Category: Uncategorized

“Many have heard of the ‘Kalergi plan’ without understanding exactly what it means. In his book ‘Practical Idealism,’ cosmopolitan thinker Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (who was himself of Austrian and Japanese parentage) declares that the inhabitants of the future ‘United States of Europe’ will no longer be the original peoples of the old continent but instead a new humanity of racial intermixing. He says it was necessary to ‘cross-breed’ the peoples of Europe with Asian and Black peoples so as to create a multi-ethnic herd lacking any and all specific qualities and easily dominated by elites. This seemed to far fetched to be true, and yet this is the actual thought that was formulated by Kalergi; and there are many men who have listened to it most attentively and abided by it…

For years, the tragic importance of the Kalergi plan and the possibility that the elites may actually be following a timetable corresponding to this very project were meticulously ignored. One avoided talking about Kalergi and never mentioned his name, putting Kalergi’s theory into practice without ever referring to it clearly.

(French President) Emmanuel Macron, who seems to want to skip a few steps in order to assert himself the most anti-French president in our country’s entire history, ultimately shattered this tattoo… During a speech delivered 10 May 2018, in Aachen, Macron spoke of Kalergi in these terms,

‘Time and again Europe finds itself traversed by history and the latter’s tragic aspects. To this, one cannot oppose the routine management but, instead, a will that remains always in motion, one that requires each new generation to invest all its strength and reinvent hope.’

He then goes on to add:

‘Richard von COUDENHOVER-KALERGI once gave this hope a name. Referring to the work of Charlemagne [Oh, is that so?], he described Europe as the return to the Carolingian dream. This dream is that of desired unity, of concord conquered over the field of differences, and of a vast community advancing in the same direction; that of a Europe, my dear Angela, my dear Xavier, united within its own beating heart, which this region already represented back then. Today, however, this dream is being gnawed at by doubt. And it is up to us to decide whether we wish to let it live or allow it to perish.’

It’s important to realize what Europe Macron is referring to. In no way is it the Europe of Caucasian cosmopolitanism that Voltaire dreamt of and that has been the source North American success in recent centuries. Neither is it a European empire, as established by famous men such as Julius Caesar or Charlemagne (to whom our president is deceptively referring). It Kalergi’s Europe, a diversified Europe that is meant to be both multi-ethnic and mult-racial to the very extreme. It is to be understood as a mixed race Europe, one that is neither European nor Asian/black. Worse still, it would be a bit of everything at once.

When hailing Kalergi’s work in front of his fellow heads of government, most of whom are, to a similar extent, following their own path of demographic replacement, Emmanuel Macron divulged the secret of the Western elites — the concrete, observable, and terrifying project of progressive ethnocide targeting European peoples on their own continent. It is as clear as it is obvious.”

Guillaume Faye
Ethnic Apocalypse — p. 71-73

And behind Faye’s accurate analysis stands the even greater objective of the Kalergi plan and that is the destruction of Biblical Christianity in favor of a mixed religion that is envisioned as every bit as mixed as the races that Kalergi envisioned.

It is paramount for us to understand that the intentional pursuit of the thorough mixing of all races is pursuant to a even higher goal and that is the mixing, and so diluting, of Biblical Christianity. This is a Babel project for which the International elite are contending. The ultimate goal is to pull down Christ from His throne and the methodology they are using to that end is the mixture of all races and cultures into one. To not oppose all of this is to support that stripping Christ of His Kingship.

Amos 9:13 -“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,

“When the plowman shall overtake the reaper,

And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;

The mountains shall drip with sweet wine,

And all the hills shall flow with it.

14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;

They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;

They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;

They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.

When Jesus performs His first miracle at Cana by turning water into wine (John 2:1-11) the passage above connects the presence of the Messiah with the abundance of wine. By turning all that water into wine (appx. 150 gallons) Jesus is announcing that the Messiah with the long anticipated Kingdom has arrived. The water pots for ritual cleaning is replaced by the wine of Joy found in the arrival of the only one wherein eternal cleansing is found.

