As of late the idea of “the post-war consensus” has been getting a good deal of air time. This has been a handy phrase but it really failed what it was trying to describe. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy makes it clear in his book “Out of Revolution” that we are now calling the “Post war consensus” should properly be termed as the “post Enlightenment consensus” or, the “post-French Revolution consensus.” All that we are fighting now in our labeling of the “Post war consensus” was present in and after the French Revolution. This is due to the fact that it’s all the same consensus and that consensus is based on the idea of Revolutionary thinking. It really has been the case that at least since the French Revolution the West has been Trotskyite, inasmuch as we have been living in perpetual Revolution. All of this is what Rosenstock-Huessy labels, “The Autobiography of Western Man.” What we have now with what we label the “Post-war consensus” is merely the Revolution inaugurated in France all growing up into adult maturity.

And the sad news here, is that unless this is reversed the French Revolution consensus will continue to expand its monstrous nature so that 50 years from now we will be calling it the “Post new century consensus,” or something like that. This consensus thing is never going to quit growing until the life is choked out of it.

And the only way that happens is by a return to Biblical Christianity. What we call “the Post War Consensus” might be more properly called “The Anti-Christ consensus.” The French Revolution was all about overthrowing God, King and Church — the Ancien Regime that was based on that. Remember the motto of the French Revolution was “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Their rally cry was “No God … No King.” All that we see now is just the working out of that principle as subsequent to the latest great leap forward in this Revolution — what we call WW II.

The cure to all this is what Kinism is all about. People think Kinism is merely about marriage, adoption, and the proper order of natural love. Kinism is about that but it is about much more than that. Kinism is and always has been about overturning what we call the post-war consensus, and inasmuch as one can’t have consistent Kinism without theonomy so it is the case also that theonomy has always been primarily a counter-revolutionary movement against the post-war consensus and its greater Father, “the post French Revolution consensus.”

This is why the work done against Doug Wilson is so important. Wilson, White, Boot, Sandlin, etc. all would drag us back to continue to live under this Revolutionary autobiography of man. Oh, sure, they would sanctify it and make it “more tolerable” but at the end of the day these chaps want to smoke a peace pipe with the age of Revolution. The work being done by Kinists and others who have not yet the consistency of the Kinist movement is instrumental in overthrowing this 200 plus march of Trotskyite social order revolution. This is not primarily about marriage, nations, Natural law vs. God’s law, etc. This is about whether we will have civilization as defined theocentrically or whether we will have civilization as defined anthropocentrically. The question reduces down to whether we will be governed by our Christian confessions or will we be governed by the Humanist Manifestos.

There are good men out there right now who are being mowed down by other men that people want to think are good. Keep in mind that not all that glitters is gold. Many Christian men atop many Christian organization are pulling an Esau on us and are selling our birthrights as White Anglo Saxon Christians.

This is a time of dividing. As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

It is beyond obvious now that the contemporary visible “Conservative” church in America has been co-opted by what we are calling, “The post-war consensus.” As I argued yesterday, Christianity has been reinterpreted through the post-war consensus filter with the result that “conservative” Christianity  is no longer particularly conservative nor especially Christian.

This brings us to the realization that regardless of how exacting people in general and clergy in particular are in their formal theology proper that does not necessarily translate as those people practicing Biblical Christianity. Clearly, we are seeing that people and clergy can speak in erudite tones about soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatology, eschatology, ecclesiology, Christology and still be absolutely clueless about what Christianity looks like in concrete, rubber meets the road, kind of ways. Anybody who can praise, for example, a Winston Churchill, or a Martin Luther King, or a Abraham Lincoln at the very least has not learned a fundamental basic of Christianity which is to “hate that which is evil and to cling that which is good.” How can one be thought of as “Christian” when they call good “evil” and evil “good?” I don’t care how much exegetical work you can do on Scripture if you can’t distinguish the overtly obvious goats from the overtly obvious sheep.

We have discovered that there is huge disconnect between Christianity in the abstract and Christianity in the concrete and along the way we have discovered that there are legions of those, within Evangelicalism currently who are reputed to be pillars in the Church yet have nigh unto zero ability to think Christianly in a concrete fashion.

