McAtee Contra Dr. James White On The Crusades

“But the fact is these folks are saying the Crusades did not go “far enough.” Far enough in what? Blaspheming Christ? Disparaging the gospel? Promoting hatred? What would you like to see more of, exactly? What would be “far enough?”

James White

1.) First, we have to distinguish between Crusades. Some of them were noble ventures. Some of them (like the 4th crusade) were Banker inspired and disastrous, finding Christians fighting against Christians. Notice though, that James doesn’t distinguish.

2.) One can only hold that the Crusades blasphemed Christ if one does not believe in Just War Theory, or in defensive war. White seems to not know that the initial Crusades were fought in response to Mooselimb conquering of Christian lands and the abuse of those Christians on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The initial Crusades fall under “Just War Theory,” and were honoring to the Lord Christ as the weak and judicially innocent Christians were being protected by the Knights of Europe.

2.) White complains about “promoting hatred,” seeming not to realize that there is not a thing unbiblical about hatred that is Biblical. All Biblical hatred is, is the response to someone that is attacking and seeking to destroy what the Christian loves. Hatred then of evil, is the necessary and corresponding mindset to loving what is good. As such, there is nothing wrong in the least with promoting hatred if the hatred we are promoting is wrapped up in our love for the good, praiseworthy and beautiful. The simple example is found in our loving God. If we love God we will “hate that which is evil,” as Romans 13 explicitly teaches.

In the Crusades the Mooselimbs were seeking to snuff out the Christian presence in lands that had been for centuries previously Christian. It was good to hate those who intended to destroy Christendom.

3.) Exactly, I would have liked to see more Islamic lands conquered by the sword for Christ. I would have liked to see the Mooselimb threat extinguished.

4.) Far enough would be seeing the nations covered with the Kingdom of Christ as the waters cover the sea.

5.) When the Crusader Knight Godfrey of Bouillon captured Jerusalem in the First Crusade they offered to make him king. He refused and said. “I will not wear a crown of gold in the city where Our Lord Jesus Christ wore a crown of thorns.” James White considers this blasphemous? In the Dr. James White quote above White puts on display is Anabaptist credentials. Either that or Dr. White has been educated and marinated in the soup of Enlightenment humanism and so his worldview is what it is.

James White and I really hold to two vastly different Christianities.

“One Nation Under God, Indivisible…”

In the pledge of Allegiance the phrase “Under God,” was inserted by Congress in 1954. It should have required people asking; “Which God… Whose God.” How wise was it then, or is it now, to Pledge Allegiance using the phrase “Under God,” when nobody knows which God we are under? All of this reminds me of the President Eisenhower quote from 1953 (the year before the Pledge was changed by Congress);

“In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. Of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men being created equal.”

Given this quote Christian Americans should have never ever said the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Even then Christians should have raised a storm. Pledging Allegiance to a God that straddles that which precludes the possibility of being straddled was a non-Christian pledge.  If Jesus was right that we cannot serve two Masters then how is it that the God that allegiance was being pledged to was a God who was both the Jewish God and the Christian God? The fact that little Jewish boys and girls and little Christian boys and girls were together “pledging allegiance to the flag of one nation under God” should have tripped somebody’s wires, given the fact that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians have absolutely nothing in common with one another.  In point of fact, they hate one another with each being committed to the total destruction of the other. Yet, to this day, especially in homeschooling communities Christians will insist on “pledging their allegiance to the flag.”

But that isn’t the only problem, though it is the largest problem. Just before invoking God in the pledge there is the phrase, “One nation.” The whole phrase goes; “One nation, under God.” This is just historically ignorant. These united States were never formed as one nation. That was never the intent of the founders. To the contrary, what the founders envisioned was that America would be nation containing nations. There could be no unity of “one nation” without the attendant diversity of “many nations.” The many nations in one nation was communicated chiefly by the vertical checks and balances. The states were sovereign nations who had delegated very specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government. In all other matters, except for those delegated and enumerated powers the States retained their sovereignty as states (nations). So, when we pledge allegiance to “One nation, under God,” we have not only the problem of not being in agreement as to what God we are under (a major consideration to the end of unity if there ever was a major consideration) but we also have the problem of pledging that we are one nation — something that many of the fathers never intended. None of the Father’s envisioned the unitary pagan Nation State that we currently are expected to “pledge allegiance.” Then when you add the phrase “indivisible” the pledge becomes downright knee slapping humorous.  There is nowhere in the US Constitution that states that these united State were ever intended to be indivisible. That whole idea was fobbed on us by the tyrant Lincoln who made the nation “indivisible” at the end of a bayonet.