The fact that the the water pots used were connected with the Jewish purification rites suggests that they would automatically become unclean if filled with any old water. However, by filling those ceremonial water pots with the best of wine the declaration is that the Old Testament ceremonial law has been fulfilled by the one who those ceremonies anticipated. Jesus is putting new wine into old water-skins.

Then when the Master of the feast declares the superiority of this Wine that Jesus had created — even to the point of ‘saving the best for last,’ the Miracle proclaims that the Old Covenant was water as compared to the New Covenant as wine. The book of Hebrews says the same thing more directly,

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…

Of course this all makes sense in light of the fact that this Miracle kicked off Jesus public ministry. The opening sign of the public ministry of Jesus is the production of wine that proclaimed that the Messiah was present and ready to establish the long expected kingdom.

Jesus begins this Miracle with informing His mother that “my time has not yet come.” This idea of a coming hour is a sub-theme of the book of John (cmp. 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 13:1; 17:1) and is a declaration that the time of the Cross is not yet present. The usage of this literary trope informs us that John’s Gospel is moving towards a destination, indicating that all that preludes that appointed hour is but prelude until the arrival of that hour. Like a novel that builds to a climax, the book of John is building to a climax (Cross and Resurrection) and by the usage of the “hour” language we are being told the climax to the story is yet to come.

We should not miss that the beginning of Jesus ministry begins with a Miracle that is associated with feasting and merriment. This provides the first bookend to Jesus ministry with the latter bookend again in the context of feasting and merriment that will occur in the newness of the Father’s Kingdom. This is suggestive that Christianity and Christians should be characterized by laughter, merriment, joy, and feasting. The Kingdom has come.

Finally, we have the way Jesus addresses His mother. First, here, referring to His mother as “woman” was a common way of addressing women in this 1^st century Palestine culture. We see Jesus use it again in regards to His mother when He is on the cross. (John 19:26 – “Woman, behold thy Son.”) Clearly, Jesus is not being insulting to His mother when He tenderly provides her with a home by commissioning her to John’s care.

Jesus address to His mother also includes the rebuff of “What does your concern have to do with me.” First, we need to note that Mary’s concern of providing wine for her guests was indeed no concern of Jesus. This miracle of Jesus when accomplished was not accomplished in order to satisfy Mary’s concern, though the satisfying of Mary’s concern coincided with Jesus’ concern to declare His Messianic bonafides for those with eyes to see.

Summarizing, Jesus first Miracle is a declaration that the Old Covenant has served its purposes and now the purpose that it served in heralding the coming Messiah is past as the coming Messiah has arrived raining down the fruit of the vine upon the people of God.

Recently, a Reformed friend who loves the Church and concerned about its direction, recently sent me the first syllabus you find below. It is pure Cultural Marxism complete with its methodological tools of Critical Race theory and Intersectionality. It is being taught right now at one of the putative flagship Seminaries (Reformed Theological Seminary — Atlanta campus) to students who desire to spend their lives in the ministry in Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. It is taught by one Dr. Sean Michael Lucas. He is the enemy and so the less said beyond that much, the better.

Clearly Dr. Lucas and I cannot both be Christians given the antithesis that lies between the content of our respective and competing Christian faiths. It is possible, of course, that Jesus would not recognize the worldview and faith of either one of us. It is certain however that while we both could be failing to express a biblical content that defines the Christian faith, we both can not be, at the same time, expressing Christianity.

You will find Dr. Lucas’ syllabus listed first. Note his entire reading list are books published after 2000 except for one that was published in 1996. This tells us that whatever it is that Dr. Lucas is teaching is a completely recent discovery as teased out by Academics or by those seeking to profit from the victim culture that Cultural Marxism supports. Below that is a syllabus I’ve drawn up to answer his cultural Marxism as Christianity with a syllabus that reflects the historic position of the West prior to the beginning of WW II or so. Note that two of the books I list were written in the 19^th century while several others are published before 2000.