This in turn reveals the necessity to once again to teach Christianity as a world and life view and not merely as a set of abstract concepts that allow one to “be on their way to heaven” regardless of the horrendous views they hold on any number of other subjects. This is not adding anything to fact that Christ alone saves. It is merely an argument that when Jesus Christ saves the sanctification process includes incrementally learning to think in ways that do not praise the sons of Belial (for example Churchill) while condemning the works of the righteous (for example Godfrey of Bouillon). It’s hard to take someone’s Christianity seriously if they are praising as “great” a man who proposed dropping anthrax cakes across Germany in order to murder millions of Germans or who eventually approved of the Morgenthau plan which proposed the same kind of death and mayhem. Yet, over the last few days we’ve seen numerous of those reputed to be pillars in the Church step up to the mic and do just that.

Obviously, then, we have to say that there is such a thing as a Biblical view of history and while it certainly would be possible to be overly punctilious as to what the Christian view of history may or may not be in every instance clearly history done from a Christian world and life view does not allow us to sing the praises of the wicked. Can we not agree that anybody in the Church that praises mass murderers as great men ought to be set aside, if not formally by excommunication, then at least informally by marking out such a man as one to warn people against?

Given the trajectory we are on, I want to go on record as saying I will never praise Robespierre, or Mao, or Stalin, or Castro, Lincoln, or Genghis Khan as great men. (This is me trying to get ahead of where this curve is going.) Neither will I praise the French Revolution, nor the “Great Leap Forward,” nor “The Killing Fields” in Cambodia as Great Christian enterprises.

We should end with a plea that the church would be released from its post-war consensus captivity. We should pray that people would realize that just as one cannot say they love God while hating their brother, neither can they say they love God while praising those who hate God and His people. We should realize that Christianity is a totalistic religion that is inclusive of owning a Worldview that understands that history can be either “Christian” or “Anti-Christ,” and we can resolve that any “Christian” who is teaching history through an anti-Christ prism should be marked out and avoided.

Postscript — All of this points in the direction of needing to train those going into the ministry in history and historiography. Because that hasn’t been happening I would counsel all parishioners to completely ignore your Pastor when he starts talking about history or historical events. He has zero training on the inter-relationship between history and what effects a Christian worldview has on understanding history. If you are going to listen to him I would encourage you especially to be like the Bereans when your Pastor talks about history and go check the primary sources yourself or go to Biblical Christians who have written on whatever history you’re seeking to be informed.

We hear a good deal about “the post-war consensus,” but what is this thing?

Post-war reaches back to the end of WW II though much of the international consensus that came with the end of WW II was already in the air at the beginning of the 20th century as seen in the creation of the “League of Nations,” at the end of WW I and such silly legislation as the “Kellogg-Briand” pact which legislated the end of all war. It could be easily be argued also that the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was one of the first key steps in creating the post-war consensus that we are now currently living under. As such, one could even note that that post-war consensus was being fought against before the start of WW II by those belonging to the “America First” movement as led by people like Charles Lindbergh, John T. Flynn, General Robert E. Wood, Elizabeth Dilling, Sen. Gerald P. Dye etc. The America First movement swelled to 800K dues paying members at one point.

So, the post-war consensus was being aimed at for decades before it finally was able to envelope the world through the victory of WW II, the establishment of the League of Nations, and the economic manipulation of global finance that was the Bretton Woods agreement.

The above explains why Charles Lindbergh could gravely warn against the policy of Interventionism in Europe before WW II broke out;

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

This idea of Interventionism then is a key component of the post-war consensus and opposition to interventionism is thus a key component of opposition to the post-war consensus. Interventionism is the belief that America particularly has the responsibility to be the New World Order Cop and that we are uniquely responsible somehow to keep the peace in the world. This explains why today we are involved in the Ukraine and why we are being sucked into the whole Middle East rot. It explains the US involvement in wars from Korea to Afghanistan since WW II. All of this interventionism is in service of the post-war consensus where America is responsible for the world. This is the “invade the world” side of the post-war consensus. Another side of the post-war consensus is to “invite the world.”

