In the State We Live and Move and Have Our Being

Congressional Democrat Jerry Nadler spoke out loud the truth about Endarkenment liberalism when responding to another House member (Congressman Steube — R) who had been opposing the Equality Act by reading from the Holy Scripture on the distinction that exists between men and women.

Congressman Nader stepped right up to the mic and said right out loud,

“Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress.”

What does this tell us?

Well, it tells us what I’ve been saying until going hoarse and that is when “any religious tradition and the will of its God” is not a concern of Congress than the only religion left that will be allowed to express God’s will is the State. If no religious tradition that reflects God’s will is a concern of Congress then at that point Congress has made itself to be God and only Congress as God will be the concern of Congress.

People have to begin to realize that God is an inescapable reality as is religion. There is never a time when the will of some God is not the concern of institutions. As such when Rep. Nadler tells us that “ what any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress,”  what Nadler is telling us that is that Congress is God and as God Congress is only concerned about its will.

With this statement, Nadler demonstrates that the State as God is the God over all the gods. With this statement, Nadler demonstrates for all with eyes to see that the only religious tradition that will be allowed in Congress is the religion that is the State. Nadler has told those with ears to hear that “In the State, we live and move and have our being.”

Let’s try this one more way before ending. Nadler’s quote communicates that there is no God or religion that Congress is concerned with in terms of providing a standard by which to legislate. No will of no God of any religious tradition will provide a standard by which the US Congress will rule. If that is true, then what will the standard be by which Congress will rule? The only answer left is the sovereign will of the US Congress as God will be the standard by which Congress rules. Congress is God.

Of course, this demonstrates yet again that our current State is illegitimate and has zero moral ground upon which to expect the Christian citizenry to obey. This also demonstrates that any worldview that either asks all the gods into the public square or excludes all the gods from the public square is a worldview that in the end finds the State to be God as the State becomes the agency that determines the standards by which all will be legislated or adjudicated.

The Legacy/Advocacy Media is NOT Your Friend

You can’t understand our current media unless you understand that for decades, from the inception of television till the late 1980s, the Marxist left owned the information output in America. For appx. 50 years the country danced to the tune of the Marxist media in America. One book, among several, that demonstrated this is Edith Efron’s “The News Twisters.”

Now, since the rise of cable networks and even more so with the rise of talk radio reaching a crescendo with the blogosphere and the internet in general the cultural Marxist’s stranglehold on information output is seriously challenged. This accounts for the hyperventilating done by the left against people like Qnon. In point of fact, the advocacy media is far more subversive than people like Qanon but Qanon is a threat because a significant minority was listening to Qanon. People like Qanon, Alex Jones, and others threatened the monopoly the Cultural Marxist left has on information. (Disclaimer — I’ve never imbibed either Jones or Qanon though I am familiar with alternative information sourcing.)

You can be sure that the advocacy media will with continued shrillness warn about the danger of “our norms being challenged” by dangerous “disinformation outlets.” They hyperventilate about “our norms being challenged” because they are the ones who have been setting the norms for decades. Actually, what is being challenged are the norms of the Cultural Marxists.

This explains why you see people exhausting themselves warning about the dangers of “racists,” “nationalism,” and “transphobia.” These are the tools of triumph for the Cultural Marxist left and anybody who supports biblical doctrines of nationalism, and sexual normalcy will be attacked by the Cultural Marxist left media. One of the founding credos of Communism was the destruction of nations,

1.) ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

2.) “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

3.) “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

4.) “… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination 

5.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.” 

K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

6.) “Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

Nikita Khrushchev

and with the advent of Cultural Marxism, that meme has been retained and as combined with another element of the Cultural Marxist’s “new proletariat” being the sexual pervert and their lobby.

That is the world we live in and now we are at the point that the pulpit in America is taking up these same shrill denunciations of “nationalism,” and “racism,” and anybody who dares assigns perversion to perverted sexuality. Even if your pulpit is NOT denouncing these realities the silence of your pulpit on these matters is contributing to the attack on Biblical Christianity.

It is a difficult conclusion for Christians to arrive at that the news they so casually consume belongs to the enemy of their souls. All the “news” the Christian listens to as coming from the legacy/advocacy media should be understood as being to them what the reports of “Toyko Rose” were to the troops in the South Pacific during WW II. Actually, as I said at the outset, this has been true for decades whether one wants to consider Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Lippman, or any number of leading light journalists of yesteryear.

Christian, the major media outlets are not your friend and their disinformation is impacting negatively your understanding of basic Christianity. It is past time to give up on it and find other sources for your information.

Defending White, Black, Brown Christian Nationalism

Dear Pastor,

I’ve had some people writing me, knowing that I know you, asking if you are a White Nationalist. They seem to think the article below somehow proves that. I told them I would go directly to you as opposed to spreading vicious and unsubstantiated rumors.