Almost 100 years ago now the great Dr. J. Gresham Machen published “Christianity and Liberalism.” Machen’s task in that volume was to make the argument that Orthodox Christianity and Liberal Christianity could not be both, at the same time, Christianity proper. We need another book it seems, now 100 years post-Machen that would be titled, “Christianity and Cultural Marxism.” (And maybe another one after that titled “Christianity and R2K.) What Dr. Lucas is pushing in his horrific Seminary course below, is being pushed roundly in the Reformed world from the PCA to the OPC to the SBC to their assorted Seminaries.

Machen was trying to rally the troops with his work. The troops need rallying again or else it is another age of Babylonian captivity for the Church as led by men like Dr. Lucas.

This post looks rather long but it is, for the most part, merely a list of differing books we each would recommend reading to understand the issue of Christianity and race.

I.) SYLLABUS

04HT6210: The Gospel and Race

Dr. Sean Michael Lucas Chancellor’s Professor of Church History

Course description: An introductory exploration of the intersection between the Gospel and racial issues. Attention will be paid to biblical-theological material, the history of race relations especially in the United States, and sociological data. Students will seek to work through these issues toward practical steps for ministry application in their local ministry contexts.

Goals:

1. Introduce the student to biblical-theological material on race, emphasizing God’s mission to forge a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural people in and through Christ.

2. Overview the history of race relations, especially in the United States and focusing on white-black relations, engaging with key voices in the Christian tradition.

3. Begin to use key sociological terminology in thinking about race relations and develop theological constructs for understanding these issues.

4. Suggest practical steps for ministry application in local ministry contexts.

Required texts:

Anthony Bradley, Aliens in the Promised Land: Why Minority Leadership is Overlooked in White Christian Churches and Institutions (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013); ISBN: 978- 1596382343.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me (Spigel and Grau, 2015); ISBN: 978-0812993547

W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk (Dover, 2014); ISBN: 978-0486280417

Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); ISBN: 978-0195147070.

J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003); ISBN: 978-0830826162

Jemar Tisby, The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity with Racism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019); ISBN: 978-0310597261

Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009); ISBN: 978-0830833603

In Pursuit of Gospel Unity: PCA Papers on Racism and Racial Reconciliation (Atlanta: Committee on Discipleship Ministries, 2019); order here: https://www.pcabookstore.com/p-91508-pursuit-of-gospel-unity-pca.aspx

Recommended books:

Richard A. Bailey, Race and Redemption in Puritan New England (New York: OUP, 2014)

Edward Blum and Paul Harvey, The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012).

James Cone, The Cross and the Lynching Tree (Marynoll: Orbis, 2013).

David L. Chappell, A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005).

Carolyn Dupont, Mississippi Praying: Southern White Evangelicals and the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1970 (New York: New York University Press, 2015).

Korie L. Edwards, The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches (New York: OUP, 2008).

Carl F. Ellis, Jr., Free at Last?: The Gospel in African-American Experience (Downers Grove: IVP, 1996); ISBN: 978-0830816873.

Bryan Loritts, ed., Letters to a Birmingham Jail: A Response to the Words and Dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Chicago: Moody, 2014); ISBN: 978-0802411969

Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2005).

______. For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America

(Phillipsburg: P&R, 2015).

Peter Slade, Open Friendship in a Closed Society: Mission Mississippi and a Theology of Friendship (New York: OUP, 2009).

Requirements and Grading:

1. Regular attendance and class participation (10%). Since we only have a week-long class, no absences are allowed; because this is a class that will have a number of discussion sessions, full participation in the discussions will be required for full points.

2. Reading (30%). You will be required to read 100% of the required texts. You will fill out a reading report that will disclosed how much of the assigned readings you have read.

3. Reflection papers (35%). You will write seven reflection papers, one on each of the

books (except for Rah, The Next Evangelicalism). Each will be one page and will be turned in at the beginning of the teaching week.

4. Final paper (25%). You will write a five-page critical interaction with Soong-Chan Rah’s

The Next Evangelicalism.

Instructions on particular assignments:

1. Reflection papers (1 page each)

a. For each reflection paper, you will respond to the book assigned by answering the

following question: in what ways did this book inform or correct my understanding of how Christians have or should engage racial relations? b. Do not write more than one page. c. The reflection paper will be written with one-inch margins, double-spaced, 12 point

2. Five-page response paper to The Next Evangelicalism.

• In section one, answer the following question (2-3 pages): in what ways did Rah define white privilege, superiority, captivity, and power (n.b., these words are used interchangeably throughout the book)? Did he see this as positive or negative for global evangelicalism? Give examples to support your answer.