The post-war consensus requires “inviting the world” because one of the shibboleths of the post-war consensus is that National identity is wicked and what should be fostered instead is a globalist identity. In the service of that goal then it is only natural that population shifts from the third world to the Western world is pursued. In such a manner nationalist identity is reduced to propositional statements about what it means to be “an American,” or what it means to be a member of Western Civilization. So, the post-war consensus requires population malfeasance and pursues it by the elimination of borders of all formerly WASP countries. In such a way the post-war consensus eliminates all forms of ethno-nationalism as existing among White Anglo Saxon Christians. This is a key component of the post-war consensus and it is pursued ideologically by blaming the conflagration of both World Wars (but especially WW II) on the rise of nationalism. From that premise it is irrationally argued that all expression of nationalism except propositional nationalism is evil and if embraced will lead to another Fascist Germany, or to Franco’s Fascist Spain, or Mussolini’s Fascist Italy.

So, the post-war consensus is interventionist with the US playing the role of the armory for providing weaponry and mercenaries in order to prop up and sustain the post-war consensus. The post-war consensus is also committed to destroying any nationalist self-consciousness especially among Westerner WASP nations and this is all in service of putting the final touches of a New World Order that has been pursued in one form or another since the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

Another component of the post-war consensus that has become doctrine that is not to be questioned, along with interventionism and approval of mass migration of the third world to the first world is the fact that Jews have been the greatest victims ever to exist of Western and Christian bigotry and wickedness. Because, by and large, elite Jews — vastly disproportionate to their numbers — are the ones who have crafted and are crafting the post-war consensus this creation on their part of being the world’s chief victims makes them bullet-proof from any criticism and gives them ability to choke off any criticism that might arise from chaps like David Irving or Ernst Zundel or Charles Lindbergh long before those two chaps.

A further component of the post-war consensus is that pluralism and Democracy are God’s social order. Any disagreement with pluralism, classical liberalism, or Democracy means that one has not yet entered into the Kingdom of God. Likewise any insistence that governments ought to, as by divine command, favor a particularly Christian order as governed by explicitly Christian law (whether Natural Law as stemming from the Ten Commandments or preferably as stemming from God’s special Revelation) is seen as verboten. Any idea that governments have the responsibility of explicitly favoring Christianity in their policy is seen as heresy by the post-war consensus. Some of those who most express anguish over disagreement with pluralism and Democracy comes from those who call themselves Christian clergy.

In brief the post-war consensus was a tacit agreement among Western “leaders” to colonize the world into a globalist New World Order wherein the world would be set on a trajectory wherein it would be run by a coterie of Marxist elites, many of whom would be Bagels, to the end of milking the world of its resources for the benefit of that Marxist NWO elite.

Now from there the post-war consensus has its heroes and villains. Broadly speaking the villains for the post-war consensus are epistemologically self-conscious Christians (when any can be found), as well as those who are steeped in US Constitutional history as embraced by the anti-federalists or those with a States Rights orientation to US history. Villains also include any White Christian who doesn’t buy into the post-war consensus, as well as anybody who is strongly family-centric. In order for the post-war consensus to work all of these types of people are given the label “Populist” and are turned into devils by the Jewish owned and controlled media.

In light of all this it needs be said that this  post-war consensus  has been become a Worldview that animates people belonging to different religions. For example, Christianity is now being reinterpreted through the lens of this post-war consensus world and life view. This post-war consensus world and life view (Weltanschauung) has been incarnated into all of our Western Institutions and especially since the end of World War II all of the West has been reconstructed along the post-war consensus pagan Weltanschauung. Children attending school are taught this version of reality. The Universities teach this version of reality. Worst of all the Churches have reinterpreted Christianity through this matrix of the post-War consensus. Indeed, it could be argued that the post-war consensus has become its own religion and like all religions the post-war consensus religion hyper-ventilates when anybody puts their hands on their idols.

And that is what is happening more and more recently. The post-war consensus is perceived as being threatened by the rise of the populist movement in the US in the last three Presidential election cycles (2016, 2020, 2024). The threat to the post-war consensus was also seen in the Brexit election of 2019. The threat to the post-war consensus is also being seen in the rise of “right-wing” parties in Europe and by the organization of the BRICS countries.

