Category: Uncategorized

I just finished listening to National Pinko Radio (NPR) latest yellow journalism hatchet job on the Dorr Brothers and their second amendment pro gun activism. Like the previous three installments NPR uses innuendo, subtle mocking, interviews with enemies of a basic Christian world and life view as well as interviews with folks who left basic Christianity angered by its “failure” as experts or as people with inside baseball knowledge on the alleged worldviews of the Dorr Brothers. Chris and Lisa of NPR are subtle about their yellow journalism. Their yellow journalism is not the screaming headlines of William Randolph Hearts but instead they offer the kind of yellow journalism that works by misinformation, disinformation, guilt by association, and not giving the context that would help the listener understand the matters asserted. In other words Chris and Lisa of NPR are giving just one more version of Lugenpress journalism.

The NPR vaudeville program opens with spotlighting the Dorr Brother’s Father (Paul Dorr) burning library books. Mr. Dorr made a bonfire of four children books teaching little children the normalcy sexual perversion. Mr. Dorr was taking a page from the students at the Berlin School of Physical Education [Hochschule für Leibesübungen] who, in 1933 raided the Institute for Sexual Research [Institut für Sexualwissenschaft] in Berlin plundering its library and then burning the perverted books on perversion as collected by the sodomite Jewish physician Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935). Hirshfeld, like Mr. Dorr’s library in Iowa, was devoted to advancing the sodomite agenda while fighting for the normalizing of sodomy in the social order. That the Elder Dorr had to burn children’s books mainstreaming sexual perversion of the worst kind, proves that the burning of Hirschfeld’s books didn’t stop the sodomite agenda.

NPR by opening with the Elder Dorr is seeking to establish a “guilt by association” narrative between Father Dorr and the Dorr Brothers. But what guilt upon the Dorr Brothers is Chris and Lisa seeking to establish? Is it the guilt of the Dorr Brothers being opposed to four books all sharing the same theme as one of the books titled, “Two Boys Kissing?” Now, the Dorrs know their own business but were I the Dorr Brothers I would go on the public record of supporting the burning of children’s books that teach our children the normalcy of “Two Boys Kissing.”

Chris and Lisa of NPR, right out of the gate, tell us that they are all good with books for children on public library shelves teaching 4-5 year olds on the glories of sexual perversion as a lifestyle and that somehow the Dorr Brothers are terrible people because their Father burned books seeking to recruit little children for the sodomite lifestyle.

Next on this vaudeville broadcast Chris and Lisa of NPR admit that it doesn’t look like the Dorr Brothers are getting rich off their second amendment activism and then admits there must be more motivating their activism than merely getting rich. Chris and Lisa of NPR even admit that the Dorr Brothers really are not making that much money when you consider all their expenses. This admission comes after the first three episodes where Chris and Lisa National Pinko Radio was nudging and pushing their listeners in the direction of concluding with NPR that the Dorr Brothers were grifters just interested in making big bucks conning people out of their monies. One is left asking; “Which is it NPR… Are the Dorr’s just grifters doing their work just to get rich or are they principled men who believe that their work is part of setting the world right?

NPR practices guilt by association. First, as we saw already, they seek to tar the Dorr Brothers with the putative guilt of their Father who burns children’s books which seek to recruit little children into the pervert lifestyle next Chris and Lisa of NPR seek to impugn the Dorr’s with the alleged administrative failures of Patrick Parson’s Georgia gun owner’s group. Chris and Lisa don’t prove that Parson’s organization is illegitimately operated but they do what Lugenpress Journalists typically do inasmuch as they subtly engage in innuendo about improprieties of how the organization was administered. And then on top of that Chris and Lisa of NPR are seeking to paint the Dorrs with half baked innuendo against Parson. It’s classic Yellow Journalism that even Ida Tarbell would be proud of.

Next, NPR in this broadcast exposes their hostility to the kind of Christianity that was de rigueur and normative just three generations ago. Chris and Lisa subtly mock the idea of “advancing God’s Kingdom by the Law of God,” when it is the case that most American Christians of three generations ago would not have found that idea particularly odd. For Generations Christians would sing, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” with the lyrics,

1. Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See his banners go!

[Chorus]

Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.

2. At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On, then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory.
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise.

3. Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the Saints have trod.
We are not divided;
All one body we:
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.

4. Onward, then, ye people;
Join our happy throng.
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song:
Glory, laud, and honor
Unto Christ, the King.
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.

In the end this NPR vaudevillian program is just a hit piece on historic Christianity with the Dorrs as the center of the bullseye. It is all very disingenuous.

