Category: Uncategorized

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-my-great-honor-to-be-called-the-the-most-pro-gay-president-in-american-history

I know some of you believe in President Trump and are enthusiastic supporters. Others view him as a necessary stopgap measure to keep the Stalinist Democrats at bay. The link above explains in one simple article and video why I do not believe that it is proper for Christians to be casting our vote — a vote that belongs to God in heaven — for Donald Trump.

I’m not going to chide anyone for voting Trump more than what is in the paragraph above. I understand that people view Trump as a hope to forestall the darkness that is descending on both our suburban and urban areas. I understand the pragmatism that insists on voting Trump over Biden and the Marxists. I get the fear that would stampede people to vote for Trump. I share those fears. I would like to vote for him also on one level. However, as long as he courts the sodomite vote I will not join myself, through my vote, to that wickedness.

Some will counter with… “But if Trump isn’t elected you’re going to get sodomy anyway plus abortion, Marxism, more Government over-reach, etc.” That likely is true but I cannot find it within me to use that as an excuse to yoke myself, through my vote, to someone who says it is his great honor to be called the “most pro-sodomite President in History.”

My position on this is accounted for by the fact that I am practicing what is called a deontological ethic while many other Christians pulling levers for Trump seem to be practicing what is called a teleological ethic. In deontological ethics behavior is right or wrong as dependent on a clear set of established rules. The title (deontology) arises from the Greek word “deon” which means “duty.” As Christians we find those “rules” laid down in God’s law and are duty bound to abide by them. When I read in Scripture, “Be ye not unequally yoked,” I understand that I am duty bound not to vote for wickedness since a vote is a yoking of my permission for a candidate to pursue the behavior and policy he will pursue. The result of voting is when the candidate I voted for acts, I act. By my vote, his action, as my political covenant representative, is my action.

In teleological ethics on the other hand is a ethic of pragmatism. It holds that duty or moral obligation is to be pursued consistent with the end goal desired. So, in a teleological ethic right or wrong is dependent upon the outcome desired. From a teleological ethic standpoint voting for Trump, as an example, is considered right because the outcome of not voting for Trump would be bad. You can see the difference here vis-a-vis deontological ethics which insists that voting fro Trump is a matter of following a basic standard for behavior that is independent of the good or evil generated by not voting for Trump resulting from following that standard which is not considering the teleos of the action.

So, it is my conviction that many Christians have decided (understandingly given all that is at stake) to follow a teleological ethic in voting for Trump. I understand it. I don’t agree with it. I have decided that this matter of voting is a deontological ethic.

And there the twain never shall meet.

I just finished Nesta Webster’s “The French Revolution; A Study in Democracy.” Now I find myself wondering how people can become experts in Revolution without breaking their own souls? I’ve read extensively on the French and Russian Revolutions, and a wee bit less on the Chinese Revolution. To sit there and absorb the millions and millions of countless deaths of people just like me — people with the same aspirations, the same hopes and dreams, the same relationships, and the same desire to live long and live well is injurious to the soul. I stood with Webster and read of the September Massacres — so infamous that the French turned September into a verb; “Septemberize.” I watched with Webster the perversions of the dead at Vendee, the cannonade of the judicially innocent due to the need to kill people more efficiently and faster, and the regicide of the man taken for villain who made the Mountain Men (Jacobins) look like saints. I stood with the crowd for the relentless lifting and lowering of Madame la Guillotine. And 230 years later I closed the book horrified.

And then on top of that the amazing and incredible cruelty visited upon those murdered. The creative and crazed torture implemented by the madmen assigned the duty of the actual killing. When one sits passively reading of the Noyades at Nantes, and then connects that to the prison camps run by the Yankees during the 2nd American Revolution, and then the Gulags in Russia, and the re-education camps in China how can one ever again be light-hearted afterwards? The things that I have witnessed in my reading should make the strongest man just weep for days on end and cry out … “O Lord How Long?”

Yet, not only unspeakable sadness but also unquenchable fury. The desire to go back in time to rescue the judicially innocent by justly killing the killers before they can soak the earth with blood. The desire to strangle Hebert and Carrier in their cribs so they may never visit hell upon the French. This rage can only find its outlet in being maniacal in hating the ideological descendants of the Revolutionaries. Goodness knows there is plenty of them out there to rage against. This rage is a rage in favor of the judicially innocent who will surely be swallowed again in the maw of the Marxist Jacobinist if it is ever allowed again to have the whip hand. There is nothing holy about being calm and reasonable in the face of this whole thing being repeated yet again. Love of God and others demands that these demons be hated and repelled.

