Category: Government

On The Virtue Of Forced Conversions

“They open their breasts, while they are alive, and take out the hearts and entrails, and burn the said entrails and hearts before the idols, offering that smoke in sacrifice to them”

Hernan Cortes
Writing of the Aztecs

One bromide that those who oppose Christian Nationalism routinely reach for is the horror of the idea that Christian Nationalists would bring in forced conversions. I want to go on record as saying I have no problem with forced conversions to Christianity as long as we understand what we mean by the phrase “forced conversions.”

There are two ways to look at conversion. On a societal / cultural level when dealing with peoples like the Aztecs mentioned in the opening quote then forced conversion is the only option for a compassionate and God fearing people. Forced conversion at this level should be seen as conversion in an objective sense. This kind of conversion is the bringing in of a Christian law order by the sword that would force a previously wicked people to live under the terms of God’s law on a societal basis. Force would be used to bring in order and righteousness with God’s law in its political use leading the way. In the Aztec example above, sacrifices to the gods would end, laws against sundry sexual perversion would be enforced upon pain of death, property rights would be recognized and people forced to attend worship services.

Now, there can be no doubt whatsoever that most of the people that are being forced into this kind of conversion to Christian social dogmas and order would be converted in a subjective sense of the Holy Spirit taking from them a heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh but they would be converted in the sense that publicly they would not longer have a social order based on false gods. That kind of conversion would be a positive good think even if there was a need for heart conversion that would be betters still.

This kind of forced conversion by the sword would also have the advantage of preparing the social order for the presence of the Gospel being proclaimed. For example, those people freed by Cortez from the gods of the Aztecs would clearly be more open to owning a Gospel proclamation. Likewise Missionaries would have a more free opportunity to set forth the glories of Christ to a people subjugated by the Christian sword. Those Missionaries would not find their own lives in jeopardy for merely bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to a people long under the tyranny of false gods.

The ideal in forced conversions would be that the change that arrived in a massive social order change brought by the sword would open up opportunities for what we are calling “subjective conversions.” So, objectively the social order is forced to convert to Christ in the sense that the old gods are not allowed to be served, a new law order system is implemented, and the macro structures of society are changed thus making room for subjective conversions wherein people are now gladly forced to convert by the Holy Spirit’s irresistible work of regeneration.

So, mark me down as someone who has no problems with “forced conversions.” Indeed, it is my prayer that forced conversion would be brought to our formerly Christian culture. I would be delighted if Abortion clinics were forced to close down because of a policy of forced conversions. I would be delighted if idols to false gods would not be set up in our capitals across the nation because of forced conversion. I would revel in the Lord’s Day being reconstituted consistent with Blue Laws by means of forced conversion. I would rejoice if because of forced conversion a law order was established that made criminal tattooing, piercing, aborting, and soliciting for Prostitution. Now, even if that happened here I still would understand that the heart is desperately wicked beyond all things and that as such the heart would have to be reached in a way that the sword could not accomplish but that reality doesn’t make the idea of “forced conversions” a bad idea.

Also, we should state that all law orders are examples of forced conversions. There are many things our current State does that yield routine forced conversion to idol gods. The people who decry the possibility of Christianity using the sword for conversion don’t mind the sword being used to convert the majority of America’s children to a false religion via the requirements of the law for the education of children.  Christians are forced, at the point of a sword, to pay taxes for all kinds of things that belong to the bailiwick of false gods that are forcefully imposed upon this nation and work to keep it worshiping false gods.

Finally, it seems to be the case that only Christians have a problem with forced conversions. This may be due to the incredible pietistic influence on the Christian faith. Christians in the West today are not realistic as to the way the world works. Christians are scared to death of the idea of using power in a righteous way. Indeed, Christians tend to think that Christians having and using power is automatically an evil thing. Now, to be sure, Christians having and using power can be an evil thing but it is not necessarily an evil thing and Christians should once again contemplate the honor to Christ it might be to wield power in a Christ like fashion.

The idea of converting by the sword means that you make the adherents of the false gods be martyrs to their false gods. It is not automatically virtuous to be the only ones ever dying for their God, as Christians seem to think.

If Charlemagne and Cromwell had no problem conquering by the sword than neither do I.

Of Burning Flags And Fascist Solutions

I noticed today a post on TwitteX of a foreigner (Visa Student) burning an American flag. In that context people like Andrew Isker was insisting that such a person be sent back to where he came from.