Chris and Lisa of NPR can’t let go of the Paul Dorr brush intending to tar his sons with the brush. Chris and Lisa, the NPR Lugenpress twins, complains that Paul Dorr has built his career on stopping the building of Government schools. What Chris and Lias don’t mention is that people across the political spectrum agree that the Government schools are a wreck. Why wouldn’t anyone in their right mind want to see an end to Government schools? NPR interviews some school superintendent who has been repeatedly frustrated with Paul Dorr’s success in squeezing money out of local taxpayers for new school building. That the school superintendent remains frustrated and angry at Paul Dorr and so misrepresents Paul Dorr’s tactics at stopping the tax increases should be no surprise to anybody but Chris and Lisa (the Lugenpress twins) act like the superintendent’s characterization of Paul’s methods should be taken at face value.

The Lugenpress twins (Chris and Lisa) next go after the alleged evils of Reconstructionism which they suggest is the Worldview belief system of the Dorr Brothers and Father Dorr. Allow me to say here that Reconstructionism is nothing but vanilla Christianity. It is the Christianity of those who take seriously that Jesus Christ is Lord. Now, that Chris and Lisa and countless other “Christians” might find that alarming is a surprise to nobody who is familiar with the state of the modern church in the West. NPR suggests that Reconstructionism is fading as if that is a reason to no longer be a follower of Christ.

NPR defines Reconstructionism errantly offering that Reconstuctionism believes that Christ won’t return until Christians reconstruct all of life so that all the world is Christian. Actually, what Reconstructionists actually believe is that Christ won’t return until the Spirit of Christ reconstructs all of life so that His already present spiritual Kingship is seen more and more in the world over which He is King. Christ will not return until the nations of this world become the nations of our Lord and His Christ. The Spirit of Christ will accomplish this.

On this score one observes that NPR has no problem with sodomites and assorted sexual perverts having successfully reconstructed social orders in the West for the last 100 years or so. If it is sauce for the sodomites to successfully reconstruct why is it not sauce for the Christians under the command of Christ to seek to reconstruct? NPR hates Christ and it hates Christianity. They have no problem with our current sodomite reconstructed order but are having the vapors over the thought that Christ will reconstruct all of the World so that the nations of the world become the nations of the Christ.

NPR decides they need an expert on Reconstructionism in order to understand Reconstructionism and so they pull in some unknown philosophy professor who teaches at some never heard of University who just so happens to have an ex-spouse who was a Reconsturctionist. This person is someone who would be fairly labeled a hater of Reconstrucitonism and that is heard in her incoherent commentary.

NPR next takes the simplest of ideas that Government is a term that applies to many different jurisdictions and tries to turn this simple idea into something sinister. Futher this lugenpress outlet gives dark hints by the language they use that Reconstructionism is a cult. This is ironic given that NPR itself is a cult organization as seen in the way they twist everything that isn’t part of and doesn’t belong to their cult or Weltanschauung. This habit of demonizing those outside your circles, which Chris and Lisa of NPR does in spades in this interview, is a mark of all cults. It is done in order to keep the NPR cult followers from falling into the darkness of whoever they are targeting who is not a part of their cult. David Koresh did this. Jim Jones did this. Brigham Young did this. And NPR in this report is following this cult practice.

Next, by way of interview with the embittered philosophy teacher the lugenpress suggests that we live in a multicultural society. The problem is, is that is not the case. We do not live in a multicultural society. We live in a society governed by man’s always changing law. That one unchanging always changing law that governs all of our culture proves that we are indeed monocultural though those who desire this type of humanism always use the term “multiculturalism,” in order to hide their tracks.

The old canard of pluralism is then invoked and this without realizing that pluralism is a myth. No culture is genuinely pluralistic. Pluralism teaches that all religions and ways of life are allowed into the public square but that this is not true in our social order is seen in the fact that it is the State which ends up saying that some ways of life are not allowed. The State is playing the role of God saying which ways of life will be approved and which ways of life will not be approved. Right now the State, following this anti-pluralism motif, is saying that Reconstructionism is a way of life that is not approved. As it stands now the humanist state plays the role of regulator. All Biblical Christianity desires is that the Christian state be given the place to do that instead of anti-Christianity.

