History – Page 2

McAtee Contra Dr. James White On The Crusades

“The thrust of the preceding chapters can be summarized very briefly. The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.”

Rodney Stark
God’s Battalions — pg. 248

(The crusades were,) “armed pilgrimages driven by a holy zeal to recover conquered Christian lands.”
Steven Weidenkopf

Author — The Glory of the Crusades

“Crusading was extremely expensive and more than a few noble families risked bankruptcy in order to take part. They did so for medieval, not modern, reasons. Crusading for them was an act of love and charity by which, like the Good Samaritan, they were aiding their neighbors in distress. Muslim warriors had conquered eastern Christians, taken their lands, and in some cases killed or enslaved them. The Crusader believed it was his duty to right that wrong.”

Thomas Madden
Author — Concise History of the Crusades

“But folks, listen, please. Have you seen the images these (mainly) young men are posting? What do you see in them all? Yes, the cross, prominently displayed on the armor of men slashing and hacking the infidel to pieces. The Crusades were definitionally religious in nature. I know, I know, Rome was quite involved in politics and the like by that time, and very corrupt. No question about it. But, here’s the point: they joined religion to their avarice and thirst for power. They promised eternal life to those who died fighting the infidel! The entire foundation was a fundamental and outright denial of the nature, efficacy, and truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

James White
Baptist Minister

Recently, Dr. James White walked out on a limb regarding the subject of the Crusades only to find that it was being sawed off behind him. White’s “knowledge” of the Crusades was obviously not informed by some of the best most recent scholarship and instead relied on the “I hate the West” chronicles of the Crusades.Briefly, as it pertains to the Crusades, the fact is that Islam was crowding in on Christendom. Islam had been conquering former Christians lands for centuries. Further, the Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being slaughtered by the Muslims and the Christian faith was under attack. Christian inhabitants of these formerly Christian lands were being forced to pay the Muslim Jizya. The Christian leaders, in both Church and State, realized that something had to be done. Those noble Crusaders who are our Christian Fathers in the Faith assessed the situation and did what they thought best at that moment in history. Unlike White, I will not fault my Fathers intent all because they didn’t do it just right. (And yes, terrible mistakes were made but you know what … that’s the nature of war.)

During his rant against the Crusaders and the Crusades Dr. White offered up this gem;

“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

This quote about the Crusades from White is revealed to be as vacuous as it is when one considers, for example, a quote from one of the better known Crusaders, Godfrey of Boullion. When 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.”

Does James White consider this mindset blasphemous?

Allow me to suggest several truths, contra Dr. White;

1.)One can only hold that the Crusades blasphemed Christ if one does not believe in Just War Theory, or in defensive war. The Crusades were clearly Just since they were seeking to protect and defend a helpless Christian people who have been aggressively attacked by the adherents of a religion that hated Christianity.

2.) Contra White’s quote above there is not a thing unbiblical about hatred that is Biblical. Scriptures teaches us to “hate that which is evil and to cling to that which is good.” In point of fact, it would have been hatred against their suffering Christian brothers to not seek to bring them relief by going on Crusade.

3.) Dr. White asked above, “What would supporters of the Crusade liked to have seen more of” and I would answer that I would have liked to have seen even more Islamic lands (formerly Christian lands) conquered by the sword for Christ.

4.) Dr. White also asks “what would be far enough for Crusade action.” I would answer by saying, “far enough would be seeing the nations covered with the Kingdom of Christ as the waters cover the sea.”

It is clear when it comes to understanding the history of the Crusades Dr. James White and I really hold to two vastly different views. Both of those views cannot be Christian. Really, in the end White is giving us the cultural liberal view of Crusade history. This is the view that teaches that white Christian were evil colonizers who raped and pillaged everywhere they set foot. It is the view that the white man is evil and poor downtrodden Muslims were just minding their own business living a happy go lucky life until the Crusaders came along. A good number of cultural liberals like Dr. White are genuinely Christian but they don’t lose the worldview baggage of liberalism when it comes to their understanding of history. People like Dr. White become so submerged in the Enlightenment world and life view that we can’t see that it is inconsistent with the Christian faith.