I understand the sentiment and agree that said person should be given the heave ho. But I agree with qualifications.

First, I have no problem with burning the American flag, as such, my issue wasn’t with the burning of the American flag itself but my problem was with who was burning the American flag.

Allow me to explain.

The American flag is a symbol and I have, with reluctance, determined it is a symbol of destruction. It was the American flag that was flown when the original American republic was destroyed in 1865 as the nation was transformed, by Lincoln’s war from a Federal Republic to a Unitary Nation State. My attitude towards the flag is similar to the old captured Confederate soldier who was told that if he took an oath of loyalty to the US flag he would be released from his Yankee captors. His response was classic;

“Sonny, I wouldn’t wipe my arse with that rag.”

The American flag likewise is largely responsible for the end of Christendom in Europe with America fighting to destroy old Europe in
WW I, the Versaille Treaty, and WW II, as the American flag led the way in shattering Christendom in Europe. In both wars America and her flag should have stayed at home. The American flag guaranteed that there would not be a negotiated peace after WW I, thus perhaps giving old Christendom the opportunity to rise from the war’s ashes. The American flag was at Versailles guaranteeing that per Woodrow Wilson’s “Peace” that WW II would break out again in twenty years, with the result that all the shards of old European Christendom was completely obliterated.

“This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.”

French Marshall Fernand Foch
Supreme Allied Commander
Response to Versaille 

The American flag was on those planes that murdered countless civilians in the firebombing of civilians in WW II. The American flag was present on the planes that dropped two Atomic Bombs on Japan after Japan had already accepted the peace that was finally implemented after the dropping of the two bombs. The American flag was present during the Bolshevik Revolution providing coverage for the Communist Reds in their warfare against the Nationalist White Army.

Similarly, it is the American flag that owns every abortion since 1973.

So, I think that is a pretty good case of not having any problem with the American Flag being burned on principle.

However, when it is a foreigner who is present on a Student Visa burning the American flag that is a different kettle of fish because that student is burning it in support of policies that if taken up would make me want to burn even more American flags.

Yet, people may find it odd that in spite of all this I love America and Americans enough to write all this. Mine is not a blind hatred of all things American. Mine is a hatred of all the unrighteousness that the flag is associated with. We, as Americans, have not been a God-fearing people for a very long time and because of that why should I want to defend the symbol that stands for a Christ-hating America?

Now a word as to the cure for all this. Increasingly, we are seeing younger Christians understanding that the America of the post-war consensus to be an ugly failure. More than a few are advocating that what America really needs is a good old fashioned National Socialist Government. Quotes like,

“National Socialism is merely the politicization of Christianity.”

Or

“Hitler was a Christian Prince.”

Or

“Race is real. Jews are evil. Whites are supreme.”

Are deeply problematic. Some of these statements just are not true. Some of these statements lack the requisite nuance. Reformation in America is not going to come via embracing National Socialism or variant forms of Fascism. The answer to an Cultural Marxist America that deserves to have its flags burned is not National Socialism where;

“All is within the state, nothing is outside the state, nothing is against the state.”

In such an arrangement the State becomes God walking on the earth. In such an arrangement we can say that “in the state we live and move and have our being.” Being ugly in a different way is not the answer to being ugly in the way we are now.

The answer to our current ungodly liberalism is not Stone Choir’s advocacy of National Socialism. Instead we could pursue a social order theology where the State, like all the other institutions in society, is merely one institution among many operating in a Christian society. The National Socialism idea that all must operate in the state and per the state is anti-Christ because it makes the State to be the norm that norms all norms. It will do no good to insist that in National Socialism the State only does what the Volk wants because it is the state that is determining what it is the Volk want.

America is ugly. As such burning American flags in protest of America’s real ugliness leaves me undisturbed — and that even if I could never bring myself to burn a flag. The answer though is not to slingshot in another ugly direction by supporting a State centered answer informed by Marxist categories.

We need a return to Biblical Christianity that because it embraces the theological idea of the temporal one and many as a reflection of the eternal one and many can provide both unity (in a common faith) and diversity (as each social institution orders itself consistent with God’s Word). This means a sovereignty that is not unitary in the State or any other cultural institution in the society. This means all cultural institutions are allowed to flourish in the sphere wherein they were designed to flourish. The Christian state flourishes in the state sphere. The Christian family flourishes in the family sphere. The Christian church flourishes in the church sphere as each and all together operating consistent with Christ’s sovereignty. This is the idea of diffuse law orders operating under God’s law in one society.

