Category: Uncategorized

The Hebrew word “sheol” occurs 66 times in the OT, 58 times in poetry. The frequent prepositions with it show that it refers to the grave. The biblical poets use rich and varied figures to depict it. Sheol has a mouth (Ps. 141:7) that “enlarges” (Is. 5:14), and it is “never satisfied” (Prov. 27:20, 30:16). It is so powerful that no one escapes its grip (Ps. 89:48 [49]; Song 8:6). It is like a prison with “cords” (II Sam. 22:6) and a land that has “gates” (Isa. 38:10) with “bars” (Job 17:16). Here corruption is “the father,” and the worm “the mother and sister (Job 17:13-14). It is “a land” of no return to this life (Job 7:9), an abode where all social and religious distinctions cease. Rich and poor (Job 3:18-19), righteous and wicked (Job 3:17, Ps. 49:10) lie together. It is a land of silence (Ps. 94:17), darkness (Ps. 13:3 [4]), weakness and oblivion (Ps. 88:11-18 [12-19]). The destructive nature of this realm is intensified by “Abbadon” (Job 28:22; Parov. 15:11; 27:20; Gk. Apollyon, from apoleia, “destruction” [Rev. 19:11]. Pity Job — he finds the prospect of the grave better than life! (Job 10:18-22)

Bruce Waltke
An Old Testament Theology — pg. 965

Note especially, concerning Sheol

“… an abode where all social and religious distinctions cease. Rich and poor (Job 3:18-19), righteous and wicked (Job 3:17, Ps. 49:10) lie together.”

Sheol is where egalitarian utopia is finally fully implemented. Those who advocate for Egalitarianism are the advocates for Sheol (the grave) and the only thing Egalitarianism can produce is a grave social order. In Sheol we find perfect equality and the perfect equality that the Cultural Marxists (both “Christians” and non Christians) are aiming for will yield a grave like existence.

And the ironic thing is that the egalitarianism that is being pursued isn’t even serious. Egalitarianism is a smoke screen to put a global Elite into ascendancy over all the rest of the cattle mankind.

1.) The idea of a naked “secular” posits an impersonal world, with an impersonal deity concept that requires a personalism that is autonomously created by man’s fiat will. If “secular” means that God’s Law-Word does not govern the secular realm, then the secular realm is both impersonal in terms of divine presence and autonomous. Secularism thus slides easily into the absolutizing of fallen man over the Secular realm and by necessity yields humanism.

2.) The idea of ‘the Secular’ radically (can you say R2K?) separates public and private, and secular and sacred, as a transitional move towards the secular swallowing whole the putative sacred realm into a single unitary realm ruled by man’s experience (Existentialism), emotion (Romanticism), or autonomous reason (Rationalism). This is done by the ever expanding work of the “secular” realm eating up the “sacred” realm. The “Secular” realm of secularism gets larger and larger at the expense of the ever shrinking sacred realm. So, Secularism starts as dualistic but only as a feint to the end of creating a Unitarian reality that finds the Christian sacred completely eclipsed. (For example, when is the last time you’ve heard a sermon on Scriptures teaching on the right to keep and bear arms? You haven’t. Why? because that topic does not belong in the sacred realm.)

3.) Secularism cleverly denies its own religious essence and does so as a means of controlling the public square. By the means of its disguised religious assumptions it destroys the religious givens of all other religious competitors. Secularism thus creates a solely political religion, due to the putative absence of a Theological Word, and so creates a totalitarian impulse to the end of creating Utopia.

4.) Secularism then co-opts all religious competitors by forcing those former competitors to reinterpret their religion in light of the religion of Secularism. This accounts for the rise of R2K in the Reformed World. It accounts for the vicious return of the Baptist doctrine of “soul freedom” in Baptists “churches.” It accounts for the complete sell out to the Holiness movement and an ever increasing number of Reformed Churches to Cultural Marxist categories.

5.) There is no way in which to create a society that is not pinioned upon some faith, worldview, or religious foundation. Even the denial of all religion is a deeply religious tenet and faith commitment. Secularism is a faith commitment that sells itself as neutral regarding faiths.

“Let me give a specific example, and that is student loan debt. Right now in America, African-Americans are more likely to borrow money to go to college, borrow more money while they’re in college, and have a harder time paying that debt off after they get out. Today in America, a new study came out, 20 years out, whites who borrowed money, 94 percent of them have paid off their student loan debt, 5 percent of African-Americans have paid it off.

I believe that means everyone on this stage should be embracing student loan debt forgiveness. It will help close the black-white wealth gap. Let’s do something tangible and real to make change in this country.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren
20 November 2019 Democratic Presidential Debate

1.) If George Wallace or Lester Maddox aficionados had said this these words would have been adduced as absolute proof of their racism. Warren has told us here, by way of some study she does not name, that student blacks, unlike student whites, don’t pay off their debts. Sen. Fauxohontas portrayed blacks, at least when it comes to student loans, as irresponsible deadbeats who are more likely to borrow money and less likely to pay it back. This is called the sin of noticing and this is more than enough to be labeled a “racist.”  Yet, because Sen. Fauxohontas desires to redistribute wealth to the minority community, Sen. Fauxohontas gets a pass.

2.) Were the debt on the loans forgiven as Warren desires this would be tantamount to a form of “reparations.” Yet, it is doubtful that it would be recognized as such and even if Warren were to implement this the chant and demand for reparations would be louder than ever.

