Category: Uncategorized

Blessing the Name of Achord While Extending a Fie Upon the Enemies of Dr. Achord

I don’t personally know Dr. Achord. I have profited greatly from his Anthology “Who is My Neighbor” co-edited with my good friend Darrell Dow. I have listened to him on his Ars-Politica podcast. I have seen him interviewed. And now I have read his explanation of what happened to this good and godly man in experiencing cancel culture as levied by those considered to be “pillars in the Church.”

This one cuts kind of close. As the readers here know, I was the target of a huge doxxing and cancel culture effort at the beginning of 2020. This was on the heels of a mighty struggle against the ecclesiastical structure that I was at the time associated with (and yet not really a part of) at the end of 2018. I don’t mind saying that those 18 months took the wind out of my sail. At the time I didn’t think I was going to survive that travail. All of it raked on my soul and frankly unmanned me. Only God’s mercy and grace brought me through. So, I know personally and up close what Dr. Thomas Achord may be going through.

Today Dr. Achord provided his side of the story in this matter here;

View at Medium.com

The reading of the above reveals that Thomas is a man of character. I can guarantee you that I would not be so generous as he is being.

And here Dr. Stephen Wolfe provides an explanation of this outrage;

Now, one’s temperature begins to rise when one realizes that those “Christian” men responsible for this Achord doxxing are not going to be held responsible in this life. This is one of those cases that we entrust that the guilty will get their comeuppance in that great and final day. God will make all accounts right.

I am going to mention here that some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the Institution that allowed themselves to be stampeded so as to “resign” Dr. Thomas Achord. Dr. Achord seeking to pour oil on the waters bows out with grace. However, I must say that it seems it is the same kind of men who are in charge of our Institutions as who are out there doing the doxxing. Could not these men at the Institution in question and who agreed to  Achord’s “resignation” at least waited until the smoke of battle had cleared to assess what had really happened?

Another thing to consider is how weary I am with the “point and splutter” technique that remains so successful among our wussified culture. The whole thing is akin to a bunch of Jr. High girls screaming about a mouse loose in the lunch-room. The analogy is especially apt since those doing the doxxing are indeed acting like Jr. High girls. If they were men they would demand a duel or try to bring the man up on charges in some Church court. Instead they scream like little girls. Disgust is too mild of a word for what I feel for these effeminate creepers. It is the same way I felt about those who hid behind their media empire when blackening my name.

Today has been a somewhat hard day for me because all that has happened to Dr. Achord brought back to me the hard years of 2018-2020. I have finally arrived at the point that Thomas is already at and that is the reason he has my admiration. He got there much quicker than I did.

However, while we as Christian men seek to take these kinds of things in stride and with a sanctified aplomb we must also at the same time pray imprecatory prayers against the kind of wicked wicked men who would go to these ends to do the ruinous to god-fearing men. While we pray that they may know the joy of conversion, we at the same time pray that if they refuse to bend the knee that God would utterly destroy them.

If you want to do a good work you can go here to help support the Achord family until Thomas and his growing family gets back on his/their feet;

https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1?sharemsg=display&fbclid=IwAR0hEhJcGv7bZjbBS5DWyjBsuqWno7aBIQmj47wGtfYnYv9gUw6HEdKXEB8

Love of Faith … Love of Place … Love of Fathers

“Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our land, our faith, our King… But their country (Those of the French Revolution) — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? … they have it in their brains; we have it under our feet… Theirs is as old as the Devil, this world that they call new and that they wish to found in the absence of God…. They say we are slaves of the ancient superstitions; it makes us laugh! But in the face of these demons who rise up again century after century, we are youth, gentlemen. We are the youth of God, the youth of fidelity! And this youth will preserve, for its own and its children, true humanity and liberty of soul.”

Francois-Athanase Charette
Royalist during French Revolution

Leader of the Peasants of the French district of Machecoul
Charette would later forfeit his own life opposing the Revolution.

Notice here that what Charette is giving us is the difference between those who hate Nationalism, opting instead for some kind of vision of a “propositional nation” — a nation as Charette puts it; “that is only in their brains.” This is how Charette analyzed the French Revolution. It was a matter of those who hated God and who embraced the idea of France as an idea vis-a-vis those who loved their faith, their home, their fathers, and their land.

Charette understood that his enemy wanted to re-make the world, and further that they wanted to remake it absent any notion of God and absent any respect for past Christian traditions, past bonds of faith and family, and any past sense of belonging to a place.