Then comes the resolve of “never again,” combined with the realization that we may well right now be in another Jacobin cycle as pursued by the ideological descendants of Danton, Marat, and Robespierre. Do these people ever die or do they just comeback in some kind of evil karma as Lincoln, Butler and Sherman, or as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, or as Mao, Chou En-Lai, and Pol Pot?

And then one asks…. “Why them and not us?” Why are we so special that we should not have this kind of thing visited upon us? God in heaven knows that we deserve it. The blood of the unborn cries out from under the altar asking justice upon the West. Mercy Lord … just a wee bit more mercy that we or our descendants after us should not have to live in such times where we are visited again by the Jacobins.

Yet, doubtless those in the French, Chinese, and Bolshevik Revolutions and every other Revolution likewise prayed the same thing and yet were not delivered from the Robespierre, the Marat, the Stalin, the Trotsky, the Mao, and the Himmler.

God’s ways are inscrutable.

Lord, in your good pleasure should you ever visit us as a people what you visited upon those now occupying their eternal assigned abode grant me grace to meet the enemy with courage and to not quail at the deaths that some of them died.”

During this week 100 years ago our Nation took its next another step into what was already, now looking back, an irretrievable decline. During this week 100 years ago women were given the right to vote. Historically, in marking the decline of this Republic this unfortunate event certainly ranks right up there with Mr. Lincoln’s War, the creation of the Federal Reserve, FDR’s “New Deal” legislation, Breton Woods, the Civil Rights Act, the Immigration Act of 1965 and Nixon’s closing of the Gold Window. With each of these and many others the united States as a Republic continued to slide into eclipse.

Prior to women’s suffrage, women had already been primed in claiming independence from their husbands and family. World War I had pushed larger numbers of them into the workforce thus giving them independence they had never known before. What was a rivulet in World War I became a mighty river in World War II with the advent of Rosie the Riveter. Women’s right to vote was also almost assured by the extending of the vote to the African-American after the Jacobin War Against the Constitution and the following Reconstruction (1861 – 1877). White women especially were going to feel cheated as they watched a constituency vote who they believed were not as capable and qualified as they in having the franchise.

Rebecca Latimer Felton (1835-1930), first female member of U.S. Senate (1922), supported female suffrage because the right to vote had been given to negro men, most of whom were unable to read. She reasoned, “The negro carriage driver of the wealthiest woman in America had the right to vote, but not his female employer.”

So, being primed in the direction of the Franchise the next step into egalitarianism came to the fore and women were deemed just as fit as men to enter the voting booth. Not all women believed that this egalitarian move was a good idea. A couple decades prior, when this debate was beginning, Susan Fenimore Cooper (daughter of American author James Fenimore Cooper) could write,

“First. Woman in natural physical strength is so greatly inferior to man that she is entirely in his power, quite incapable of self- defense, trusting to his generosity for protection. In savage life this great superiority of physical strength makes man the absolute master, woman the abject slave. And, although every successive step in civilisation lessens the distance between the sexes, and renders the situation of woman safer and easier, still, in no state of society, however highly cultivated, has perfect equality yet existed. This difference in physical strength must, in itself, always prevent such perfect equality, since woman is compelled every day of her life to appeal to man for protection, and for support.

Secondly. Woman is also, though in a very much less degree, inferior to man in intellect. The difference in this particular may very probably be only a consequence of greater physical strength, giving greater power of endurance and increase of force to the intellectual faculty connected with it. In many cases, as between the best individual minds of both sexes, the difference is no doubt very slight. There have been women of a very high order of genius; there have been very many women of great talent; and, as regards what is commonly called cleverness, a general quickness and clearness of mind within limited bounds, the number of clever women may possibly have been even larger than that of clever men. But, taking the one infallible rule for our guide, judging of the tree by its fruits, we are met by the fact that the greatest achievements of the race in every field of intellectual culture have been the work of man.