NPR also subtly mocks the idea that Reconstructionism, following Scripture, teaches that women should stay at home have children, raises children and serve their husbands and families. Yet, this “radical” idea was the norm for centuries and centuries up until 100 years ago or so. Prior to that time only Marxist Revolutionaries wanted to dismiss this idea. This is what NPR is… it is a cult of Marxist Revolutionaries who, following Betty Friedan, think that a woman who stays at home in order to be what generations of women before her were is a wasting her life. NPR is giving us the Revolutionary dreck of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelly, andAlexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai.

Next the embittered divorced Professor says the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the patriarchal right to protect family. Actually, the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the clear teaching of Scripture in Exodus 22, though no one disagrees that per the sixth commandment we have a responsibility to protect the lives of others, including and especially our families, against those who would do us harm.

Next NPR quotes a snippet from some Pastor’s sermon where the Pastor is noting that Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization that is for the destruction of the family. By their snide introduction to the clip of the sermon NPR is mocking this Pastor and this sermon yet if one looks at the BLM website one can learn that they are a Marxist organization which desires the destruction of the Christian family.

NPR includes in their vaudeville piece a former Pastor who was a Reconstruction and who eventually became disillusioned with the movement and this Pastor’s disillusionment against the ideas of Reconstruction are evident whenever NPR appeals to him for insider information. It’s a bit like asking Judas his opinion of Jesus Christ. This former minister slanders Rushdoony by saying in the interview that Rushdoony denied the holocaust. The truth is that Rushdoony never denied the holocaust. Rushdoony merely questioned the death total numbers of the holocaust. These questioned numbers were so dubious that even those who administer the Auschwitz tourist site way back in the early 90’s reduced the number of deaths in the holocaust at Auschwitz downward by 1.5-2.0 million.

NPR then goes after Rushdoony’s comments on slavery. Chris and Lisa even give us a rift of quotes from Rushdoony on the subject. However, one can read the same kind of comments from the slaves themselves in the 1930’s exit interviews done by the US Government that Rushdoony is quoted as making in lecture snippets provided by Chris and Lisa. In the 1930’s the US Government financed a project to interview ex-slaves. In those exit interviews, as done with former slaves, one hears from many of the former slaves talking about the good life they had when they belonged to their Masters. So, for NPR to criticize Rushdoony for what many of the slaves themselves offered in their exit interviews is another example of irresponsible journalism. NPR even goes so far as to say that Rushdoony’s comments are “classical racism.” Well, that is only true as that accusation comes over the lips of the Cultural Marxists. It is true, by the standards of the Cultural Marxism of the Lugenpress Rushdoony is a racist, but given that accusation is coming from Cultural Marxist who gives a rats tush if the Cultural Marxists label Christians as “racist.” Our response to this accusation should just be, “Well, I’m sure that it is the case that all Cultural Marxists think Biblical Christians are “racist.” I will take your Cultural Marxist accusation as a badge of honor.

Throughout the interview there is implicit sniping at homeschooling. Somehow it was wrong for Paul Dorr to homeschool his children with the end in view of molding them into cultural warriors. Somehow it is wrong for homeschoolers to speak the obvious by properly referring to government schools as government schools. (How could they be public schools if much of the public doesn’t attend them and viciously disagrees with their curriculum and agenda?) Somehow it was wrong for Rushdoony to be a centerpiece in the building up of homeschooling.

Now, after all that has been reported on here, keep in mind that what National Pinko Radio is trying to do is to suggest that just as Rushdoony was a racist so the Dorr Brothers are racist. Just as Rushdoony was a holocaust denier so the Dorr brothers are holocaust deniers. Just as Paul Dorr is against the vile culture of sodomy so the Dorr Brothers are against the vile culture of sodomy. Just as Partrick Parson’s organization was accused (but not proven) of sketchy administration so the Dorr Brothers could well be also guilty of having a sketchy administration of their organizations. Just as Rushdoony held to patriarchy so the Dorr brothers hold to patriarchy. Do you see all the innuendo without substance here? All the guilt by association?

Now, all this could be true, or some of it is true while other aspects is not true but the point is, is that NPR never proves anything. All they give us is smoke. All we know for sure after four “in depth” episodes on the Dorrs is that they are 2^nd amendment activists.

And we already knew that before NPR lugenpress became their series.

Oh… and we also learned that NPR hates vanilla Christianity. But we also already knew that before the series began.

“‘People of color’ was a harbinger of what later came to be called ‘intersectionality,’ a philosophical-sounding term for the political strategy of bundling different minorities into a coalition. Almost everyone other than white heterosexual males could benefit in some way from civil rights laws. Vast, hitherto, unenvisioned coalitions, perhaps even electoral majorities, could be formed by rallying other non-white groups.”