For those who want to  pursue the ideas about how society should reflect the idea of the One and the Many should read;

Colin Gunton — The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity / The 1992 Bampton Lectures 
Rushdoony — The One and the Many
Law & Revolution — Harold J. Berman (Two Volumes)

Calvin & Jefferson On Diversity & Multiculturalism

 “If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that Divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together, so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best.”

John Calvin 
Institutes

Calvin here is clearly against any notion of multiculturalism. Different countries, populated by different peoples, are governed by different forms of polity that best reflect and so serve different peoples. From this we learn the advisability of properly segregating those social realities that should be properly segregated. For example, it would be foolhardy to try to integrate the Shona people group as living among the Japanese. They are different peoples and should be ruled by different traditions, customs, and governance. Their differences don’t allow for social integration as one people. This seems obvious.

What Calvin wrote in the 16th century Thomas Jefferson echoed in his lifetime when writing about the differences between blacks and whites;

“Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

What Calvin and Jefferson observed was not merely a matter of opinion. Calvin would have said that this was clear from God’s Word as seen in how the OT gives very precise delineations keeping the stranger and the alien distinct from Israel. Jefferson would have said this was obvious as seen in Nature and Nature’s God. Both would have been correct though today’s Natural Law enthusiasts would disagree with Jefferson’s correct interpretation of Natural Law.

Calvin and Jefferson were not merely rendering up subjective opinions merely reflective of their times. Calvin and Jefferson (and countless other men) were reflecting objective truth. It’s the same truth that is found in Scripture wherein it is taught

“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.”  Deut. 22:10

One would think that the obvious failure of our long pursued egalitarianism would be obvious on this matter. One would think that the failures of multiculturalism are glaring. Instead, we continue to hear stupid slogans that have repeatedly been demonstrated as abundantly not even close to being true like “diversity is our strength,” “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities,” “Diversity is a mix and inclusion is making the mix work,” “No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive,” and “A democracy thrives on diversity. Tyranny oppresses it.”  All of this has been to prop up an egalitarianism that can not stand, never has stood, and never will stand. The continued decline of the US and Europe in their attempt to embrace diversity and multiculturalism has proven the wisdom of Calvin and Jefferson and countless others. A society… a culture … is only strong where there is worldview, ideological, theological, philosophical, religious, and cultural harmony of interest as combined with a shared racial / ethnic history and tradition.

Hat-tip — Adam Plewes

The Eventual Breakup Of These US & Europe

America’s population is northwards of 347 million people now. There are those who contend that approximately 30 million of those are illegal aliens — criminals.

This presents the question of “what unites us together as a cohesive nation?” The premise is that a nation, like a family, must have common ground in order to function coherently. Without common ground a nation, like a family, will disintegrate over time. So, given our ever increasing multicultural status as a nation what are the dynamics that make us, as a many peoples, one people?

It strikes me that there can only be three answers to that question for any nation. Those three options are;

1.) Force / Totalitarianism
2.) Economic Prosperity
3.) Shared Race & Religion

When we consider the force / totalitarian option were are presented with the idea of “Empire.” Empires are kept together by a strong centralized and authoritarian political structure. Here we could remember examples like the former USSR, or the US immediately after the war of Northern Aggression. These Empires (USSR externally among many countries and the USA internally in the one nation) were kept together by the bayonet. Nations which are kept together by Force / Totalitarianism need and have large control mechanisms (Secret police) in order to immediately squash any movement by any subversive groups that might unravel the whole. Again we are reminded of the work of the Cheka/KGB in the former USSR and the Freedman’s Bureau as it existed in the conquered Southern States, post “War Against the Constitution.”

People’s living in and sharing the same “nation” may hate one another but if enough force is applied from a centralized source they can be stitched together for a period of time. Eventually though, Empires cannot sustain the amount of resources they need in order to continue their top down existence and they either implode or explode.