Honestly, though, after reading the James White thread on X about the Crusades I almost begin to conclude that either I am not a Christian or He is not a Christian or neither of us are Christian because it is difficult to see how we can both be Christian and have convictions that are this radically different when it comes to these kinds of worldview considerations. At the very least one would have to say that if we both are Christians then one of us needs to become more consistent in understanding history from a Christian perspective.

During the course of his X rant James White doubled and tripled down;

James White

In response to this outburst we can only note;

1.) Why would anyone have a problem with the soldiers and champions of Christ’s cause killing the infidel who had, as a matter of policy, been enslaving and killing Christians, raping Christian women folk, and turning Christian children into Janissaries?

2.) If ever there was a classic textbook example of Just War theory supporting war it was the Crusades.

3.) Of course the Crusades were religious in nature. All wars are religious in nature. This is a Captain Obvious assertion. Does Dr, White think that there are wars that are waged that are not religious in nature? Does James know that FDR led sailors and soldiers in singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” on a battle ship once? There has never been a war that wasn’t “religious in nature.”

There’s a good question for Pope White….. is James as outraged by Christians participating in WW II on the side of the Allies as he is by Christian participating in Crusades?

3.) James is surprised that religion often combines avarice and thirst for power with war? If Christians never fought in any righteous war where avarice and thirst for power wasn’t somewhere in the equation Christians really would be pacifists. On the issue of avarice though, keep that opening quote from Dr. Stark above in mind.

4.) All because indulgences were promised and eternal life guaranteed for those who fought does not by itself make the Crusades bad policy in and of themselves. Many times the right thing is done for the wrong reasons.

In the end Dr. White is still not dealing with the reality that the Mooselimbs were seeking to crush the Christian faith and that the Crusades were a godly response against the work of the Christ-hating Muslims waging offensive war against Christian lands.

When Dr. White says these kinds of things I really pray that he keeps popping off. He’s the best advertisement for not being Baptist that currently exists. Indeed, Dr. White seems increasingly to not want to be identified as being Reformed.

“I have less and less interest in the specific moniker ‘Reformed.'”

James White

It would be easy to believe when Dr. White says those kinds of things that he’s just being a tease trying to get the hopes of the Reformed up.

Dr. White however continued his mindless trek into the jejune by offering this gem on the subject of the Crusades;

“The Crusades did not stop the expansion of Islam. In fact, they were not intended to. ”

James White

One would love to know White’s source that the Crusades were not intended to stop the expansion of Islam. Secondly, while they may not have stopped the expansion of Islam they certainly slowed it down for a time. Those Crusader states that were planted and existed for a time are evidence of that as is the fact that the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem. Clearly the Crusaders did more than stop the expansion of Islam but rather reversed it for a season.

Also consider that Ferdinand and Isabella’s crusade did indeed stop the expansion of Islam as the Spanish Royalty kicked the carpet-worshippers out of Spain and stopped the spread in Spain. Charles Martel stopped the spread of Islam. The Polish winged hussars under Jan Sobieski stopped the spread of Islam. Then there was Jean Parisot de Valette — a latter day Crusader — who slowed down the march of the Muslims in his manful resistance with his Hospitallers during the great siege of Malta.

“The words of a wise man’s mouth [are] gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up.”

Ecclesiastes 10:12 (NKJV)

Christian Nationalism & A Book List To Break The Spell Of The Post-WW II Consensus

It seems to be pretty well recognized that in order to see reality for what it is one has to get rid of the Post WW II narrative that has been foisted upon the West. More and more people are beginning to realize that the Death of the West is guaranteed as long as the West continues to accept the mythology surrounding WW II.

One of the major myths of the post-war consensus is the evil of any kind of Nationalism. The post-war consensus tells us that Nationalism = Fascism. Dumb Christians take this idea up and summarily condemn all forms of Nationalism. This is very convenient because the only alternative to Nationalism is some kind of Internationalism, whether that of Empire, Globalist, or Communist — none of which are particularly Christians since they each and all guarantee a statist centralism that is foreign to the Scriptures. The Scriptures instead give us decentralized Jurisdictionalism wherein within the confine of nation by nation (people group by people group) the interdependent jurisdictions of family, church, and diverse civil social orders. This kind of nationalism might well be referred to as regionalist nationalism.