Thank you for your ministry to me and my family,


Dear Chloe,

Thank you for writing to ask.

I honestly am left completely befuddled that anybody could read that piece and come up with white supremacy or white nationalism. The word “white” does not show up in the piece and I even went out of my way to quote the white Marxists as opposed to Marxists of other nationalities and races in order to demonstrate that, in many cases, it is white people who are at the vanguard of cultural Marxism. (And of course, the article was about Cultural Marxism and its pushing of globalism before it was about anything else.)

I am tempted to conclude that those who could get white supremacism from the article linked are folks who are part of the cultural Marxist problem that we currently have in the Church but since I don’t know the people who are contacting you, I’ll take their query as being sincere and not as part of a larger agenda.

So, to be clear Chloe, I am not a white supremacist, although that won’t keep people who are cultural Marxists, or who have been influenced by cultural Marxism or who are just, in the words of Vladimir Lenin, “useful idiots,” for the Cultural Marxist agenda from making that accusation. The Cultural Marxists will continue to accuse me of being a White Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, or White Supremacist but that is only because they are living in a false reality and according to the false reality that they have constructed out of fairy tale dust I am a White Supremacist just as Charles Hodges, Gerharrdus Vos, G. K. Chesterton, John Dagg, Augustine, Iranaeus, Chrysostom, Jerome, Francis Nigel Lee, E. J. Young, John Murray, Abraham Kuyper, Groen Van Prinester, Samuel Davies, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Shepherd, et. al. were White Nationalists.

Chloe, those who are slinging around the accusations of “White Nationalist,” or “White Supremacist,” or “Christian Nationalist,” are those who have embraced the Cultural Marxist world and life view and are now seeking to morph Christianity into the Cultural Marxist template. You just have to realize that they are of their father the devil and who like their Father the devil lie as their native tongue.

I believe in biblical nationalism for all peoples, tongues, and nations. Just as I believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, will be part of the one Redeemed Church of Jesus Christ. However, that doesn’t keep me from noting Scripture, with all its talk of “nations” in the New Jerusalem (see original article),

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.And many people shall go and say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

We see this promise coming to fulfillment in Revelation Chloe, where we see recorded,

25 Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day because there will be no night there. 26And into the city will be brought the glory and honor of the nations.

The Dutch scholar Doctor Schilder comments on this

“And they shall bring the glory of the nations into it, into the new Jerusalem.” Revelations 21:26

“The universality of this covenant requires that not one race or people be left out. Yet during the old Testament times, there was one nation singled out of the many as the chosen people, such separation was but an ad-interim. We may look upon the covenant as then a march toward fulfillment, towards times when all nationS from the uttermost parts of the earth would belong to the covenant.

Klaas Schilder

Calvin Seminary Professor Dr. Martin Wyngaarden, who was one of the men I learned this from Chloe, was getting at much the same thing when he wrote in his book, 

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

And, not to put too fine of a point on it Chloe, the great Dutch theologian Dr. Geerhardus Vos also spoke about the importance of a Biblical Nationalism when he wrote in his Systematic Theology,


Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

So, Chloe, unless your un-named friends also desire to put Wyngaarden, Schilder, and Vos in the “White Supremacism” pokey, I’m not saying anything that they didn’t say first.

Further, Chloe, I believe, that in the varied Christian cultures that have existed, do exist, and might yet exist, in varying nations, that each will show its own particular stripe of strengths and weaknesses. In other words, different Christian nations will have different supremacies. One body… many parts. (A tried and trusted Biblical precept.) Given all the Scripture I cited in the original article in question, I should think that it was clear that the Scripture clearly teaches that Biblical nationalism is simply defined as a “proper love of our people and a proper love of our place.”

The Christian poet, Sir Walter Scott, was getting at this sentiment when he wrote,

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

And far as love of one’s own people one only needs to consider the great Apostle Paul when he wrote,

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Obviously, Paul could have a unique love for his un-regenerated Kin and still retain a love for the Gentiles to whom he was an Apostle, as one born out of time. St. Paul had the kind of love for His own people, that is communicated by Thomas Babington Macauley in his “Horatius at the Bridge,

And how can man die better
  Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers

  And the temples of his gods

Of course, our vision is of the nations being converted to Christ so that they are defending the Church of Jesus Christ.

I shouldn’t have to say it again Chloe but in case your friend missed it, I’m not defending garden-variety Nationalism. The Nationalism I’m defending and am insisting as always been the norm in the Church is Biblical Nationalism.  A nationalism whereby the authorities in the differing jurisdictional realms which comprise the nation all pledge fealty to Jesus Christ.