The disappointment in this resistance to the post-war consensus is that it is not being led, by and large, by Biblical and epistemologically self-conscious Christians. In point of fact, it is the platformed “conservative” Christians who are the ones who are doing much of the shrieking about challenges by a handful of Biblical Christians who are exposing that the post-war consensus is thoroughly anti-Christ. We have seen this in spades the past couple of weeks. First, we saw the irrational outburst of Dr. James White concerning the overturning of the post-war consensus interpretation of the Crusades. The post-war consensus, like all worldviews, reinterprets not only all of reality but all of history in light of its religious tenets and on the issue of the Crusades the ham-fisted post-war consensus interpretation is that the Crusades were wicked because they were an example of White Christians pursuing a colonialism against the poor peaceful Muslims who were just minding their own business before the Crusaders showed up. In the post-war consensus reading of history the Crusaders were a blemish on Christianity that now has to be atoned for by Christian demonstrating their non-discriminating love for non-Christian strangers and aliens from third world countries arriving here by illegal means. Because the Crusaders were such wicked white Christians, white Christians must now apologize for their fore-fathers by groveling for forgiveness for ever thinking that the Crusades were in fact a noble attempt, that sometimes went wrong, to honor Christ and rescue his people from the murderous, raping hands of the Muslims.

However, there has now recently arisen a even more controversial matter than the Crusades that has found the defenders of the post-war consensus religion arising as one to slap down those who dare to question their cherished post-war religious dogma.  Recently, Tucker Carlson did a interview with Darry Cooper. Cooper is a historian and he had some rather unflattering things to say about one Sir Winston Churchill and quite without even trying Tucker and Cooper broke the internet as seen in all the outrage that boiled up from the dark corners of the post-war consensus religion.

Brad Littlejohn (President Emeritus Davenant Institute), James White (Apologia), Al Mohler (President Southern Seminary), Russell Moore (Editor Christianity Today) to name just a few collectively crapped their pants. Al Mohler rushed to put out a 1o minute video defending the great Winnie. The others damned all who might agree with Carlson and Cooper to the nether regions of the post-war consensus hell. How dare anybody question Winnie as one of the greatest men (if not THE greatest) man of the 20th century.

Now, I suppose I should spend another post detailing the wickedness of Winston Churchill. The man was right once in his life and that was when he wrote an article warning about the Jews in a 1920 London Newspaper article. Besides that one instance Churchill was, as Cooper suggested in his interview with Carlson, one of the greatest villains of the 2oth century. Doubtless the man broke hell in half when he ended up there in 1965. However, Churchill was one of the key proponents of the post-war consensus and as such his sycophants in the Church have gone out like bees from a hive under attack to protect old Winnie. The man they are defending explicitly ordered the cooking of 100s of thousands of German civilians and refugees by ordering the firebombing of Dresden — a city that had absolutely zero military significance. Churchill is the genius who gave us the killing fields known as Gallipoli in World War I. The man was responsible for the starving of millions of Bengal people in India during WW II. The man was con artist who would make money by painting fakes and then signing them as if the original artist had painted them. What about Churchill being funded so as to live like a King as supported by the Jewish “Focus” group as led by Henry Strakosch. Do you suppose all that Jewish money influenced Churchill’s policy on Germany?

Some of his more famous sentiments included;

“I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.”

Clearly this response by platformed Christian clergy indicates that these “Christian” ministers who have become all outraged because someone dare touch the hem of Winnie’s garments have reinterpreted Christianity through the religious and non-Christian  prism of the post-war consensus.  Internationalism good… Nationalism bad. Pluralism good …. explicitly Christian government bad. Interventionism good …. minding our own business bad. Winnie a Saint…. Franco a wicked Fascist. Keep in mind though that it is not just the issue of Winnie or the Crusades. When Doug Wilson — he of Moscow Idaho fame — insists that their isn’t Jewish complicity in where we are now he is promoting the post-war consensus that is anti-Christ.

Let these blowhards huff and puff. Increasingly, I am feeling a wind blowing that doesn’t emanate from Mordor. There is a whiff of cleanness in the air that is explained by a breeze that is willing to question and overturn this wicked post-war consensus religion under which we are currently living.