Culture – Page 5

Chesterton & McAtee On The Meaning Of Apparel

“All women dress to be noticed: gross and vulgar women to be grossly and vulgarly noticed, wise and modest women to be wisely and modestly noticed.”

G. K. Chesterton

It’s been a beef of mine for quite some time about the way we post-moderns dress. We are far removed from the class and the Haute couture of previous generations. It all bespeaks a coarsening of the human condition… a continuation of our disintegration downward into the void.

And now it is not enough to be ill-kempt in our dressing attire, now we seek out being ill-kempt in our own flesh with our comparatively recent fascination in the West with tattoos and body piercings.

Of course all of this is especially desultory on women as they are were created to be the fairer sex. It is one thing if one is living in a old shack to have torn and ugly furniture. It’s quite another thing if one is living in an upscale and higher end home to have it decorated like Berlin in May of 1945. God created women to be bearers of beauty as among mankind but today countless numbers of them dress like they are trying to star in a Jackson Pollack painting. One has a hard time today discerning a band of women at a shopping center from the crew of the fictional Whaler ship made famous as the “Pequod” from the novel “Moby Dick.”

I would go so far as insisting that the coarseness of our culture is perhaps best captured by the coarseness of our women-folk. Now, of course, as men are the head and creators of every culture (whether by abdication of their responsibilities to lead or by active leading askew) men are ultimately responsible for a culture populated by women covered in ink, pierced with metal, and dressed in spandex. When I was a boy, one could only see what I see daily by going to the circus or the county fair.

Look, I know that our women-folk have been led astray and so aren’t alone responsible for the ways they seek to de-beautify themselves. When living in a madhouse culture we can hardly be surprised when people begin to think that the madhouse is the norm and so follow the customs and norms of the madhouse. If a young lady sees her friends, peers, and elders looking like skin calligraphy is the hip thing one can hardly alone fault the innocent naive who have few better role models to not want to get pierced, inked, and trolloped in order to fit in with the madhouse culture.

I look at old photos of America from just two generations ago and it is like looking at another reality. Recently, I came across the photo of a major league baseball game in the late 1960s and I was amazed by the number of attendees who were wearing ties and suit jackets as well as the number of women wearing dresses. It was clear that the way they dressed then proves how coarsened we have become as a people. Another example is the way folks dress for church. Growing up we understood what “Sunday go to church clothes” meant. Nearly everyone was dressed in the best they owned. I have photos somewhere around here of me as a child with my Sunday School class with all of us 5 year olds all dressed up for church full of grins and sas.

None of this is to necessarily say people were better or more moral then. Often times dressing appropriately was a hypocrisy that was paying its coin to virtue, but people understood dressing like a vagrant was not acceptable. Even if all that finery in attire was hypocrisy, better the hypocrisy then, than the outright in your face non-hypocrisy that we have today. We could use a little hypocrisy in the way we dress.

So, our attire is just one more piece of evidence that we, as a people, are declining. What we wear, accouterments and all, screams volumes about us and screams volumes about what we think about God. There is theology being revealed in the way we dress (or don’t dress).

The Racial Casting Of The Gladiator II – A Film Review (Spoiler Alert)

I am a bit of a film buff. Part of the reason for that is that film is so influential in our culture in shaping worldviews. As such, I like to view films to see what exact paganism is being communicated by writers, directors, and producers in our films.

For quite some time now a large part of my analysis of films is racial. That is I look for what race is being cast into what role and then ask “why was that racial profile cast into that particular role?” When one does that one can often see how routinely white people are being replaced in our myth telling. Also, white people often play the villain or doofus part in Hollywood films with minorities playing the hero roles who stop the bad guy white man. A classic example of this was the remake of the Magnificent 7 which found Denzel Washington playing the chief good guy minority coming to the rescue of a bunch of sheep white townspeople. Denzel Washington, in that film is joined by a bevy of 3 other minorities (A Mexican gunslinger, an Injun outcast, and a Chinaman knife specialist), along with a coward White Southerner (who finally finds his courage at the very end of the film), a White right hand man who is always picking on the Mexican minority gunslinger and a White Mountain man who is clearly portrayed as a Jesus freak who hates injuns.

