FREEDOM’S CRY – Page 6

Leddihn & McAtee On The Conservative Disposition

“Conservatism on the Continent was based on disciplined thought from the start. Chronologically it falls into the period of late Romanticism and opposes ideas and ideologies emanating from the sentimental disorders of early Romanticism. Its opponent is the French Revolution (including the Napoleonic aftermath) with its egalitarianism, nationalism and laicism. But, as it so often happen in the battle of ideas, the good old principle fas est ab hoste doceri (it is right to learn even from an enemy) is applied a great deal to liberally, with the result that early 19th century conservatism has a rigidity and harshness reminding us of the hard school through which these early conservatives had to go: the school of French Revolution and the interminable sanguinary wars caused by the Napoleonic aftermath. Their school, as we said, was tough and therefore an element of severity and repression characterizes early conservatism, a certain belief in force if not in brutality, an unwillingness to enter any sort of dialogue or to conduct gentle and shrewd reeducation of its opponents. One does not discuss with assassins from whom one never expected humaneness, leniency, or tolerance. They must be mastered, fought, jailed, and, if worst comes to worst, locked up or exiled. In view of the horrors of the French Revolution and Napoleon’s trail of blood all over Europe from the gates of Lisbon to the heart of Moscow, this attitude is not surprising.”

Leftism; From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn — pg 387

Conservatives practice tough love born of a love for God and people. This tough love that comes across, in Leddihnn’ words, “as rigid and harsh” and “severe and repressive,” is born of both a knowledge of where matters are going if Leftism and its practitioners are not stopped and of a love for God and people.

Epistemologically self conscious conservatives (and such people are always Christians) are aware of the stakes. They have read Shire, Conquest, and Solzhenitsyn. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives understand the anti-Christ ideology that animates Leftism and because conservatives are familiar with history they know where that ideology leads. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives have read the stories about what happened to those who have tried to resist the plans of the left; the Vendee, the Kulaks, and the Boer. They can recite the cruel accounts against Maria Luisa of Savoy, Hans and Sophie Scholl, and Isaak Babel. Countless are the names of those who have had the cruelty of the left visited upon them. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives are familiar with the cruel tools of the left; Necklacing, Gloving (peeling the skin off the hands,), aborting, and Madam La Guillotine. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives can tell you about the Gulag, the Concentration camp, and the Psychological ward — residences provided by the left for the burgeoning legion of dissenters. Epistemologically self conscious conservatives are mindful of the left’s brainwashing, propaganda, and manipulation machine. You can hardly blame epistemologically self conscious conservatives for not being sunny and cheery when it comes to warning people off of the ideology and practice of the Left. How many of millions of graves must conservatives weep over — graves that need not had been filled if conservative counter-revolutionaries had been listened to — until epistemologically self conscious conservatives will be cut some slack regarding the fact that they are not as nice as they might otherwise be?

It is not Conservatives who are the cold-hearted, rigid, and repressive bastards. Any edginess you see in a epistemologically self conscious conservative is a edginess that is born of compassion for people. We have seen the ugly maw of Leftism and we would walk through bedlam and chaos in order to deliver people from the Christ-less ugly and monochromatic world that the left always try to produce in its mad pursuit of Utopia.

Historical Calvinism & Political Resistance … Contra R2K

‎”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

John Calvin,
Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22

Calvinist Francis Hotman posed this question,

“If a state was once free, but later was conquered by a tyrant, was it not lawful to overthrow the tyrant and revert to that ancient Independence?”

“The nature of wicked princes is much like to warthogs, which if they be suffered to have their snouts in the ground, and be not forthwith expelled, will suddenly have their snouts in all the body; So they if they be obeyed in any evil thing be it ever so little will be obeyed in all at length.”

John Ponet
Magisterial Reformer

‎”When therefore the supreme ruler has become a tyrant, he must be deemed by his own perjury (as against the covenant document with the people) to have freed people from their oath, and not to the contrary, when the people assert their rights against him.”

Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
(Thought to have been written by a one of two men … both of whom were Calvinists)

“As often as the Magistrate commands anything that is repugnant EITHER to the worship which we owe unto God OR to the love which we owe unto our neighbor, we cannot yield thereunto with a safe conscience. For as often as the commandment of God and men are directly opposed one against another, this rule is to be perpetually observed; that it is better to obey GOD than men.”

Theodore Beza
Calvin’s Successor in Geneva

“Resistance to tyrannical governors was, according to (Calvinist Pierre) Viret, a legitimate act of self defense. He even endorsed the use of disinformation if the tyrant were persecuting as analogous to resisting a band of robbers. If the political leader acted like a criminal, Viret thought he should be treated like a one, and the citizens were justified in resisting him.”

The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret
Robert Dean Linder — p. 131

According to William Naphy’s “Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, (p. 159-160)” Calvin, in his preaching confronted the Magistrates in his congregation. Naphy concludes that Calvin’s preaching was at times direct, confrontational, and “politically informed.” One of Calvin’s 1522 sermons landed Calvin in front of the Council to explain why he spoke of the senators and the other civil rulers in a sermon as

“Arguing against God”
“Mocking him,”
“Rejecting all the Holy scriptures to vomit forth their blasphemies as supreme decrees

And as (my personal favorite)

“Gargoyle monkeys [who] have become so proud”

Interesting material from Peter Martyr (Calvinist)

Martyr stipulated that others in the public weal, who were in ‘place and dignity lower than princes’ and yet in positions of responsibility to ‘elect the superiors,’ have power by existing laws to govern the commonwealth. If, therefore, a prince does not preform his covenant as promised, ‘it is lawful to constrain and bring him into order and by force compel him to fulfill the conditions and covenant which he had promised, and that by war when it cannot be otherwise done.’