In the Christian community we have Dr. Stephen Wolfe for bringing the idea of Christian Nationalism back into our consciousness. Now, there are significant areas I disagree with Dr. Wolfe on (can you say Natural Law theory?) but no one can doubt that Dr. Wolfe has driven the conversation.

However, long before Dr. Wolfe was on the scene the Kinists were doing the spade work for Christian Nationalism since Christian Nationalism is the inevitable consequence of a Biblical Kinism. One cannot thump for Biblical Kinism and not be four-square in favor of Christian Nationalism. Indeed a banner argument for Kinism from the beginning is that the Scriptures affirm the necessity and presence of self-conscious Nations — Nations that continue to exist beyond the resurrection so as to be found entering the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.

The post WW II narrative has sought to choke the air out of this cornerstone Biblical observation regarding peoples and nations. The sad thing is that “Legion” is the name of the Christians who have embraced this anti-Christ egalitarian WOKE doctrine even arguing that the Church should lead the way in “all colors bleeding into one,” by chanting ad-nauseum their derelict and retarded handling of Galatians 3 that “in Christ there is neither male for female, Jew nor Greek, slave or free.”

There is a good deal of work to be repeated (because, frankly, the work has already been done) in both the area of Biblical exegesis and in the area of revisionist history of WW II mythical narrative dogma. It is the case that both a significantly errant reading of Scripture and a significantly errant reading of history has brought us to the place we are at.

With that in mind I offer a reading list for those interested in awaking from the spell cast upon them that put them in their dogmatic slumbers. In many other places on Iron Ink I have already dealt with the exegetical end of Christian Nationalism. With this reading list I deal with the propaganda that we’ve all been fed since the beginning of WW II.

Here are just some of the books I have read over the years that account for why I don’t buy the WW II narrative propaganda;

The order is random

1.) Pearl Harbor: The Seeds & Fruits of Infamy – Percy L. Greaves Jr.

2.) The Backdoor to War — Charles Callan Tansill

3.) Churchill’s War — III Volumes — David Irving

4.) Hitler’s War — II Volumes – David Irving

5.) Freedom Betrayed — Herbert Hoover

6.) Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace – Harry Elmer Barnes

7.) FDR Goes to War — Burton W. Folsom Jr. Anita Folsom

8.) Roosevelt’s Road to Russia – George N. Crocker

9.) “Stalin’s Secret War” — Nikolai Tolstoy

10.) Other Losses — James Bacque

11.) The Roosevelt Myth — John T. Flynn

12.) American Betrayal — Diana West

13.) FDR, The Other Side of the Coin; How We are Tricked into WW II — Hamilton Fish

14.) FDR; My Exploited Father-in-Law — Curtis B. Dall

15.) How Britain Initiated Both World Wars — Nick Kollerstrom
16.)The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II — Viktor Suvorov

Be careful though. If you see through the Post World War II Narrative you will be hated by all should you offer your knowledge of the matter.

The Embellishment Surrounding Auschwitz

In order for Auschwitz to rise above the rest of the carnage of WW II so as to be used as the means by which to keep the goyim full of guilt and shame, it most certainly did need the embellishment of serial lying. Without that serial lying, coming in the way of embellishment and exaggeration Auschwitz is just one more tragic incarnation of evil found so frequently in WW II like Katyn forest, the liquidation of the Christian Kulaks, Operation Keelhaul, or American run death camps where 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” perished in conditions every bit as horrid as Auschwitz.

There is nothing about Auschwitz that makes it anymore hororfic than many of the other events of WW II except for the lying exaggerations surrounding Auschwitz that embellished it so that it might stand heads and tails above all the other Banalities of evil that so characterized WW II. Honestly, if one wants hororfic apart from the need of embellishment or exaggeration one need only to consider the Quebec, Teheran, or Yalta conferences where post-war enslavement was agreed upon, and where countless millions were left to suffer for nearly 50 years under the bloody thumb of Soviet Communism.

And all that embellishment, with all the diminishing of all the other vile evil that necessarily followed the embellishing of one over the others, had a political advantage of allowing the Bagel to shame the rest of the world into giving way to his later malfeasance at every turn.

