be a word salad that is full of both implied and direct contradiction. I still find it perplexing unless…

I am rethinking Wolfe’s book in the context of all the Hub-bub it is creating. It is the darndest thing to see Wolfe getting hit by all sides. I have read reviews that claim that Wolfe is being a clever Nazi and comparing Wolfe’s book with Mein Kampf. (The good ole “ad-Hitlerum” logical fallacy.) Then there are people like me who don’t see Uncle Adolph (inside joke) but instead see Wolfe trying to avoid the inescapable “ethno” in the idea of Nationalism. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy getting hit by both sides like this. I hope the man makes some good money off the book  in order to offset all the grief he has been getting — even to the point of people destroying his friends livelihood in trying to pull Wolfe down by being associated with these alleged Nazi racists.

Because of all this fire from both sides I have been re-thinking what this book of Wolfe is. What is it trying to accomplish. What accounts for the methodology behind the book?

For the sake of argument just pretend you’re writing a book for an audience that is receptive to Nationalism but is on the fence regarding the ethnic side of it. Pretend that you as the author understand that the ethno in ethno-Nationalism is never going to fly in this politically correct, multi-cultural context. How would you go about writing a book that advances the ball on ethno-Nationalism while avoid the issue of the ethno? You know if in the book you state the obvious about Nationalism it will never even get published.

As such you decide to go all clever and describe all the accouterments of Nationalism in your book hinting strongly at the ethnic part and yet keeping it at arm’s length in terms of explicitly saying it. You get close to speaking about the ethno in ethno-Nationalism and then you beat a hasty retreat in order to avoid outraging the normies and the cultural-Marxist gatekeepers in the Western Church.

Instead you decide to drop all kinds of breadcrumbs to lead your reader, who may be hesitant to come to your conclusion if you said it overtly, to the conclusion that can’t help but be reached concerning ethno-Nationalism because the breadcrumbs you have dropped along the way in your book? Perhaps Wolfe is seeking to get people wet before he advocates swimming?

Now, this methodology is not for me, and I think it is better to throw a bucket of cold water on those who can’t swim. I think it is better to fastened your bold colors on the mast so that people know who you are from a league away. However, though it is not my style, and though I don’t think it is particularly effective, I can see other people believing this methodology might work.

Was Wolfe being this kind of clever in his book? Did he realize that most people embracing his broad outline of what Christian Nationalism is would then invariably embrace the ethno part of ethno-nationalism without him even having to be overly clear about his conviction on the matter?

I’m beginning to think this is a possibility. I think that Wolfe may have been going for conversion via the indirect route as opposed to going for conversion by my “in your face” route.

As an addendum please pray for Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Achord. Dr. Achord, a close friend of Wolfe’s was doxxed and fired from his job with the hopes that Wolfe could be found guilty by association with Achord.

Now, Achord has done nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has written if we were living in a sane world. But we are no longer living in a sane world. The Stalinists in the Church are in charge, and the Stalinists are insisting that if you do not embrace their vision of Christianized Cultural Marxism then it is “off with your head.” 

Achord is not the first victim of this bull fecal behavior and he won’t be the last.

A Brief Explanation for why Ministers Should Read Books on Deep State Activity — From 2017

Just completed Daniel Estulin’s “The Tavistock Institute; The Social Engineering of the Masses.” I read this back to back to his “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group.”

Why are these kinds of books important to read for the minister?
1.) It forces him out of pietism and forces him to see that retreat into pietism has meant the advance of Christ’s enemies in the public realm.

2.) It delivers us from R2K thinking inasmuch as we see that when Christians withdraw from the public realm false Gods claim ownership over that realm.

3.) It causes us to see that the corporeal enemies of the people we serve are intent on destroying them and their families via set policies pursued by nations, corporations, and agencies.

4.) It gives us insight into how spiritual forces in high places communicate themselves into this flesh and blood world in which we live.

5.) It casts us back on Christ who alone is able to defeat His enemies. But defeat them he has and so will. It thus gives us a roadmap on how we might be involved to that end.

6.) If we are called to resist we have to know who and what to resist. Books like this give us insight into that end.

Dr. Peter Jones… One or Two?

“One-ism, (all-is-one) is an esoteric read on reality. It maintains that everything can be explained by everything else. There are no qualitative distinctions to be found in the universe. The world creates itself and humans are ‘co-creators’ along with everything else. In this system reality is One. Think of one big circle. Everything is contained within it; rocks, trees, planets, human beings — even God, as a kind of energy. Everything is connected to everything else. There is nothing outside the circle.

Two-ism (all is two) is an exoteric read on reality. It maintains that the world is made by a Creator who is uncreated and radically different from His creatures. There are two forms of existence: the created and the one who created it. The two, while deeply related, are qualitatively distinct. Think of two circles, connected but distinct and essentially different.”

Dr. Peter Jones 
One or Two; Seeing a World of Difference — pg. 88

1.) What Dr. Jone’s labels as “One-ism,” is the idea where ontologically speaking, all reality participates in the same being. In most of these systems, one’s status in the social order is dependent on how much of that ultimate being they have unique to others who have less of this Oneist being.  The Mahat system of ancient Egypt was a Oneist system. The Pharoah was at the top of beingness and everyone descended from Pharoah had a lesser measure of being than Pharoah possessed. Animistic, Pantheistic, Hindu, are all Oneist systems.