3.) In a sane world, with statistics like this, blacks would be required to provide more collateral for student loans, or, failing that, would be turned down more often for student loans, since the statistics reveal that loaning money for student loans to black “would be” students is a bad investment. This, of course, would mean, fewer black college students and fewer (unqualified) black professionals. Because of the diminution of blacks in colleges and the white collar professions loaning agencies will NEVER quit giving out loans to black “would be” students even though the loaning agencies know, by why of the statistical input, that those loans will never be repaid. It is better to make bad investments then to be thought of as “racist.”


Maybe Sen. Warren will release the unnamed statistics which she anonymously cites.

At the completion off WW II American cultural gate-keepers were convinced they had to solve the problem of preventing the possibilities of tyrannies ever rising again in the West. They concluded that the main problem that needed to be tackled was the conviction among the Western peoples that Transcendence, Metaphysics, and the sense of a “Presence of Being” existed since it was those ideas they were convinced that were behind the Hitlerian tyranny. The cultural gatekeepers reasoned that the idea “God willed it” was behind the Wars between 1914-1945.

And so, the Western Cultural gatekeepers entered into a project of stripping Transcendence from the West. Harvard leaders called a conference in 1945 and determined that what needed to be done was a careful balancing of tradition and community (the idea of the volk) with critical questioning and the idea that change was good.

Along the way this inherently unstable tertium quid broke all the restraints of tradition and community in favor of critical questioning complimented with change for the sake of change. Blockbuster books like “The Authoritarian Personality” ripped away any idea that tradition and community could ever compete with the emphasis on critical questioning and the idea that change is good.

This push by the cultural gatekeeper to re-order society, via education, away from the fearful tradition and community that they were convinced were responsible for WW II in the direction of “critical questioning,” and the wholesomeness of change explains the rise of the 1960’s counter culture. It explains the student protests of the 1960’s. It explains, burning bras, and draft cards. It explains “if it feels good, do it,” and “its your thing do what you want to do.” And it explains all the roiling change since the cultural gatekeepers after WW II decided that Transcendence and Metaphysics would no longer be the ground of our social order.

In other words, none of this continued social order rapid change since 1945 has been accidental. The cultural-gatekeepers educated the Boomers, Busters, and Millennials into cultural relativism. (If there is no Transcendence, no Metaphysics, and no remaining “Sense of being” then there remains no norm that norms all norms and cultural relativism has its hand on the rudder.) At the beginning they insisted they were going to balance tradition and community with critical questioning and the idea that change is good but this was an unstable combination that could never be successfully bound together.

The result of the disappearance of Transcendence has been the shift of Truth to meaning, Metaphysical notions of right and wrong to cultural consensus, and the “lightening” and “weightlessness” of modern man. There are no longer truths to die for, no longer a tradition to pass down to our children, no longer a “Faith of our Fathers” which might become the faith of our grandchildren.

In these respects the generations since WW II have all been of the same generation. We’ve all been educated into imbecility, all been taught that the only rampart to stand on is the rampart that says there are no ramparts to stand on, all been taught to despise each previous generation, all been taught, in the words of the Pied Piper of this Revolution,

“Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too ”

And there is only one word that fitly describes all this. A word that brings all of these plans into focus and reveals the puppet masters behind the puppets. That word is “rootlessness.” We have been trained that rootlessness is an absolute positive. Transcendence need not apply. No tradition to be allowed. No generational passing of the torch. No “presence of being.” No volk. No sense of place. No covenant belonging-ness.

Through the generations there have been one people who have excelled at rootlessness and now we Westerners belong to that tribe.”

“But what does multi-culturalism mean? Some think it means a ‘multi-racial society.’ I do not agree. What multi-culturalism means in essence is a multi-religious society.”

Stephen Perks
Common Law Wives and Concubines — p. 144

Actually, Mr. Perks is wrong here on several counts.

1.) The “multi” in “multi-culturalism” is a mask. What multi-culturalism aims at is in point of fact a mono-cultural social order. This is so because in saying that all cultures are equal what is really being said is that all cultures are the same. If all cultures are the same then which ever culture that insists that it is to be treated as unique because it is superior to all the other equal cultures must be squashed and eliminated. Multi-culturalism desires a culture where all cultures share the common ground of outlawing cultures that insist that they are superior. In this regard multi-culturalism desires to build a mono-cultural world which excludes cultures that insist that they are superior to the multi-cultural mono-cultural model.

2.) Mr. Perks insists that what multi-culturalism means is a multi-religious society but this statement is a contradiction since a genuine multi-religious society would always produce a multi-cultural society since culture is religion externalized. Any genuine multi-religious society would by necessity be a multi-cultural society.

3.) However, it is NOT true that multi-culturalism means in essence a multi-religious society. In point of fact inasmuch as multi-culturalism pursues a mono-cultural reality (see #1) it also pursues a mono-religious program. Multi-culturalism may allow for a plethora of cults in the social order but insists upon only one religion. All the cults must pinch incense to the genius of the Emperor of Statist Pluralism. Any religion that insists that it is to be superior to the mono-religion that requires all cults to pay homage to Caesar will be a religion that will be persecuted. The last thing that “multi-culturalism” desires is multi-religions.

4.) Now, as to touching the race issue that Mr. Perks raises it needs to be understood that a multi-cultural (monocultural) and multi-religious (monoreligious) social order MUST, by way of necessity, have a multi-racial (monoracial) society. If all cultures and all religions must be in subservience to the Unitarian motif of multi-culturalism then all races likewise must bleed into one. Multiculturalism will ALWAYS pursue a cafe latte colored people, if only because such a people serve as the perfect reflection of the Unitarian vision of all religions and cultures bleeding into one.