Recently, a film that did not receive particularly good reviews, seemed to find a anti-Woke, pro White message. That film was “Gladiator 2.” Once again we find Denzel Washington in a key role in the film but this time Washington ends up playing a villain whose death, at the hands of the white hero of the film, ends up re-establishing the heroic White man as the head of a renewed Roman Civilization.

If one interprets “The Gladiator 2” through this racial prism it is not a wonder that it was given such bad ratings. Interpreted via a racial grid the film suggests that while minorities almost overthrow white civilization in the end they fail after white man embraces his heritage identity.

The film gives us a Rome that has white twin brother Emperors who are both obviously effeminate with one obviously sodomite. These twins are destroying white Roman civilization with their perverted excesses. At one point in the film one brother says of the other brother; “the sickness in his loins as gone to his brain.” Clearly, the message of the film to this point is that the white man has lost his way as seen in this perversion and its wicked colonizing of other nations. As the film opens Rome is attacking Numidia. A famous Numidian of the era “Juguruth” has been cast as a black man and the white Romans make the injured “Juguruth” a gladiator and kill him off in a battle in the Coliseum.

The character that Denzel Washington plays connives to murder the twin white effeminate Emperor brothers so that he might become the ruler of all of Rome. Washington’s character’s (Macrinus) murder of the white Roman emperors is particularly vicious and looks a great deal like the violence we see today by blacks against whites.

The Denzel Washington character (Macrinus) is through and through Machiavellian in his rise to power. First Macrinus outwits a stupid White Senator to get into position to get next to the effeminate Emperors and then he outwits the whole white Senate as well as the effeminate Emperors so as to be on the cusp of ruling white Rome.

Much as where the West is now, the white man in the film has become feminized and minorities look to seize the throne from the white man with his effeminate leadership.

However, hope blooms because there remain some white Romans who retain their heritage white identity. The heroes in the film are two white men and a white woman. The son of Maximus (and Grandson of Marcus Aurelius) from the first Gladiator film, (Lucius Verus Aurelius) is a man of integrity and is opposed to both the white effeminate brother Emperors and the black gladiator entrepreneur (Washington’s character) who is seeking to rule Rome. Joining Lucius in the attempt to stop the bad guy Emperors and Macrinus (the Black character) is a Roman General (Acacius) who has done the bidding of the effeminate white brother Emperors in conquering countless nations but has hated them every step of the way for how they have ruined Rome with their sexual perversion and invading of other nations.

These two men are joined by the mother of Lucius Verus Aurelias and wife of Acacius — a white woman with the character name, “Lucilla.” Like every major character in the film she hates the white effeminate Emperor brothers and she plots their overthrow. Lucilla and Acacius end up giving up their lives in order to overthrow the effeminate Emperors in hopes that Lucius will reign because of his royal bloodline. However neither know that Macrinus is about to seize power. It is left to Lucius to defeat the evil bisexual black man (Macrinus) in order for white rule to be maintained over white Rome. In the mano vs. mano final battle Lucius kills Macrinus while all of the white Roman army looks on waiting for who they will follow.

In this film the bisexual black man (Macrinus) is cast as the chief villain who is seeking to kill off white rule so that he can rule over the white empire of Rome. However, the film, while clearly showing how vile and stupid white rule in Rome has become, still suggests that minority rule can be stopped by the rise of two white men and a white woman who still retain their original white Roman heritage identity.

It is not a wonder why the ratings were so low for this film.

The Right Response Ministries & Their Wrong Response To Praying For a “Good Pope”

Joel Webbon’s “Right Response” group has a podcast session where they encourage Protestant to pray that the next Pope of Rome would be a “good” Pope. It seems they especially want to see a Pope who would oppose mass migration and who would oppose sexual perversion. The group further refers to other differences between Rome and Protestants as merely being differences that are “this, that or the other.” They refer to a need for a “good Pope — a godly man who stands firm…”

What are these Baptists smoking?