Charette said this enemy rises century after century and so they do. Charette faced them in Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Fouquier-Tinville and Desmoulins. After the French Revolution they arose again in the European Revolutions of 1848, in the US Yankee Armies of 1861-1877, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1918, the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, and elsewhere since 1789. We face them today in the NWO/Great Reset/Deep State. We face them in Michigan in Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel. We face them in the Washington in just about every elected and appointed office.

We can never defeat this enemy of Christ and His people if we do not understand where the lines are drawn. We have to understand that those who would embrace propositional nationhood are doing the devil’s work even if they shout constantly; “Lord, Lord, have we not done great things in your name?”

The hour is late. We need to understand the foundational issues. The haters of Christ go after Christ via the backdoor of attacking place, home, faith, and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past.

Charette was right. The CREC’s war on Kinism with its allegiance to place, home, faith and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past is wrong.

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part II

Wherein we continue to look at the Dr. Mengle Abortion Referendum being floated in the state of Michigan.

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

Bret responds,

Note that the language is sloppy — probably purposely so.

They keep using the word “individual.”

1.) If it really is the right of every individual then clearly, under this amendment, if passed, the parents of children who are twelve and thirteen who get pregnant would have no voice in whether or not their daughters are allowed to have an abortion.

For that matter, since sex is related to pregnancy what the language of this bill does is overturn all laws about statutory rape. If a 50 year old man wants to lure a 13 year old girl into a sexual relationship, under the language of this bill that is perfectly acceptable since the 13 year old girl and the 50 year old man both have;

“a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon…”

If an individual has a fundamental right regarding all decisions relating to pregnancy then that individual (regardless of their age or minor status) has a right to statutory rape, incest and even sterilization.

2.) Note that language above that says,

“the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated…”

Health care professional?

Notice it does not say “Doctor.” A “health-care professional” is a large category. It could mean anything from a Doctor’s Physician’s Assistant to a Dentist, to a Natura-path, to a Masseur. For Pete’s sake people, this is supposed to be language amending your state constitution, not a “to do list.” In other words precision is important.

Proposal 3 offers,

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

Bret Responds,

If the state shall not discriminate we are back to the state, given this language, serving as the enforcer for abortions as potentially for children. If the State shall not discriminate this means that the state is going to enforce this reproductive “rights” for 30 year olds and 13 year olds. This language allows the State to tell Daddy and Mommy to go pound sand in their opposition to their little girl getting an abortion should the little girl want an abortion.

If this is correct then approving proposal three means that we are allowing the will of the State to trump the will of parents in cases where girls get pregnant.

Do you really want Gretchen Whitmer and Dana Nessel enforcing this right against parents?

Proposal 3 offers,

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion…

Bret responds,

The “included but not limited to” language allows for the scenario where a woman decides to give birth to a healthy baby, puts the newborn in a garbage sack, and dumps it in the trash — thus committing infanticide — and then leaves the scene. The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

Alternately, what if a woman decides upon the birth of her “deformed” child that she doesn’t want the child and so wants it not to live. As such the “benevolent” Kevorkian type Doctor kills the child thus committing infanticide.  The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

The language of this amendment puts the State on the side of those who commit infanticide.

Proposal 3 was written by a lunatic or worse yet someone in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Vote NO on Proposal 3.

 

Georges-Jacques Danton on the Necessity for a Guilty Citizenry

Louis-Phillipe, nephew to King Louis XVI and eventual Crown head of France himself recounts a conversation with French Revolutionary leader Georges-Jacques Danton where Danton said to Louis-Phillipe;

“Do you know who gave the order for those September massacres you inveighed against and so violently and irresponsibly? … It was I… I did not want all those Parisian youths to arrive in Champagne until they were covered in blood which for us would be a guarantee of their loyalty: I want to place a river of blood between them and the emigres… We are not asking for your approval; all we are asking for you is silence instead of making yourself the echo of our enemies and yours.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Guillotine & The Cross — p. 46

There is a principle here that needs being into broad daylight. That principle is that wicked governments have a need to corrupt their citizenry so that the citizenry can not be in a place of moral superiority so as to condemn or overthrow the government. Because of this wicked governments do what Danton did. They insure that the citizenry is as guilty or more guilty of insufferable crimes than they themselves are. As such no voice of moral clarity is allowed to be raised and if it is raised it is almost immediately shut down by both the government and the citizenry since such a voice is a reproach to both.

This explains, in part, why abortion has been pushed. A guilty population will not hold a guilty government accountable. This explains, in part, why there is such sexual license that is legal and approved. A guilty population will not hold a guilty government accountable.

Wicked governments need a wicked citizenry in order to maintain power. As such wicked governments will always push a behavioral morality that will but the citizenry in the bondage of sin. People in bondage to sin will not be a people who sue for civil liberty.