Americans in the middle of the 20th century were sold a bill of goods regarding these united States. We were even then not “under God,” as the Presidential phrase “Judeo-Christian” revealed. We were even then not one nation as considered in light of our lawful founding document. We were even then not a nation that was indivisible. Yet, the elite used the Pledge to knit together a civic religion that, praise God, is beginning to fall apart given the importation of the third world into America carrying along with them their false gods. It is becoming more and more glaringly obvious that a nation cannot be a nation as it exists under a multitude of different and competing gods. If we can’t rid ourselves of the foreign invasion, then it is my prayer that a secession movement will be successful to the end of eliminating the idolatry of the civic religion that we are all now living under so that perhaps someday we can once again perhaps be one Christian people under God.

American Empire

Tucker Carlson made a point in his monologue preceding his conversation with Meagan Kelly that with the American orchestrated Venezuela coup we are now officially an “Empire.” Tucker complimented Trump for being honest about that given Trump’s statement about seizing the oil.

My only beef here with Carlson is that he’s a little late to the party in announcing that the US is now an Empire. The US has been an Empire since 1865 with Lincoln’s victory over the South. That War changed these united States into THE United States and re-created America as Empire. So, the first turn to Empire in our history was internal. We went from being a Republic to being an Empire. The truth of that was seen in the Empirical Reconstruction brought upon the South and its Institutions. The South were the first people dragged into the Humanist Yankee Empire and forced to conform to the ways of the Empire. What the Constitution created as a “Nation of Nations,” was now transformed, via the work of Lincoln, into a unitarian Nation State.

However, our role as Empire did not stop with the Civil War and Reconstruction. Very shortly thereafter our Empire broke outside the bonds of territorial and continental USA. In 1898 we seized Cuba from the Spaniards. In that settlement we also took the Philippines but they objected and so between 1899-1902 we brought war to those islands before they acquiesced to US Empire.

From there, with the two World Wars the US made was to expand Empire. Now, the kind of Empire that was being built via WW I and WW II was not your typical Empire of land seizure and overt control but we were an Empire every bit as the Brits had been before they lost their Empire in WW II. The Empire we built in the first half of the 20th century was an Economic Empire. This is especially seen for folks who know anything about the Bretton Woods agreement which tied the world’s economy to the US Dollar. Americans like to think of how noble the US was in “freeing Europe,” during those conflicts but lives lost in battle is the cost paid for building Empire and Economically, after part II of the World War finished in 1945 we were the world’s Emperor along with the Soviet Union. And many wonder if the Soviet Union only existed at our behest in order to only give the appearance that we were being challenged so that the citizenry here and abroad in the “Free West,” would be frightened into accepting the US as Empire. There are more than a few who will argue that US and Soviet contretemps was all part of the game to manage the world.

Returning to the theme, Carlson’s observation that we are now explicitly an Empire comes about 160 years too late. Carlson may well argue that the mask has finally come off with Trump’s seizure of Venezuela and with Trump’s intimidating Greenland but for those with eyes to see that the US is Empire is very very old news.

Now, one of the perks of being Empire is that the Empire makes the peace. This is seen in history with the Pax Romana and the Pax Britannica. When both Rome and later Brittain stood astride the world each made the Peace. Sometimes that peace was made by sending troops across their far flung Empire to force peace and sometimes that peace was made by dictating the terms in any regional squabble. Empires become the World’s Sheriff, or as it is said today, “The Global Cop.” And that is what we are seeing with the Trump administration. Trump boasts about how many wars he has settled. That is what Empires do. You can bet the farm that the Empire is giving incentives that only Empires can give in order for these wars to be settled.

Of course Empires always fall. Rome did. Britain did. The Ottoman Empire did. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did. What is interesting is that when Empire’s fall it is often because they become over-extended and can’t meet all their responsibilities. Eventually, some aspiring Patriot who doesn’t want to live under Empire notices the weakness, rallies his people, and attacks the Empire. Before that though is the matter of the weakness that sets in. Often that weakness comes as a crisis of confidence on the part of the Empire. Rome’s unwillingness and inability to repulse a comparative handful of Goths is one example. The USSR’s inability to put down the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan is another. This almost happened to America’s Empire under the Carter administration in the late 1970s as a handful of students in Teheran pushed the US Empire to the brink.

Another thing that happens with the fall of Empires is a complete loss of the faith that built the Empire. Now, plenty of people during the existence of Empire see through the faith charade that keeps the Empire afloat. However, once Empire’s fall, they fall because there are no longer enough true believers in the old gods. We are seeing that happen now in the American Empire. Even as Trump tries to rebuild the American Empire there are plenty of people who see that the faith in the God of Liberalism can’t be sustained by the adopting and tolerating of all the competing faith systems that must be adopted and tolerated if a Liberalism turned multiculturalism is to work in keeping the American Empire stitched together.