Good Pope? That’s like saying; “healthy processed fast foods,” or, “conservative sodomite,” or “benevolent dictator.” Some words just can’t be put together without causing severe mental disorientation to those who have not yet been plagued with madness.

I can see praying for a “Good Pope,” if by that one means that they are praying for a Pope to come to power who will dismantle the whole Christ denying idolatrous blasphemy that Rome is. Seriously, anybody whAllo can string the words Good Pope together with “a godly man” need to return to Church history 101.

I suppose if the Right Response team had said; “If you are a Protestant you can pray for a Pope who will be comparatively less bad than other Popes,” I could understand but the idea of a “good Pope,” who is a “godly man” indicates that some people don’t understand their un-doubted catholic Christian faith. Might as well pray for a good bout of herpes.

All of this reminds me of C. S. Lewis’ “Prince Caspian” Novel where the Old Narnians are on the cusp of being defeated by the Telemarines. In that novel a villainous dwarf named “Nikabrik” resolves to overcome looming defeat at the hands of the Telemarines by summoning for the old nemesis of the Narnians, “the Great White Witch.” Nikabrik is confident that she will help to defeat the hated Telemarines. It’s the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. However, the White Witch, while an enemy of the Telemarines was not friend to the Old Narnians.

In the same way the Baptists on the Right Response podcast want to find aid from a “Good Pope” in order to hold off our current New World Order Telemarines. This is not sound strategy. What matters it if the West is rolled over by the New World Order or if it is rolled over by a reinvigorated Roman Catholicism? One of those in the discussion (Wesley?) even suggested what a wonderful thing it might be if a Good Pope could bring back the millions who have left Rome because of false Pope Francis. Is Wesley sane? Should he be allowed a voice of influence? Protestant don’t want millions going back to the shackles of Rome all because there might once again be a “Good Pope.”

Anybody who reads Iron Ink with any regularity knows that I am all about Christianity covering the globe. I am all about the Church going forward to conquer the enemies of Christ. However, that cannot be done by embracing an organization and a Pope who does not have the Gospel. There is no such thing as a “Good Pope.” This kind of reasoning of Right Response is to put the cart before the horse. We are not going to recover the West by looking to Institutions that have officially condemned the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

During his life time the great J. C. Ryle warned that the Anglican Church embracing Roman Catholicism would destroy England. He was right. In the same way we are correct in saying that the Christian faith looking for help from a “Good Pope” would finally completely destroy the West. For Pete’s Sake the West was only saved by being done with all Popes.

1964 Rushdoony Nails The Purpose Of The Hart-Cellar Act — McAtee Expands

“The purpose of the Hart-Cellar immigration law of 1965 was threefold.

First, it was described by NY Republican Senator Javitz as ‘the civil rights legislation for the world.’ Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is ‘the civil rights legislation of the world.’ In other words, it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is the first function of the Hart-Cellar 1964 Immigration Act.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective bar.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill (Hart-Cellar Act). The likelihood of passage is very, very great unless a storm of protest overwhelms congress and compels them to surrender their present inclination to accept the bill. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.

R. J. Rushdoony
Pocket College Lecture — 1964 Lecture

If ever the title of “Prophet” should be laid on someone that someone should be Rushdoony.

If we fill in the blanks just a wee bit more we would say now;

1.) The unification of man, as desired by the Globalists in these uS – a unification that RJR insists was inspired by the desire to have a unified manhood (world population) serving as god — was to be achieved by massive emigration patterns from the third world to the first world.

2.) Think of the purposeful change in immigration patterns as the pursuit of the lowest common denominator in order to level the nations. This is immigrational socialism.

3.) This vision of the Globalists that RJR exposed in 1964 could only be brought about by both the re-configuration of global populations via emigration AND massive propaganda agenda to push miscegenation once those populations have been re-arranged. As such, miscegenation, serves alongside the purposeful emigration agenda. Man will be melded, via marriage and breeding, into a singular non-distinguishable interchangeable cog. Once achieved it is a small step to Global citizenship in a New World Order.