• In section two, answer the following question (2-3 pages): in what ways did Rah’s book inform, instruct, correct, or challenge your understanding of the nature of the church? Did you agree with his insistence on the need for a more thorough embrace of a multi-cultural approach? What practical steps might your local church take to get there? a. The response will be written with one-inch margins, double-spaced, 12 point Times

1. Syllabus — Christianity and Race
   
   Rev. Bret L. McAtee; Pastor – Charlotte Christ the King Reformed Church
   
   Course description: An introductory exploration of the historic understanding of Christianity and social order in Western Civilization. Attention will be paid to Biblical and theological material, the history of race relations especially in these united States, considering also sociological data that pertains to race and Christian social order. Students will seek to work through these issues especially concentrating how the West has tacked away from the historic and Christian understanding towards a cultural Marxist understanding as currently pursued in much of the modern Western Church. The expectation is that such knowledge will lead to a concrete approach to these issues as ministers.
   
   Goals:
   
   1. Introduce the student to biblical-theological material on race, and ethnicity emphasizing God’s delight in distinct nations as seen in Scripture, and in National Churches, grounded in Christ, as seen in Western history.
   
   2. Reading (30%). You will be required to read 100% of the required texts. You will fill out a reading report that will disclosed how much of the assigned readings you have read.
   
   3. Begin to use key sociological terminology in thinking about race relations and develop theological constructs for understanding these issues.
   
   4. Suggest practical steps for ministry application in local ministry contexts.
   
   III.) Required Texts
2. Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation
   
   Patrick Buchanan, The Death of the West; How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization
   
   R. L. Dabney, Defense of Virginia and The South
   
   R. L. Dabney, Secular Discussions
   
   Illiana Mercer, Into the Cannibal’s Pot
   
   Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority
   
   R. J. Rushdooney, Politics of Guilty and Pity
   
   Samuel Francis, Race and the American Prospect
   
   Patrick West, Poverty of Multiculturalism IV.) Recommended Books
   
   Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement and the Hjra to America
   
   Ann Coulter, Adios America; The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hell Hole
   
   Colin Flaherty, White Girl Bleed A Lot
   
   Samuel Francis, Essential Writings on Race
   
   E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
   
   Heather MacDonald, The Diversity Delusion
   
   Charles Murray, The Bell Curve; Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
   
   Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone
   
   Jean Raspail; Camp of the Saints
   
   James Simpson, Red Green Axis
   
   Requirements and Grading: 1. Regular attendance and class participation (10%). Since we only have a week-long class, no absences are allowed; because this is a class that will have a number of discussion sessions, full participation in the discussions will be required for full points. 2. Reading (25%). You will be required to read 100% of the required texts. You will fill out a reading report that will disclose how much of the assigned readings you have read. 3. Reflection papers (20%). You will write seven reflection papers, one on each of the books (except for Dabney’s, ”Defense of Virginia and the South”). Each will be one page and will be turned in at the beginning of the teaching week. 4. Final paper (25%). You will write a five-page critical interaction with Dabney’s, ”Defense of Virginia and the South.”
   
   5.) Oral Defense (20%) you will give an oral defense of your Dabney paper to the course instructor. The course instructor will be looking for your understanding of Dabney’s argument as well as non contradictory and cogent arguments where Dabney is disagreed with.
   