Christopher Caldwell
The Age of Entitlement — p. 120

What Caldwell is describing here is what has been called the new proletariat. It was this coalition of the aggrieved minority as combined with the feminist and the pervert class who would provide the muscle for the long march through the Institutions. The new proletariat would no longer be tied together by class status but rather the new proletariat would be tied together into a coalition by their grievance against white Christian patriarchal males who had previously victimized the new victim coalition.

The electoral majorities that Caldwell references is that very coalition that Democrats are now depending upon to catapult them into office. The Democrat base consists of;

1.) Aggrieved minorities

2.) Suburban College Educated Feminists

3.) Pervert power

The Democrats are no longer contending for the White Christian middle class in America choosing instead to label them as “deplorables,” “irredeemable,” and “bitter clingers.”

Caldwell also hints here at what he brings out with clarity elsewhere and that is the Civil Rights laws forever changed America because they institutionalized grievance and victimization. People would advance now by joining with the some identity group that proclaimed how their civil rights were violated. Those belonging to a Civil Rights created Identity group had discovered strength through weakness. This new Civil Rights ethos legalized the ascendancy of the weak by criminalizing the previous authority structures of employers, patriarchs, and Institutions that were the gatekeepers of the previous Christian moral givens of the culture. Everything was stood on its head. The shrill, the pervert, the immoral, and the irresponsible were legally protected by Civil Rights legislation from the consequences of their behavior as the expense of those who operated by what might be called the previously honored Christian code.

“Latin American theologian Gustavo Guiterrez speaks of God’s ‘preferential option for the poor.’ At first glance this seems to be wrong, especially in light of passages in the Mosaic law that warn against giving any preference to rich or poor (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16-17). Yet the Bible says that God is the defender of the poor; it never says he is the defender of the rich. And while some texts call for justice for members of the well-off classes as well, the calls to render justice to the poor outnumber such passages by a hundred to one.”

Comrade Tim Keller
Generous Justice — p. 7

1.) Comrade Keller here is suggesting that if we count the number of verses that teach justice for the rich and if the frequency of those verses are dwarfed by the number of verses that teach justice for the poor that means we can ignore the verses that teach the justice for the rich, or at least see their importance as diminished vis-a-vis the verses that teach the need for justice for the poor. Does that strike anybody has a sane way to do hermeneutics?

2.) Would Comrade Keller really have us believe that God is the defender of the wicked poor? While we would agree that we as Christians we should be defenders of the poor we also insist that God still hates the wicked poor and is not uniquely their defender. Those passages which speak of rendering justice to the poor have to be read in the context that God loves His own people and hates those who are not His people. God has not love or passion for the poor just because they are poor.

3.) God does not therefore have a preferential option for the poor merely because they are poor. If God has a preferential for the poor it is a preferential for the elect poor who are being abused by the wicked rich. Comrade Keller has drawn the antithesis in the wrong place and that is a major error for a “theologian” to make.

4.) Let’s be very perspicuous here. God is only the defender of the poor who are His people. God is not the defender of those poor who are in rebellion to God. Indeed, as to those people the Heidelberg Catechism clearly teaches,

“According to this testimony of the gospel,
God will judge (the unbelieving)
both in this life
and in the life to come.”

If God is judging the unbelieving (poor or rich) in this life how can we say, with a straight face, that God is the defender of the unbelieving poor?

5.) We should add here that God has not rendered to Caesar the right to determine punishments for adultery or idolatry or to neglect punishing them. There is only one lawgiver. So, the fact that the Nations don’t obey God’s law to punish adultery and idolatry doesn’t mean that God hasn’t instructed, from His law, that this ought to be done.

As to NT practices of nations vs Israel, the Roman Empire is the dominant nation spoken of in the NT and it is HARDLY one that was seeking a NT civil ethic, nor a nation to be emulated. 

6.) Comrade Keller reveals that he is more than sympathetic to liberation theology and by doing so Comrade Keller reveals that if not heretical he is at the very least heterodox.

Andrew Johann wrote,

I have more in common with unwoke Catholics and EOs than I do with those who hold the exact same doctrinal commitments as me.

Nathanael Strickland chimes in,

It’s because the Faithful of Protestantism, Catholicism, and E Orthodoxy consider each other to be heretics of the same religion in contrast to Liberalism which is an entirely different religion.

Darrell Dow offers kudos to Strickland,

Nathanael, this is concise and profound.