(The rest of this worthy and highly recommended essay can be found here.)

https://jfcoopersociety.org/SUSAN/SUFFRAGE.HTML


Giving women the right to vote was an attack on the family because it allowed the wife to vote in such a way as to negate the leadership (covenant headship) of her husband. Women voting allowed women to seize authority from men thus overturning God’s required patriarchal social order. Women voting was an attack on the patriarchal family because over the course of time it allowed women to vote in such a way as to make the state her husband and then after that, through her vote, she could do successfully what many women could not do successfully in the home and that is to nag the new husband (the State) to do her bidding. And as women are selfish (as are men) her bidding was to create a social order that would allow her to putatively flourish without her husband.

Giving the women the right to vote moved woman’s chief concern from hearth and home and the raising of the next generation and placed her into the public domain where she could rough and tumble with men over the pressing social issues of the times. This reality combined with the pressing of women into the workforce had the effect of diminishing the natural characteristics of women found in kindness and gentleness and yielded to them a male hardness that was not present in the generations of their Mothers before them. As such not only was the nature of the family attacked with the achievement of women’s suffrage but also attacked was the nature of women themselves. Giving women the right to vote presaged the subsequent shift of females becoming more male-like. This shift of women become more male like was then continued with the sexual revolution which found women being allowed to be just as sexually perverse as the most perverse man and with the fashion revolution which allowed women to dress like men. From voting to sexual habits to fashion to placement in the work force the egalitarian movement has resulted in women becoming more like men and men become more like women. Of course this is the ultimate goal of gender blender egalitarianism – the creation of man as woman as egalitarian cogs with no differentiation between the two.

One objection of course that will immediately arise is the idea that having voting restricted to land owning Christian men over 25 only is that it is not fair. Obviously the retort here is “fair by whose or what standard?” Clearly from what I have said above restricting the right to vote is fair to the family, and fair to the nature and roles of men and women. Any lack of fairness that is discovered in women not voting is only found in an egalitarian worldview. In the Christian worldview it is not fair to women, family, and the biblically required patriarchal social order for women to vote.

We should note that given the situation we are in now if our Biblically Christian women don’t vote then it is clear that the country will slide even faster and deeper into the rat hole it is in already. Therefore it is my recommendation that Biblically Christian women do vote but only as they are instructed to by their husbands or fathers. In this way women are supporting a Biblical patriarchal social order, are supporting the clearly delineated nature and roles of men and women in Scripture and are supporting the Christian family.

You want to understand the destruction of the extended family as well as destruction of women themselves? One place to start is looking at giving women the right to vote.

I had a smart arse Black Lives Matter (BLM) advocate dimwit repeatedly demand I give her a definition of Marxism after I kept insisting that BLM was Marxist. Seems that she thought I was just throwing around words and didn’t know what I was talking about.

So… I decided to indulge her. Here is my answer.

____

Dear Aimee

Marxism is based on a materialistic and atheistic philosophy that embraces the Hegelian dialectic (thesis / antithesis/ synthesis) as divorced from Hegel’s Idealism and uses the dialectic as its means to realize “progress.” Its intent is the arrival of Utopia and its effect is to level all distinctions into an egalitarian social order. Its result, wherever it has been tried in history, is rivers of blood as the state forces Utopia on unwilling men and women. It’s chief technique in seizing and maintaining power is terror. It is constantly at war with distinctions since distinctions violate their envisioned egalitarian order. Having no extra-mundane personal transcendent God Marxism practices moral relativism. Right and wrong is completely determined by the State in which men live and move and have their being. As such what is right today could very well be wrong tomorrow depending on the necessities of the State. (As seen during the WW II era when one minute the comrades are violently opposing the National socialists in Germany and then the next moment they are singing the praises of their Nazi allies and then flipping again to denounce the Fascists.) Marxism holds to the community of goods as seen in its maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Historically speaking this has included women and wives so that women are considered property of the state to be passed around as needed (See Alexander Kollontai’s work). The epistemology of Marxism is humanistic reason. The axiology of Marxism is the progress of the Soviet man. The Ontology of Marxism is time plus chance plus circumstance. The teleology of Marxism is the Kingdom of man.

Well, I could give a good deal more but this should help you in your studies. I would recommend reading several books I have read if you want to learn more.

Francis Nigel Lee — Communist Eschatology
Fred Schwarz — You Can Trust The Communists to be Communists
W. Cleon Skousen — The Naked Communist
Alexander Solzhenitsyn — From Under the Rubble
Igor Shafarevich — The Socialist Phenomenon

When you get through with those come back to me and I’ll give you some more homework.

Or you could just get your undergrad degree in political philosophy like I did.

I trust your reading goes well.