4.) Because all of this is, as RJR writes above, was a part of the dream of the Globalists this means, by necessity, the homogenization process cannot be restricted to racial homogenization via miscegenation, and cultural homogenization via the same process, but also what also must be pursued in religious homogenization. A globalist New World Order requires not only a homogenization of race and culture but also requires a homogenization of all religions into one. Of course, this means the overthrow of distinctive Christianity which is being accomplished via the “Christian” churches refusal to speak out against Globalism (Babelism). As sure as night follows day you can count on the fact that Christianity will increasingly be less and less distinctive (than it already is) from other religions.

5.) If immigration is a civil right of anyone in the world then by necessity America cannot be anything but a propositional nation. If immigration to America is a civil right of anyone in the world then America cannot be a place defined by a people sharing a common ancestry and heritage, a common history, a common Anglo culture or even a common language.

6.) The ultimate purpose for all this was to destroy Christianity and this remains the ultimate purpose for all this. Those in the Church who cannot see this are co-conspirators in the silly attempt of rolling Christ off His throne.

McAtee, Christopher Hitchens And Henry Van Til On The Relationship Between Religion And Culture

“The radical, totalitarian character of religion is such, then, that it determines both man’s cultus and his culture. That is to say, the conscious or unconscious relationship to God in a man’s heart determines all of his activities, whether theoretical or practical. This is true of philosophy, which is based upon non-theoretical, religious presuppositions. Thus man’s morality and economics, his jurisprudence and his aesthetics, are all religiously oriented and determined.”

Henry Van Til

Calvinist Concept of Culture

This quote teases out the meaning of the truth that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences,” as theology is that discipline which makes religion to be religion. Everything is religion/Theology expressed in alternative ways. It is not only the case that “as a man thinketh in his heart so he is,” it is also a case that as cultures think in their heart so they are. This is why we say that culture is properly defined as religion made manifest, or alternatively, “culture is the outward expression of a people’s inward belief.” When I look at any culture I am looking at its theology. When I look at or converse with any person I am engaging their theology incarnated. Show me a culture and I will tell you which God god they are serving. We should seek to think of cultures as facades or masks from which the explicit theological authority principal hides behind to operate.

That’s why there is no talking about culture without theological analysis.

It also explains why the the Thomists are errant and why the followers of Dooweyweeerd are likewise errant as they both refuse to see that all flows out of singular theology / worldview. They each compartmentalize reality into different academic categories and have no unity born of a singular Biblical theology.

This quote also explains the vapidness in arguing that religion is a poison we should all give up.

“Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith.”

~ Christopher Hitchens

It is nothing but the humanistic religion of the now deceased Hitchens which animated him to write that “religion is poison.” Hitchens’ owned a religion of materialism and yet insisted on believing in “reason.” Is reason materialistic? Can I see or taste “reason?” The quote above merely tells me that Hitchens is denouncing religion so as to hide his deeply religious take on “religion.” Hitchens did not escape Henry Van Til’s observation on religion.

Because all this is true a man must be a theologian in order to understand culture. If a man is not a theologian he does not have the categories by which to properly analyze culture. To be sure he may get some things right as he borrows theological capital from a Christian worldview but taken as a whole his analysis will be sorely wanting at critical points.

All of this, in turn, explains why the insistence, as coming from many quarters such as R2K and Stephen Wolfe’s Natural Law project, that clergy should just shut up about anything but soteriology and private ethics since when they speak on other matters they are “getting out of their lane.” The problem is not that clergy speak on issues putatively not in their lane. The problem is that clergy speak on issues which are putatively not in their lane from a non Christian theological/worldview understanding. The problem is not their speaking on subjects… the problem is that they are not particularly Christian when speaking on said subject. The cure isn’t to get clergy to shut up. The cure is to train clergy to think worldviewishly as Biblical Christians.