Bret L. McAtee drops a turd in the punchbowl of the group hug,

This is concise but it is most certainly not profound. Indeed Nathaniel’s analysis is inaccurate. Protestantism, RC and EO are themselves entirely different religions which uses the same language but fill that language with completely different meaning. I have no more in common with a RC or EO than I do with a Cultural Marxist. IF RC or EO ever get the whip hand they will be after Biblical Christians the same way that the Cultural Marxists are right now. History teaches this.

Anybody who finds the statement profound that “Faithful of Protestantism, Catholicism, and E. Orthodoxy consider each other to be heretics of the same religion” hasn’t yet thought through the massive differences between Christianity and what is not Christianity as expressed by RC and EO competing religions, and further has not studied their own history of the Reformation. When we read that history we find Luther supporting my analysis. Luther pithily proves my point in speaking to Rome,

“MAY GOD PUNISH YOU, I SAY, YOU SHAMELESS, BAREFACED LIAR, DEVIL’S MOUTHPIECE, WHO DARES TO SPIT OUT, BEFORE GOD, BEFORE ALL THE ANGELS, BEFORE THE DEAR SUN, BEFORE ALL THE WORLD, YOUR DEVIL’S FILTH.”

From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil — pg. 349
Luther’s Works, Vol. 41

I have found that many Protestants, including those in the Reformed community do not understand that chasm that separates Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism. Part of this is because the Protestants have forgotten their reason for existence. It certainly is not the case that the faithful of Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism practice the same religion.

“Israel was characterized by theocratic rule in which both idolatry in which both idolatry and adultery were offenses punished by the state. But in the NT this changed. Christians do not constitute a theocratic kingdom-state, but exist as an international community of local assemblies living in every nation and culture, under many different governments to whom they give great respect but never absolute allegiance. Jesus’ famous teaching to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ (Matthew 22:21) signaled this change in relationship between Church and State to one of non-establishment.”

Comrade Tim Keller
Generous Justice — p. 21-22

1.) There is ZERO textual proof in Scripture that the consequence of Jesus coming in the NT is that idolatry and adultery are no longer to be punished by the State. Now, it is certain that non-Christian pagan states in many instances do not bring penalty against idolatry and adultery. However the fact that pagan states don’t enforce God’s law is not proof that God therefore does not still require Christian states, should they exist, to punish idolatry and adultery with criminal punishment.

2.) It is true that currently one would be hard pressed to identify a nation-state that is explicitly theocratically ruled by the God of the Bible, but once again, that does not prove that there should not be nation-states explicitly theocratically ruled by the God of the Bible and His law-word. Keller is arguing “is not, therefore ought not.” This is a fallacious way to reason on Keller’s part.
On these first two points John Calvin agrees with me and disagrees with Comrade Keller.

“Then let us not think that this Law is a special Law for the Jews; but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule, to which we must yield ourselves … Since, it is so, it is to be concluded, not only that it is lawful for all kings and magistrates, to punish heretics and such as have perverted the pure truth; but also that they be bound to do it, and that they misbehave themselves towards God, if they suffer errors to rest without redress, and employ not their whole power to shew greater zeal in their behalf than in all other things.”

John Calvin
Sermon on Deuteronomy
Sermon 87
Deuteronomy 13:5

Who are you going to trust … Calvin or Comrade Keller

3.) Don’t miss the sneaky little premise of Comrade Keller that the norm for today is a kind of ecclesiastical Internationalism. Keller presupposes that Christianity is not to have or won’t have such influence that a nation-state may own Christ as its own so that it indeed decides to be theocratically under the God of the Bible vis-a-vis the theocratic god they were previously under. Keller seems to miss the point that every state, without exception, is theocratically organized. The question is never “will we be subservient in our government to some god or not,” but instead the question is always, “which god will this government be subservient unto?”

4.) Keller’s argument for non-establishment is also fallacious. Non-establishment is a myth. All states ALWAYS have established churches. Scepter and mitre ALWAYS walk together. For example the established church of the current USA are the humanistic state sanctioned government schools.

5.) Jesus’ words regarding God and Caesar no more teaches disestablishment than it teaches all taxation is always biblical just on Caesars say so. Jesus say to give unto God the things that are Gods. Does anybody seriously believe that Jesus would have refused the idea that Caesar belongs to God and so should be rendered to God? One could easily argue also from the text that as everything belongs to God absolutely and nothing belongs to Caesar absolutely therefore nothing is to be rendered to Caesar and everything is to be rendered to God. After all, “the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof.”

So, we see here that Comrade Keller is in significant error in the way he handles the text. Are we surprised?