The 1996 film “Phenomenon” is a classic expression of this One-ist Worldview as is the whole “Star Wars” series.

2.) Since everything is one and so all share the same being the ability to make qualitative distinct distinctions is impossible. For example, if a man and a woman share in the same universal being who is to say that there exists a qualitative distinction between what, in a non-Oneist worldview, has always been understood to be “male,” and “female?” Since the Oneist worldview finds an impossibility to make qualitative distinctions we get the idea of sexual fluidity and/or fluctuating gender. Indeed, in any consistent One-ist worldview any distinction has to be seen as temporary or arbitrary. Not only do we see the incapability of making hard gender and sexual qualitative distinctions we are increasingly seeing in some quarters of our culture the desire to erase the qualitative distinctions that once distinguished a child from the adult. There is a push in some quarters to sexualize the child arguing that the distinction between child and adult is unhelpful and arbitrary. On all these points we hear that heretofore universally accepted qualitative distinctions are merely “social constructs.” In Jones’ words above, humans are co-creators and as co-creator humans create these putative ‘social constructs’ that provide qualitative distinctions that we now, as a more enlightened One-ist people, understand are no distinctions at all. We hear this same kind of language about nations.  Distinct Nations, it is increasingly said, like gender, sexuality, and age are merely social constructs created by human co-creators who are free to uncreate what they had previously arbitrarily created.

Along this line, in One-ist worldview, religions likewise begin to break down and converge. Hard Ecumenicalism and a refusal to embrace the rough edges that segregate one religion from another becomes the watchword. Unity (really uniformity) becomes the be all end all passion. If all is one then uniformity is obviously the highest virtue and anyone who disturbs the pursuit of uniformity is a pebble in the shoe that must be eliminated. Of course, for the Christian unity is something that is never pursued. The Christian understands that unity is the residual byproduct of a common embrace of truth. The more people agree on truth, the more people will discover unity.

The demonstration of this mad pursuit for One-ist uniformity is commonly seen in the Revolutionary. Whether it was the One-ist leveling of the Bogomils, Cathar, Albigensians, and Ana-Baptists, whether it was the Phrygian cap in the French Revolution with the common leveling greeting to one and all, regardless of status or rank of “citoyenne,”  whether it is the universal leveling greeting of “comrade” during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or whether it was the ubiquitous leveling Mao suit found in the post-Communist Chinese Revolution, the One-ist worldview passionately desires to press upon people uniformity. Uniformity in One-ist slovenly thought, uniformity in slovenly clothing, uniformity in One-ist speech pattern. If all is one then all are interchangeable uniform cogs in the One-ist world.

Actually, in a genuinely One-ist world, as consistently followed, language and communication would be utterly impossible since qualitatively distinct meaning is impossible in a consistently One-ist world. Perhaps this explains God’s confusing of the language at Babel. Babel was perhaps the greatest attempt to build a One-ist social order ever.

George Orwell’s novel, “1984” is a wonderful fiction that describes the pursuit of Revolutionary One-ism.

3.) The One-ist will, of course, appeal to “Science” as a support to their One-ist cause. However, what most people don’t realize is that convictions don’t change because of science but rather science changes because of our convictions. This is a huge subject and so I will merely recommend three books that explain what I am getting at here,

a.) The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
b.) The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
c.) Hermeneutics and Science –Vern S. Poythress

An appeal to Science in order to prove One-ism will always be successful as coming from One-ist “Scientists.” Of course, if all is one, then anything and everything and nothing can be proven because no qualitative distinctions exist. One of the greatest failures of “Science” to give scientific heft to a distinctly non-scientific pursuit was the Soviet Union’s pursuit of Lysenkoism over Genetics. Lysenko insisted that he had overcome the qualitative distinction between Spring Wheat and Winter Wheat. He hadn’t and food shortages followed. “Science,” so-called, “proves” all kinds of things that just aren’t so. One-ism makes it easier for “Science” to do just that.

All of this to say that Science is only as good as the Theology that it is dependent upon and of which it is an expression.

4.) In Two-ism, because you have a distinct Creator and creature you also have other qualitative distinctions that are what they are because of how they have been named so by the Creator in His revealed Word. Genesis 1 is a long story of the Two-ist God making qualitative distinctions, and then God’s Law-Word goes on to make other qualitative distinctions which are definitely not social-constructs, though the One-ists will insist that God’s qualitative distinctions are instead really just so many social-constructs.

According to Bouwsma the idea of God’s creating qualitative distinctions was something well understood by John Calvin,

“The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should, therefore, remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma
John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

I highly recommend reading Dr. Peter Jones’ books. He provides scintillating analysis of how the culture and the Church are slipping faster and faster into One-ist presuppositions that are not Christian in their origin. Postmodernism, for example, is a child of One-ist ideology. Postmodernism teaches that no grand narratives exist and that all personal narratives are social constructs. Reality is malleable. Qualitative distinctions do not exist except as man subjectively creates them.

When One-ism slips into the Church the traditional language is retained but emptied of its original Two-ist meaning and is re-filled with One-ist pagan content. Dr. Jones’, in is “One or Two,” demonstrates how the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 deconstructs One-ism while making the case that our church and culture is increasingly falling into Oneism.