The second source of uniting a nation is Economic prosperity. This falls under the old proverb that all boats rise with a rising tide. When there is abundance among a nation that nation can rise above the inherent disagreements that exist as a result of being so fractured in their population base. I believe this is the explanation for why the US has been able to sustain its multicultural existence for the last few decades now. As racial/ethnic and religious homogeneity has decreased in the last three decades or so it is the fact of comparative economic prosperity that has kept us from disintegrating. This has been combined with ever increasing totalitarianism from Washington DC with its ever burgeoning surveillance society so that currently the reality that is keeping the US from flying apart in secession movements or general various geographic anarchies is comparative economic prosperity combined with the aforementioned totalitarianism.

However, Economic prosperity cannot last forever and eventually totalitarianism fails and at that point unless a nation exists as a nation because of a shared race/ethnicity and a shared religion the nation will not continue to be able to cohere as a nation and political division will result. This is what happened with the fall of the USSR. Economically, the USSR could not continue and as their never was any shared religion/race among the various countries that comprised that Empire the USSR disintegrated. This is what happened when the British lost their Empire under the rule of Churchill. England lost its ability to project power across its previous Empire and in light of its Economic loss in light of its diminishment in WW II its Empire began to melt away. In both cases there was nothing else to hold the people together and now England faces internally what it faced externally at the close of WW II. Because England has allowed itself to be swamped with immigrants from third world origins England is in danger of decided civil unrest. It already is increasing its totalitarian muscle in order to keep its population “united.”

That brings us back to the US. The US in my lifetime was at one point 89% White and Christian. That provided a religious and racial/ethnic base in order to provide a cohesiveness that could rise above national stress and strain. It was this common thread that brought us through two World Wars and a great Depression. It was this common thread that found us continuing during the Draft riots and the Political upheaval of Watergate. Because we were a people with a majority religion and race / ethnicity there were common bonds that could compel us to stay together despite pressures to separate politically.

The fact that shared race / ethnicity alone can’t keep a people together is seen by referencing again our own War Between the States. Despite the fact that we were largely one people racially, the differences at that time in the religion that was animating North (Transcendentalism-Romanticism) and South (Christianity) were so great that the previous common ground could not survive. Shared race alone without a shared religion cannot keep a people together once pressures descend.

The same is true in the other direction. Shared religion alone can’t keep a people together where there isn’t a shared racial/ethnic reality.  One has only to think of the division between blacks and whites in America who both boast of large “Christian” communities within their people groups and yet the divisions between black and white Christians over various issues in the US is well known. The conflict between Christian Serbs and Croats after the fall of Yugoslavia serves as another example of how a shared faith (Christianity) cannot by itself unite a people even when there is strong racial (Slavic) affinities.

All this brings us to the eventual breakup of the US and even of Europe. With the New World Order rearranging of the World via mass immigration the West is no longer the West. Europe and the US had been largely White and Christian until the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. However, both the Christian base (even nominally considered) and the racial/ethnic base has been deteriorated  and the result is that we have nothing intrinsic that can hold us together as nations and this means that once totalitarian efforts are exhausted (and they always exhaust themselves eventually) the eventual course for the US will be the break-up of these once united States. Serious secession movements will arise in the next quarter of a century or so in the US unless something drastically changes in order to restore our religious and racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Before the breakup there may be efforts to pin together the country by force. Total control, with the advent of technology, is getting easier and easier but the centripetal forces are equally strong. Good economic times may also forestall the inevitable but good economic times do not last forever. Eventually, because of how the New World Order has been able to rearrange population centers the US will break apart as a nation.

On Those Reputed To Be Jews

“The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal), Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument … Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth … Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers,” whilst they call themselves “revisionists.”

Robert Faurisson

Former French Professor of Literature at Lyon University
Statement regarding the religious implications of the Holocaust narrativeNow, immediately there will be those who will scream that Faurisson was a holocaust denier. This in spite of the fact that the uber-Leftist Jewish Academic Noam Chomsky once wrote; “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.” One should also note that if even Auschwitz in the early 90s had to revise their originally grossly inflated death count total down from four million. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1992;

“Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.”