   Instructions on particular assignments: 1. Reflection papers (1 page each) a. For each reflection paper, you will respond to the book assigned by answering the following question: in what ways did this book inform or correct my understanding of the impact of Cultural Marxism on the Church today? b. Do not write more than one page. c. The reflection paper will be written with one-inch margins, double-spaced, 12 point 2. Five-page response paper to Defense of Virginia and the South. • In section one, answer the following question (2-3 pages): in what ways did Dabney justify the ante-bellum Souths social order? Interact with his appeal to Biblical authority. Interact with Dabney’s argument from history. Explain how Dabney’s vision could work to the end of Evangelism and discipleship. Interact with the content of the book in your answers.
   • In section two, answer the following question (2-3 pages): in what ways did Dabney’s book inform, instruct, correct, or challenge your understanding of the nature of the new-Calvinism with its emphasis on “equality” and “diversity”? Did you agree with his insistence on the need for a more thorough embrace of homogeneous cultures? What practical steps might your local church take to push back against multi-culturalism and Cultural Marxism? a. The response will be written with one-inch margins, double-spaced, 12 point Times
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

“When he (Martin Luther King) went back to Ebeneezer Baptist his Father set him over Christian Education in order to teach the congregants biblical orthodoxy and the essentials of our faith and so he would not have been able to function in that traditional setting unless he believed in conversion, and in salvation, and in justification and the kind of traditional understandings that we have of salvation in Christ…. King never repudiated the Gospel.”

Rev. Mika Edmonsond
OPC Pastor — Grand Rapids Michigan
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pass-the-mic/id1435500798?i=1000419238513&fbclid=IwAR37pKnxtDPZbHUqAD0QLODxO-3kp2Y1BY6RB2PcIjJBg-AIyjN8tF-vZT0
Start approximately 16 minute mark

Rev. Edmonsond here goes beyond revisionist history and begins to bump into fairy tale history.

The claim that Martin Luther King (MLK) was ever orthodox is past dubious and to claim otherwise means either that the person making the claim is ignorant of the subject matter or that they themselves have some questions to answer when it comes to the meaning of the term “orthodox Christian Faith.”

Somewhere between the end of 1949 and the beginning of 1950 MLK wrote a paper on the Divinity of Christ while attending Crozer Theological Seminary. King would have been somewhere around 21 years old at this time. This paper would’ve been written prior to the reference that Rev. Edmondson makes mentioning MLK’s return to Ebenezer. I reproduce a portion of that paper that proves indisputably that King was most certainly not orthodox during this time. I have not changed any of King’s spelling mistakes.

Begin MLK quote,

“The conflict that Christians often have over the question of Jesus divinity is not over the validity of the fact of his divinity, but over the question of how and when he became divine. The more orthodox Christians have seen his divinity as an inherent quality metaphysically bestowed. Jesus, they have told us, is the Pre existent Logos. He is the word made flesh. He is the second person of the trinity. He is very God of very God, of one substance with the Father, who for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.

Certainly this view of the divinity of Christ presents many modern minds with insuperable difficulties. Most of us are not willing to see the union of the human and divine in a metaphysical incarnation. Yet amid all of our difficulty with the pre existent idea and the view of supernatural generation, we must come to some view of the divinity of Jesus. In order to remain in the orbid of the Christian religion we must have a Christology. As Dr. Baille has reminded us, we cannot have a good theology without a Christology.⁹ Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest of his devotion to God and the intimatcy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.” In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.”

End MLK quote

If MLK was not orthodox on the divinity of Christ then he could not have been orthodox on any other issue from conversion to salvation to justification. An attestation of belief in a non-divine Christ means the person making such a profession is wrong all the way down the line in their soteriological orthodoxy, which is the orthodoxy that Rev. Edmonsond is referencing.

Now, to be fair, seemingly MLK would have affirmed the divinity of Christ but that affirmation, by dint of how MLK is defining the divinity of Christ, is a affirmation that no orthodox Christian for 1900 years prior to the rise of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school of divinity with their Higher Criticism methodology would have recognized. King’s assertions certainly has never been considered orthodox by the OPC, the denomination that credentials Rev. Edmondson.

Note that MLK denies that Jesus is,

1.) The Pre-existent Logos
2.) The Word made flesh
3.) The 2nd person of the trinity
4.) Very God of Very God
5.) Of one substance with the Father
6.) Incarnated by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary
7.) Of two natures, yet one person
8.) Is anything but a prototype of many humans who will follow in his divine steps


In other words MLK denies Christian orthodoxy and exchanges it for Humanist (Barthian neo-orthodoxy) orthodoxy. Rev. Edmondson tells us that believing that the divinity of Jesus was comprised,

“in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling [sic] of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker [sic] would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest [sic] of his devotion to God and the intimatcy [sic] of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God.”

is Gospel orthodoxy.