Another thing that should be noted in this overview is something that Carlson brought out, and that is Empires die when there is no longer any core people left who built the Empire. Carlson used the example of modern London where one must be diligent in seeking to find a Brit in London. Carlson then pivoted to the next obvious example of the US that has been reduced from 88% white in 1970 to 63% white in 2025. Many of our large cities find the numbers even more drastically skewed. Empires cannot last if those who built the Empire do not last.

So … the mask is off and we are officially Empire. This means more wars, which means more of your sons – and in this egalitarian age; daughters – die in order to keep the Empire being the Empire. It means a increased bureaucratic behemoth. In our age it means an increase of technocratic innovation to keep the Empire functioning as well-oiled as it can. It means a lot of bad things that many of us have been screaming about for a very long time. For Christians, it means an increasing abandonment of our undoubted catholic Christian faith. Empires, are, by definition, polyglot. Polyglot entities require a polyglot faith and Christianity is not a faith that can allow other faiths to co-exist with it. At least Christianity of the purest content can’t.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have told a woman who asked him, after the Constitutional Convention had done its work in forming a Government, what kind of Government had the Founding Fathers formed and his response to the woman was, “A Republic … if you can keep it.” We lost that Republic long ago and if Tucker is correct we have now moved into the open and unapologetic “Empire phase.”

I’m not going to like it.

A Revisionist Reading List On WW I

Recently, someone asked me for a reading list for revisionist history of WW I.

1.) The Myth of a Guilty Nation — Albert Jay Nock

Nock demonstrates that the basis of the Versailles treaty, that Germany was uniquely guilty for starting WW I is an outright lie. Nock brings forth documents and quotes from politicians at the time that demonstrate that Germany indeed was not uniquely responsible for the war. Nock does not argue that Germany had no responsibility for the war though his work points in the direction of Germany being the nation aggressed against and not the aggressors.

2.) The Two Edwards; How King Edward VII & Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey Fomented The First World War — Peter Hof

Hof is convinced that the two Edwards secretly planned and arranged the war. Hof insists that both lied in order to steer the nation into war with Germany. Other books (Quigley especially) will suggest that all of this was part and parcel of Alfred Lord Milner’s conspiratorial work with the Round Table movement.

3.) World War One; A Short History — Norman Stone

Stone provides a quick read highlighting some of the more traditional understandings of the war. However, he also introduces some interesting “what ifs” along the way.

4.) Germany Not Guilty In 1914 – M. H. Cochran

This book is written in response to a prominent historian at the time Bernadotte Schmitt who had written a hatchet job of a book putting all the responsibility of the war upon Germany.

5.) Two World Wars & Hitler; Who Was Responsible — Dr. Jim Macgregor & Dr. John O’Dowd

6.) Hidden History; The Secret Origins of the First World War; Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor

7.) Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo American Establishment Deliberately extended World War I by Three-and-a-Half Years; Jim Macgregor & Gerry Docherty

 

The Sword & Conversion … Long Live Charlamagne & Hernán Cortés

“We don’t want anybody to convert at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword.”

Doug Wilson
Interview w/ Chrissy Gordon

1.) It is not possible to convert anybody at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword.

2.) It is however possible to convert people to cultural Christianity at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword and has been done many times in history. Charlamagne, for example, converted the Saxons that way. Over the course of time subsequent to this forced conversion to cultural Christianity many Saxons were genuinely converted to a genuine Christian faith. This kind of “conversion” should be pursued in a setting where Christianity is being challenged by false gods in a cultural setting.

The Aztecs likewise were “converted” in this matter by Hernán Cortés. It would not have been a felicitous virtue to practice sensitivity to Aztec feelings to allow Aztec culture to continue. Forced conversion to an outward cultural expression of Christianity was a positive good and God was pleased with those types of conversions to cultural Christianity.

God would be pleased today if, for example, Abortionists, Sodomites and Trannies were forced to convert to a cultural Christianity that they hate. God would be please today if, for example, the producers of kiddie porn and those who sex traffic children and women were forced to convert to cultural Christianity even it that was done at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword. God was pleased when the Donatists were forced back into the church.

There is nothing ignoble or un-Christian in the least in this historical practice.

3.) God is pleased with ruling in the midst of His enemies. God is pleased when the wicked are forced to bow the knee. God is pleased when the wicked are forced, even as despising, to practice an outward form of righteousness that they do not agree with internally.

4.) We are at the point in the West where one religion or another is going to achieve final hegemony. Whichever religion which will win out will be a religion that eventually forces the other side to convert to their religion either at the point of the spear or the edge of the sword. So, the question is only whether or not we will be holding the spear and forcing the outward conversions to a admittedly cultural Christianity or whether we, as Christians, will on the wrong side of the spear and sword having to choose between our own outward conversion to a false religion or death. Christians will either use force or they will have force used against them.

There is nothing unrighteous in following the example of Charlemagne or Hernán Cortés or the little council in Geneva in their decision regarding Severtus for that matter.