McAtee Contra Aaron Renn on “Nationalism”

People just can’t quit talking about Christian Nationalism and Kinism. Recently I read an interview piece with Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot. Upon completing it I had to make sure I wasn’t reading a Norm MacDonald comedy routine. I may bring that to IronInk for analysis. On the other hand I can’t keep up with all the vacuous mindlessness out there on the subject of “Christian Nationalism,” and “Kinism” that needs to be critiqued.

However, in this post I am taking the time to critique another piece by Aaron Renn that can be found here;

Nationalism Isn’t American

Nobody will be surprised to learn that I find almost all that I read from the cognoscenti to be worthy only of mouse bait status. Renn is no different. See if you agree with me.

“As Georgetown professor Joshua Mitchell has shown, wokeness shot rapidly through American culture because it exploited Protestant religious themes that are embedded deep in our public consciousness, whereas Marxism never got traction because concepts like “class” don’t resonate in America. “

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds

1.) Leave it to a Georgetown Intellectual to conclude that somehow wokeness gained traction because it could exploit Protestant religious themes. I guarantee you if we looked at these Protestant themes the Georgetown professor is suggesting could be used by wokeness to worm its way into our public consciousness we would find that these putative Protestant themes are in point of fact Liberal themes that were like parasites that had attached to Protestantism. There is nothing in genuine Protestantism that makes a way for wokeness.

2.) The odd thing about this quote is Renn doesn’t seem to realize that wokeness is a form of Marxism. Hence, Marxism has resonated here but I would submit that the reason Marxism resonates is because we are no longer and have not been for quite some time a Christian people.

3.) I think the success of the Democratic party for the last 90 years or so is proof positive that the idea of “class” does indeed resonate in America.

“Whatever our challenges are today, they are certainly less serious than those of the Civil War or Great Depression.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

I think this a terrible reading of US history and our current place in that history. Now, to be sure, the War Against the Constitution, as well as the Great Depression were two very “serious” and difficult times of challenge in our country’s history but to suggest that where we are is less serious than those historical events belies a seriously tin ear as to the precipice we currently are upon. We have over 30 million illegal aliens in our country and our border is non existent. We have a debt that will never be paid off. We have two hot wars that we are arcing towards getting sucked into. The gap between the haves and have nots is greater than any time in several generations. We have an elite who are in point of fact an occupying force that clearly are not interested in representing the interests of the American people. We are setting on a racial powder keg that could explode at any moment. The Institutions of the US such as Universities, Families, and Churches are shredded in terms of supporting and maintaining a stable social order. Now, Renn would say to me, as he says in his “Nationalism” piece that this is all “apocalyptical thinking,” but naturally enough I find him playing with matches in a dark room filled with dynamite singing, “Don’t Worry, be Happy.”

The rest of Renn’s piece underscores my conviction that Renn is not very historically savvy. For example, elsewhere he can say;

“Repeatedly throughout American history, in times of crisis, our leaders have managed to take extraordinary action when necessary and to refresh our institutions to address new challenges. Lincoln did so during the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt did so with his trust busting, as did FDR with the New Deal.”

Now, I’m not completely sure, but in my reading it looks to me that Renn is complimenting Lincoln, TR, and FDR, on how they handled great challenges. If that is what Renn is saying I’d say this is a misreading of history and doesn’t take into account the unmitigated disaster these Presidents were and how each and all of them were committed to continue to fundamentally transform the US Constitution. Lincoln was a tyrant. TR was a known progressive. FDR worked the Fascist side of the street.

If Renn thinks that current American leadership could work the magic that Lincoln, TR, and FDR, worked when they faced challenges all I can do is explain why that is stupid analysis and then pray God that current leaders don’t face our challenges the way that demonic trio faced challenges.

“What we need today, perhaps, is a modern-day FDR—a thoroughly American character who built solutions that would appeal to the people of this country.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

How can anybody take seriously anybody who would write a sentence like the one above?

Just for the record… FDR created the problems to which he offered “solutions” that only made the original problems twice as bad. Secondly, the only reason FDR “appealed” to the people of this country is because he first paid them and then set them against one another is a frenzied fit as to who was going to get first and primary access to the money he stole from the American people through his taxation policy as coupled with inflating the money supply.