The great Dutchman Abraham Kuyper provides another example for us Chloe,

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now, this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

Now, allow me a few lines to reverse this Chloe. The refusal of Christ-centered Nationalism leaves us either in an ugly man-centered nationalism (which in the previous article I distinctly abjured) or it leads to a man-centered internationalism. In our epoch that man-centered Internationalism is having its water carried by Cultural Marxism and is the danger that is most pressing in upon the 21st-century church in the West in terms of Worldview competition.  Cultural Marxism by definition seeks to eliminate all distinctions that are ordained by God. The noble Dutchman Van Prinesterer, using incredible foresight, warned about this,

“Just as all truth rests upon the truth that is from God, so the common foundation of all rights and duties lies in the sovereignty of God. When that sovereignty is denied or (what amounts to the same thing) banished to heaven because His kingdom is not of this world, what becomes then of the fountain of authority, of law, of every sacred and dutiful relation in state, society and family? What sanction remains for the distinctions of rank and station in life? What reason can there be that I obey another’s commands, that the one is needy, the other rich? All this is custom, routine, abuse, injustice, oppression. Eliminate God, and it can no longer be denied that all men are, in the revolutionary sense of the words, free and equal. State and society disintegrate, for there is a principle of dissolution at work that does not cease to operate until all further division is frustrated by that indivisible unit, that isolated human being, the individual—a term of the Revolution – naively expressive of its all-destructive character.”

– Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer
Mentor of Abraham Kuyper

But let me guess Chloe… Van Prinsterer was teaching white supremacy …. just like that nasty white supremacist McAtee.

A century after Van Prinsterer, another Christian, this time an Anglican Priest, wrote a very similar concern echoing Van Prinsterer.

“The movement toward integration is a denial of Christ. It is part of an effort to create one society in which there are no distinctions or differences. . . . For it is not the races only that must disappear and be brought into conformity with the requirements of a world-state: so with the sexes, so with parents and children, so with nations, states, tribes, and empires. All must go and be swallowed up in the maw of the great monad, theologically familiar to students of oriental mysticism as religion, and to traditional Christianity as Satan.”

T. Robert Ingram
Anglican Priest

Again… Ingram must have been a White Supremacist.

Chloe, this is the burning issue of the modern Church in the West. Will we follow the Reformation where God ordained distinctions were honored as coming from God or will we swallow the Anabaptist inspired swill of Cultural Marxism? The white supremacist John Calvin knew where the danger was,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

Calvin Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

Chloe, if I’m teaching white supremacism, then the Church from the 2nd century forward has been teaching white supremacism. It is only via the re-defining of words, as done by cultural Marxist Social Justice Warriors, pointing and sputtering, that it can be said that their accusations have any anchor in truthfulness.

Thank you for writing me.

Christian Nationalism For Dummies

A friend of mine sent the below as an attempt to make more understandable my previous post on Christian Nationalism. He felt that sometimes I can suffer from prolixity and grandiloquence and so lack clarity for the average reader.  This is my friends attempt to make what I wrote on Christian nationalism accessible for the average reader.

Christianity vs Marxism; The Preservation of People Groups and Nations aka Christian Nationalism

Christian Nationalism is the preservation of familial, tribal, and national distinctions as authored by God. This is in direct opposition to Marxism whose tenants seek to destroy family, tribes, and national distinctions; to blur all distinctions in favor of “equity” vis a vis the leveling of all of society.

A Christian nationalist respects and seeks to preserve all tribes and tongues, including his own, for the greater cause of God’s glory and the sharing of the gospel, the salvation of God’s people. A Marxist seeks to erase and destroy all distinctions and ties from the center out, ie from the family to the extended family, to the broader kinsmen, and finally to the nation. Marxism does this for what they call the “greater good” but when one delves into the “greater good” one finds only equity (ie leveling) of the masses who become slaves to the elite; therefore the glory and power of a few rule the leveled masses.

Just as conservationists seek to preserve a creature in danger of extinction, so the Christian nationalist seeks to preserve the distinctions of nations and people groups, especially those in danger of being smudged out by the Marxist agenda. It is the Christian’s high respect for the order of God’s creation that drives this. The Christian Nationalist doesn’t seek to only preserve his own people group but seeks also the betterment and preservation of all people groups. To call a Christian Nationalist a person of hate is to turn upside down the differences between Christianity and Marxism because, in reality, it is Marxism that hates distinctions of people groups and nations. Marxism hates this so much, it seeks their destruction.

The question then becomes, who can be a Christian nationalist? The answer is simple; all Christians and their people groups. Now, we get down to the tense nitty-gritty. Yes, a Christian Caucasian can be and should be a Christian Nationalist. Yes, a Hispanic Christian can be and should be a Christian nationalist. Yes, a Christian with high amounts of melanin in his skin, ie a person whose skin color is commonly understood as black, can be and should be a Christian nationalist.