I suppose facts no longer matter. It no longer matters what MLK actually believed. It no longer matters that a minister in the OPC says things that are just not true, while also calling into question the very definition of orthodoxy. It no longer matters that large numbers of people will believe podcast assertions that have no anchor in facts.

Just call me old fashioned.

And orthodox to boot.

“In his very first speech on his very first trip to the USA in 1975, the fifty-six year old Solzhenitsy asked the question he wanted to ask Americans most of his adult life. He set it up by comparing America’s historic aversion to alliance with Czarist Russia to Roosevelt’s rush to recognize a far more repressive and infinitely more violent Bolshevik Russian in 1933. Pre-Revolutionary executions, by the Czarist government came to about seventeen per year, Solzhenitsyn said, while, as a point of comparison, the Spanish Inquisition at its height destroyed ten persons per month. In the Revolutionary years of 1918 and 1919, he continued, the Checka executed without trial more than a thousand per month. At the height of Stalin’s terror in 1937-1938, tens of thousands of people were shot per month. The author of the Gulag Archipelago put it all together like so:

‘ Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy of the world – England, France, the United States, Canada, Australia and small countries – from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union. How is this to be explained? How can we understand it?'”

Diana West
American Betrayal — p. 195

How can we understand it… indeed.

The only conclusion that can be offered in light of books like “Blacklisted by History,” and “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government,” by M. Stanton Evans, “American Betrayal,” by Diana West, “Freedom Betrayed,” by President Herbert Hoover, and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century,” by Paul Kengor is that the US Government for up to twenty-seven years, from 1933-1961 was a vassal government beholden to Communist interests in the USSR.

The FDR years found Soviet agents thicker than cats on a milking cow with a wounded teat during milking time. From as high up as the un-elected co-President Harry Hopkins, to the #2 man at Treasury (Harry Dexter White) to business consultant on Soviet Affairs (Armand Hammer) to FDR’s attendant at Yalta (Alger Hiss) to the men who turned China Communist (Lauchlin Currie, Owen Latimore) to the General in charge of “Lend-Lease” stationed in Moscow, to scores and scores burrowed deep into the infrastructure at the Department of Agriculture, the State Department, and the Treasury Department as well as being sprinkled generously across the spectrum of Federal Departments. From top to bottom the Federal government was occupied territory.

The answer to Solzhenitsyn’s question as to why the Americans — our Fathers — were so quick to recognize the USSR is because our Fathers were at that time a puppet Government, bought and paid for by our Suzerain, the Bolsheviks. America, for at least twenty-seven years was Soviet occupied territory.

And the consequences?

The consequences was the death of millions and millions of people in the crematorium that was the Communist world. The consequences further was the captivity and enslavement of millions and millions more forever shut off from freedom and civilization by an Iron Curtain that we helped knit and bring down on Eastern and Central Europe as well as China.

The consequences included the self-inflicted damages we did on our own people and times. Because of the lies turned to truth by the alchemy of cover-up, destroyed careers, and outright baldfaced lies our willingness to live by lies told to us by our “leadership,” we turned the idea of truth into a game of “spin the bottle.” Because we divorced facts from implications, knowledge from inevitable conclusions, and logic from judgment we mortally damaged our epistemology to the point that we came to believe that we could live by any reality we decided to create. It is a shorter trip than we think from accepting the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn Forrest massacres despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary to accepting that men also can experience menses cramps.

A people who do not know their history — who have chosen to live by lies — are a people who are easily manipulated as concerns their future. There is a need to let the sunshine of truth blow through our recent history because if we do not it will happen all over again. It is already happening again. Even now we are doing what our Fathers did when they lived by lies in this ear. We are accepting the lies being told to our by our leadership that “Islam is a religion of Peace,” that “Diversity is our Strength,” and that “Climate Change may destroy the planet.” These are all lies and they gain traction in part because for decades now we have been a people who have “lived by lies.”