“But terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning these historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate. So I believe it is a mistake to embrace this and other such language. The authentic American cultural and political tradition provides us all the resources we need to meet the challenges of today.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

Christian Nationalism doesn’t resonate? Renn says that despite the US Constitution being concerned with “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Does Renn know what “ourselves and our posterity means?” Is not such a phrase “Nationalism” in embryonic form?

Or what about the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the law limited naturalization to “free White person(s) … of good character”, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians. Is there not a foundational notion of Nationalism in such language?

As late as 1921 we could read Vice President John Calvin Coolidge writing something that sure sounds like Nationalism;

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Vice President John Calvin Coolidge

Good Housekeeping — 1921

In light of this a many many more examples that could be easily provided does Renn really want to stake out the position that “terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning our historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate.”

This is the first time I’ve take the time to analyze something written by Renn. I know he is supposed to be “all that and a bag of chips,” but this piece ranks right up there with what you’d hear in your average Owen Strachan sermon.

Renn is just terribly off in his article on Nationalism. I am coming to the conclusion that one can determine the bonafides of someone’s intellectual capacity based upon how they handle the question of Christian Nationalism. It seems to me that Renn fails just like Wilson, White, Strachan, Ainol, Boot, Sandlin, etc.

The Placing of Robert E. Lee in Hell… a Cultural Analysis

“The task of history, therefore, once the world beyond the truth has disappeared, is to establish the truth of this world.”

Karl Marx

“The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

General Robert E. Lee

In the last week a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, on his horse Traveler, was melted in effigy in a fiery furnace heated, we were told to 2250 degree Fahrenheit. This was something that could have been done quite apart from fanfare and hoopla, as the enemies of Lee and what he symbolizes had already achieved victory a couple years prior with the removal of the Lee statue from the public square in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, old feuds run deep and the descendants of the victors of the War of Northern Aggression were compelled by their hatred to add insult to injury and so one of the communiques of the Marxist left (The Washington Post) felt it necessary to rub large amounts of salt in a very old wound by placing a photo of Lee burning in a hell like furnace. This was the Jacobin Left gleefully rubbing the noses of Heritage Americans in Jacobin triumph and our defeat.

My immediate thought upon seeing the photo and reading the article was, once my rage passed, “and this is what they wish they could do with all of us who find this action to be a testimony to vile Marxist revolutionary behavior. What does one expect from Marxist pigs but Marxist grunts?”

In this smelting of Lee we see once again the Marxist disciples of Marx reaching to accomplish what Marx spoke of in our lead in quote. The Left is working on the task and has been working on that task, since its inception in Genesis 3, of scrubbing away the world beyond the truth so as to establish their truth of this world. As such the melting of Lee is not merely an attack on Heritage Americans, it is also an attack on the Biblical metaphysics that gives meaning to reality in favor of a humanist epistemology wherein history and Marxist historians are given the task of “establishing ‘truth’ in this world.”

They have been at this task, hammer and tong, in regards to Gen. Lee at every turn. Consider that in 2021 the Cathedral of the Rockies finished replacing a stained-glass windowpane that the church felt was racist and non-inclusive. The offending stained glass window featured Robert E. Lee standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington and Lincoln. Lee was changed out here for the first Black female Bishop in Methodism with Boise ties. Lee was probably pleased to be finally removed from having to be in the same windowpane as Lincoln.

Also in 2021, Robert E. Lee IV, a descendent of the General, made some news ripples when he denounced his forefather by offering to whatever microphone he could find that, “We have made my ancestor an idol of white supremacy, racism and hate.” One wonders who the “we” is that RGL IV is referring to? This same descendant of Lee was quoted in 2016 in the Washington Post, “of the shame he felt over his great-great-great-great uncle’s legacy.”

A great irony in all this is that Lee himself was relieved that slavery had ended. The man, if we are to take his own words seriously, was pleased that slavery had ended;

“I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

However, to the Marxist gods this is irrelevant. History will be what they and their “historians” say it is, and may the truth that is beyond this world be damned.

In all this we need to keep in mind here that Robert E. Lee is not the only one who is being tossed upon the bonfires of vanity either by way of removal, destruction, or defacing. The symbols of Western Civilization and American History are everywhere being cast aside. Everyone from Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler — he of American War of Independence fame, U.S. Grant, to Christopher Columbus, to George Washington to Juan Ponce de Leon, to abolitionists Matthias Baldwin, and John Greenleaf Whittier. At this point it is past obvious that this is not merely an attack on the Old South but it is an attack in revolt against every semblance of civilization and order that has any whiff of Christianity in favor of the anarchy of old chaos and dark night.