So what if these people groups are all in a single created nation, such as the United States of America? What then? Do they each seek to preserve their own people group? The simple answer is yes but must be qualified. What has to be understood in this context is the Biblical understanding of “stranger”. In the old testament, the Israelites were commanded to be kind to the strangers among them, for they had been strangers in the land of Egypt. Many Christian leaders, informed by Marxism, point to that and say we should welcome all strangers (aliens, immigrants, illegal immigrants, and so on) into our nation without reserve. But the biblical understanding was that these “strangers” were to honor the law and order of Isreal and respect their host nation. So they (the stranger) were to be treated well, but they were also to subscribe to the laws of the land hosting them. Surely they could preserve their lines of descent of their own people groups, just as the Israelites did in the land of Egypt. But they were to abide by and under the laws of Israel, just as the Israelites lived under the rule of Egypt. So we see then that people groups within nations may preserve their distinctions….nay they should preserve their distinctions according to biblical order….while at the same time abiding under and accepting the laws of the land they live in. It also must be said that the call to preserve distinctions is not a call to remain separate and aloof. Men can be friends without sinking their racial and ethnic distinctions into a bland miasma. At least that is what Muhammed Ali thought.

Marxists would have us believe that to preserve our own people group is selfish, and hateful to another people group. That is laughable, how can one, who is in death throes, help another? He must first help himself in order to reach out to another. For example, when flying in an airplane, the instructions given, should an emergency arise and oxygen be needed, to FIRST put the oxygen on yourself and then help your children or people in the seat next to you. That only makes sense. So why, in the atmosphere we currently live in, are we denigrated for seeking to preserve our own kinsmen (of course, while showing respect and honor to kinsmen outside of our people group)? Why is this wrong? Well honestly, if one looks at what Marxism is really doing, who Marxism is really currently attacking, and who Marxism is seeking to destroy, it is predominantly the white Biblical Christian as well as Biblical Christians of other people groups. As such currently it is the white Christian when they seek to preserve their people group, who is described as a hater simply because he is seeking to survive and preserve his people. Would a white Christian advocate for the preservation of another people group who was being destroyed? By all means! In the Marxist eye, preserving people groups is wrong because it does not fit their agenda of blurring distinctions, promoting equity (a leveling of society), and abolishing Christianity because it (Christianity) is in direct opposition to the Marxist agenda, and to the Marxist religion. If we seek to acclimate to the Marxist agenda, we destroy ourselves. Do not think that eventually, the leveling won’t attack other people groups who are being used as bully pulpits to further the Marxist agenda. Likewise, if the Marxists seek to coexist with the Christian religion, one or the other will succumb. A house divided against itself cannot stand. You are not a hater if you are a white Christian seeking the survival of other white Christians and therefore (remember the oxygen mask) by extension other Christian people groups of color. You are not a hater if you are a black Christian seeking the survival of other black Christians and therefore by extension other Christian people groups. You are not a hater if you are a Hispanic Christian, seeking the survival of other Hispanic Christians and by extension other Christian people groups. We cannot seek only for our own preservation as Christians, but we must seek for the preservation of our own first whether it be black, white, yellow, French, Italian, English, Spanish, Mexican, Asian, etc. Each Christian people group has a duty before God to honorably seek to preserve their people within their nation. In the end, we are all seeking to preserve biblical Christianity by beginning at home.

McAtee Has a Few Question for Klaus Schwab Concerning the Great Reset

“We can’t continue with an economic system driven by selfish values, such as short-term profit maximization, the avoidance of tax and regulation, or the externalizing of environmental harm. Instead, we need a society, economy, and international community that is designed to care for all people and the entire planet.”
Klaus Schwab
Describing “Stakeholder Capitalism”
That Great Reset Economic plan which replaces Shareholder Capitalism
1.) “Selfish values” by whose standards? Why isn’t Schwab’s value against what he styles “selfish values,” just a selfish value on Schwab’s part, and if it is why is Schwab’s selfish value to get rid of putative selfish values a value that must be forced on all of us?
2.) Note that the “selfish values” that must be eliminated are the values of a countless number of individuals in favor of the selfish values of Schwab and his World Economic Forum.
3.) If in shareholder capitalism we are acting to avoid Government tax and regulation in our spending habits why would we want to embrace a different governmental system that will give us stakeholder capitalism that promises we won’t have to act to avoid Government tax and regulation because, per its own promise, we won’t own anything? Why should I avoid one Government arrangement that picks my pocket for another Government arrangement that steals my pants?
4.) Whose standard will be used to adjudicate what it means to care for all the people and the entire planet? Will I be consulted so that my standards are the standards used to adjudicate what it means to care for all 7 billion people on the entire planet or will it be the case, as I suspect, that it will be the standards of some sulfur soaked demonic whore like Schwab who will provide his Marxist standards as those standards which are used to adjudicated what it means to care for the whole planet?