And who does Martyr include in his list of “others in the public weal’ who had a responsibility to keep an eye on wandering Magistrates?

Why Peter Martyr includes “Ministers of the Churches,” as those who had a responsibility to keep an eye on wandering Magistrates.

“Loyal shoulders should sustain the power of the ruler so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances; but if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God, then with unrestrained voice, I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth.”

-John of Salisbury, Policraticus, 1159

The Creation Of The New World Order — How It Was Done In The West

1.) Promote duel-culturalism

History reveals that no nation has flourished admidst the antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.
Think of the Kurds and the Arabs in Iraq, the French and the English in Canada, the French and the Flemish in Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, etc.

2.) Invent multiculturalism and encourage minorities and immigrants to maintain their culture thus insuring tension between peoples as this action puts worldviews in conflict.

Nations that are divided between races and ethnicities who have competing cultures and worldview have to work very hard to maintain social order harmony between the various groupings. Remember the Greek widows problem in the book of Acts.

3.) Celebrate diversity as if it is a strength. Equivocate. Show photos of different foods, fashion, and customs, but avoid the reality that diversity means different religions, cultures, and worldviews. Doing this will obfuscate the tension found in lack of unity.

We are then left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold culture together. Various minority cultures and cultures of perversion will eventually prioritize and enforce their differences as being “valued” above the dominant culture.

4.) Use education as a means to dumb all cultures down so that eventually there will be a leveling downward to a equal point of dullness. Use education to create a underclass. This insures that envy can be used in order to control the population. It also creates perpetual tension between classes and races.

5.) Get Mega Corporations to financially support multiculturalism. This is done by the race pimps blackmailing mega corporations into giving their organizations money. The underclass thus is financially supported and the Mega corporations get assurances about not be identified as “racist.”

6.) Make it taboo to talk about the silliness of the cult of diversity or the destructive character of multi-culturalism.

Words such as “homophobe,” and “racist” are designed to be 21st century versions of “heretic,” and “apostate.” These words raised tend to instantly shut down conversation.

7.) Make it impossible to enforce immigration laws.

This insures that the majority population that might begin to resent multiculturalism and diversity can no longer leverage the derailing of the project.

Myths can be created that “immigration is good,” and that it is inevitable and that it makes the nation more well rounded.

In such a way Marxist love and tolerance works towards the Marxist New World order because homogeneous cultures which would have otherwise resisted the globalist agenda are now fractured and divided among themselves. Sovereign nations might have been able to withstand globalism but nations that are torn by tribal strife are easy for globalist pickings. Government creates the strife and government offers itself as the only solution.

Dissident

We must find a new identity marker for who we are. “Christian” does not get it done any longer for the word “Christian” has come to encompass everyone from “control freak” Marxists, to “heart strangely warmed” Pietists, to schizophrenic R2K, to “rapture date setting” Dispensationalists, to “God is sovereign enough to not be sovereign” Arminians, to other assorted kooks, oddballs, and curios.

“Conservative” does not get it done as identity marker. We are so far down the liberal rabbit hole that I have no interest in conserving even the conservatism of three generations ago. Besides, “Conservative” today can mean anything from “Big Government Conservative,” to “Neoconservative” — neither of which is conservative by any objective standard. Today “Conservative” is seen as the foundation for Flag waving, military supporting, Empire lusting, Alien adopting, and support of all things Big Brotherish.

No … we need a new identity marker to set ourselves apart from other “Christians,” other “Conservatives” and worst of all, other “Conservative Christians.”

In previous eras other words were used to mark out a distinct people. Words like “Reformer,” and “Protestant.”

I suggest the word “Dissident.” We have come to the point where the most Christian and conservative action possible is to oppose official policy of the authoritarian structures that we engage at every turn. Dissidence towards other “Christians.” Dissidence towards the Statists. Dissidence towards the Patriot crowd. Yes, especially Dissidence towards the Church. We must be Dissidents precisely because we are Loyalists to King Jesus and His authoritative word.

We must be Dissident because, as was said of Athanasius, we are “against the world for the world.”

Dissidentēs contra mundum.

Count me as Dissident.

Behold Tyranny

1.) SCOTUS rules the Arizona cops can ask for proof of citizenship

2.) Within hours of the SCOTUS ruling Sec. Naplitano of Homeland Security announces that the Obama Administration is suspending its agreement with Arizona police regarding the detention and reporting of illegal aliens, thus in a Defacto fashion, voiding the SCOTUS decision.

3.) So, Arizona can ask for identification but if Arizona police find out they have illegal aliens on their hands they have no place where processing for deportation can take place since the FEDS are now refusing to take Arizona reportage.

4.) Further, the Obama Civil Rights division has set up a hotline for illegals to call in order to lodge complaints against both the Arizona and Alabama state immigration law, thus clearly revealing that they are trolling in order to find a case that they can use to litigate successfully in order to overturn the decision that SCOTUS just made.

We are living under a Criminal State. Morally speaking, we do not owe it obedience.