Anybody who is familiar in the least with the nature of Revolution understand that once the revolutionary mindset gets rolling that eventually the Revolution eats its own. The Revolutionaries started with the statues raised to the honored confederate dead but the frenzy extends now even to 19th century abolitionists who may have been animated in their opposition to slavery due to their Christian principles.

Also lets not miss here that all the pilloried statues have one other thing in common and that reality is that all the symbols of the West being pulled down are of white people. For those with eyes to see all this statuary removal is clearly a concrete expression of the desire to rid the West of the white man, and the irony here is that a great percentage of those pulling down the statuary are white people who don’t realize that soon enough the Revolution is going also thrown them on the bonfires regardless of how many white statues they helped pull down.

Those who are aware of the way worldview warfare works understand that this current phenomenon of pillorying the statues of our heroes is in no way something new. If one looks at the era of the Reformation one finds the Reformers tearing down Roman Catholic statuary left and right. If one looks at the era of the rise of the Revolution in France or the Bolshevik Revolution one finds statues and symbols being pulled down. Even in the war against Iraq one of the streaming images instantly broadcast was of an American tank pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein. One way a person can know that their is worldview change in the air is by seeing what we are seeing now and that is the assault on the symbols of the people who are being replaced.

This brings us to the observation of George Orwell;

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

The attack of Gen. Lee as well as the pulling down of the symbols of the Christian West is, proximately, in the service of destroying the Christian White man and behind that is the ultimate purpose and that is the stripping from Jesus Christ the title of “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” The Marxist mob hates Christ and because they hate Christ they hate the Christian White man who has been, in God’s providence, the carrier of Christian civilization and so the fragrance of Christ. That fragrance is deeply hated by the Left and so they cast us all in Hell by snapping a photo of Lee’s face as red hot and molten. There is very little more that these Marxists demons could do to inform us that they intend to wipe out anybody who opposes the Revolution.

In one respect this disrespect to Lee, Christianity, and Jesus Christ is a good thing. It is a good thing because it draws a bright line between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. This kind of thing establishes the anti-thesis between those who are of their Father the devil and those who are on the Lord’s side.

We are approaching a crescendo on this matter. Pat Buchanan summarized this nicely a few years ago;

“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations.”

When the crescendo finally arrives you can be sure that, just as during previous historical crescendos on this count there will be blood in the street, just as there was blood in the streets in Paris in 1789, in the streets of Harper’s Ferry in 1860, in the streets of Moscow in 1918, in the streets of Budapest in 1919, in the streets of Peking in 1949 and in the streets of Havana in 1956 Whenever these Revolutionary Christ haters are able to expand their Revolutionary mindset the blood begins to flow by the gallon.

For those with their ears close to the ground, none of this is surprising in the least. With the success of the Civil Rights movement, animated and financed as it was by the Communist International and by Marxist philosophy the hand-writing was on the wall. Then in the 1980’s when the Marxist Martin Luther King was officially placed in our pantheon of heroes it was only a matter of time till American heroes who stood for the principals exactly opposite to those of King would be pushed out of our pantheon of heroes. King is taken out of the closet and is replaced in the closet by Lee, Jackson, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

So, the Jacobin war of Northern Aggression continues apace. It never really ended and it will not end until Christianity and the white man is wiped out and incinerated in just the same way that one of the greatest Americans of our history was incinerated.

In the end this casting of Gen. Robert E. Lee into Hell was a testimony to the greatness of the man. The man was so great… such a Christian hero, that he now is, to the left, the embodiment of the Christian White man. All of the Christian virtues that the Jacobin left so deeply and viscerally hates are distilled in the great Robert E. Lee. Even after his death 153 years ago he remains the bete-noire of the Jacobin left here in these united States of America.

It is my prayer that those responsible for this desecration of Robert E. Lee… for this further cynical attack on Biblical Christianity, for this attempt to further attempt to snuff out the Lordship of Jesus Christ will result in an eternity of their seeing that red and molten image of Lee ever before them.

Sic semper tyrannis.