It would seem to be reasonable to believe, that in light of this gross overestimation (a gross overestimation that lasted for almost 50 years) of death totals in Auschwitz that it is likely the case that gross overestimations were made in the numbers reported from other camps. The idea that the numbers were routinely grossly inflated has been reported not only by Faurisson but also by others such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

I, myself, do not have a concrete opinion on the matter of total deaths suffered by those reputed to be Jewish though I can easily see how it serves as an advantage for those reputed to be Jewish to continue to cling to these numbers. While, I do not have an established opinion on the total death toll on those reputed to be Jewish I do find it curious that so much is made of this death toll in comparison to the horrendous death toll of other tribal communities that receive comparatively little attention. For example, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Ukranians by Jewish Bolsheviks under Stalin. Also, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Armenians by the  Dönme (Jewish) “Muslim” Turks (members of the Sabbatai Zevi cult). We should also mention that holocaust of over 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” (nomenclature used to skirt the Geneva Convention treatment requirement for POWs) inflicted by the Allies upon surrendering German troops after WW II, the holocaust visited upon the Khmer people by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, and the holocausts of Mao visited upon the Chinese in both his “great leap forward,” and during the later “cultural revolution.” Indeed, the 20th century could be labeled as the “Holocaust century” — especially were we to add the holocaust of the unborn.

And yet I’d be willing to bet the farm that 9 out of 10 Americans have heard only of the Holocaust visited upon those reputed to be Jews. One is left asking… “Why is that?” A cynic might say that the answer presents itself when one notices what people group it is that has been the guiding light of the Western media / Hollywood since its inception. Those who own the news/entertainment report the news.

Those reputed to be Jews have gotten a good deal of mileage out of their unique ownership of the trademarked word “Holocaust.” They have been able to play the global victim due to their trademark ownership. This is an insurmountable advantage when living in a WOKE global philosophy that prioritizes the oppressed victim over and above the evil oppressor class. Those reputed to be Jews have, because of their holocausted status, have become the greatest victims of them all. In the game of Cultural Marxist poker, where he who is the greatest victim hold the greatest hand, the reputed Jews who were holocausted hold the royal flush against all competing victimhood hands. The reputed Jews who were holocausted are the trump that trumps all trump. Nobody can out victim them.

Their victimhood card was played again just a couple days ago when their Prime minister Netanyahu, invoking the holocaust, said;

“No Nation Came to the Aid of Jews During the Holocaust.”

I think all those boys who died on the beaches of Normandy might argue otherwise.

But, all argumentation is irrelevant. When you hold the royal flush of victimhood nothing else matters, and that was the card, Netanyahu played when he said that.

This returns us thus to the opening Farisson quote. The Holocaust has been turned into a religion. Some wags have taken to calling it “Holocaustianity.” Farisson fails to mention above that Holocaustianity also has its own unique Messiah and the Messiah of Holocaustianity are those who we routinely call “Jews.” They are their own saviors, and one of the means of saving themselves is this new religion wherein all have to bow before their very real tragic history, being required at the same time to ignore the very real tragic history of many other groups who have experienced attempted genocide. If other peoples are to be sympathized with then the sympathy with which those reputed to be Jews are sympathized with becomes diluted and reduced in its guilt invoking power.

Another advantage of Holocaustianity is that serves as a “get out of jail free” card. Any behavior by those reputed to be Jews can be overlooked because, “after all they are the greatest victims of all time.” Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre, or the sinking of the USS Liberty, or the bombing of the King David Motel, or the ethnic cleansing of Christian Palestinians, it can all be washed away because “we were holocausted.”

Even if Faurisson was wrong about holocaust death totals, the point he makes about the creation of a new religion is spot on. That Faurisson is accurate on this point is seen by that Lawmakers in several U.S. states have recently pushed for laws defining antisemitism so as to censor wrong-speak. One sees the problem here when one considers that there has been no push for laws defining anti-Christian speech so as to censor wrong-speak against Christians. I would submit this is an example of holocaustianity at work. Especially, when living in a climate where antisemitism is defined as disagreeing with someone reputed to be Jewish.

These kinds of things need to be said with the coming of Trump. Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists (Hegseth, Stefanik, Huckabee to name just a few) and Trump has been labeled by Netanyahu as “the greatest friend Israel as ever had in the White House.” Radio Personality Mark Levin recently introduced Trump as “Our First Jewish President.”  In light of all this voices need to be raised warning, (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan here) about the continued increasing Israeli occupation of America.

I shouldn’t need the tag that finds me saying, “I am not pro-Arab or pro-Muslim.” I am not even “anti-those reputed to be Jews.” I am merely pro Christian and I don’t think that anybody but Christians should have special protection in a nation that was established on Christian principles and I am against politically correct poker.