Rod Dreher’s Magnificent Hypocrisy

Rod Dreher decided to be the messenger of many of the worst aspects of the whole Achord affair. (Is “the Achord Affair,” our version of the “Dreyfuss Affair?”) As such he is fair game in this whole matter. Let us consider the hypocrisy of Rod in his excoriating of Achord.

1.) Dreher now lives in Hungary. Hungary is about the whitest of white Nations in existence which is doing all its can to pursue its Christianity and its ethnic roots. If ever there was a nation that was interested in White Christian Nationalism it is Hungary. Yet, here is Dreher living in the center of a nation that is the very epitome of what he is criticizing Achord for in his championing Christian Nationalism.

2.) Dreher talks about the putative moral failings of another man. These are failings that are only moral failings as existing in a New World Order social-order. There is no moral failings by Achord when you compare him to the Christian men he quotes in his book “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.” The irony here is that Dreher is accusing Achord of moral failings while being the embodiment of failing morally as seen in his recent divorce. Apparently its acceptable for a immoral man, when measured by God’s standards, to accuse a moral man of immorality.

3.) Consistent with #2 is Dreher talking about how is “wife” resigned her position with the school in question because of her horror at Achord’s beliefs. When he talks about his “wife” having to resign we are supposed to feel sympathy. Yet, Dreher is no longer married to this woman he is calling “his wife.” If Dreher has not sympathy for her as seen by his divorcing her why is he insinuating that the reader of his drivel is supposed to have sympathy for a woman he just cast aside? Note that Achord has not cast his wife aside.

4.) Dreher writes his Benedict Option advocating the necessity to “embrace exile from the mainstream culture and construct a resilient counterculture.” Well, if Dreher is going to embrace exile then let him shut the Hades up concerning those who are attempting to push pack against the current darkness. If Dreher is in exile let him stay in exile and not involve himself in the culture wars he has decided to exile himself from.

5.) Dreher advocates exile and yet when he decides to get back in the cultural ring, if only for a moment, it is to the end of punching to the right.

6.) Dreher, by his complaint, seems to communicate the thought that if he sacrifices his fellow Christian who are to the right of Dreher then somehow the left will admire him and play nice with him. I have news for Rod. If the Revolutionary left is ever successful the first people they are going to consume is useful idiots like Dreher. Dreher, ultimately, is cutting his own throat by going after people like Achord.

7.) Dreher complains about Achord’s book, “Who is my Neighbor,” yet to date nobody from the Christian community has engaged the material in that book. If Dreher was consistent he would have to say the Church father’s quoted in that volume are every bit the “racist” that he accuses Achord of being. If Achord is saying things consistent with the Church fathers how can he be accused of those things that Dreher is accusing him of?

8.) In the end the screeching at Achord by Dreher et. al. is a screeching at the Church Fathers and at Church history. They can be enraged at what the Church fathers have said all they like but in doing so they are communicating that they are sons of another Father (John 8:44-45)  besides the Fathers throughout Church history. Indeed, they are the sons of the Fathers of the Cultural Marxist and Achord’s chief sin is that he is not a cultural Marxist.

9.) Dreher wrote a book titled; “Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents.” I’m laughing so hard at the irony that my belly laugh is having a belly laugh. Dreher pens the aforementioned book and now we find the hypocrite living by lies as well as attacking a Christian Dissident. Rod, thy name is IRONY.

Fie upon the opinion of these Anti-Christs who are going after a man who merely is guilty of standing in concert with the Church Fathers who have gone before.

I would love to see Dreher, or Roberts, or Littlejohn, or any of these harpies actually tell us why the Church Fathers in the book, “Who is my Neighbor”  are wicked men and then why the book is a wicked book.

Galatians 2:11-21

11 Now when [d]Peter had come to Antioch, I [e]withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing [f]those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died [j]in vain.”

I.) The Case Behind Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

It has become the cause celebre recently to use this passage to prove that in the new covenant God designed that Christians should no longer have a concern to honor the ethnic identity which God assigned to them. The reasoning goes that in the new covenant since the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Eph. 2:14) therefore all considerations of how we belong to a nation or a people as among Christians is no longer a matter of consideration. This passage in Galatians is brought forward in order to prove this cockeyed theory.

So, we ask what is Galatians 2:1-11 all about if it is not about the errant suggestion, so popular as among the modern Gnostics in the Church, that ethnicity was abolished in the cross so that it no longer is to be a consideration among Christians.

Now, before we tease this out let us say as effusively as we can that the Scripture’s clearly teach that in Christ all believers have a spiritual bond that is not to be disregarded. Indeed, that truth forms the heart of Paul’s rebuke here in Galatians 2. Clearly, the Scripture teaches that if we lift anything, including our belonging to our family or people group, above our allegiance to Christ we are guilty of some kind of idolatry. This is why Christ teaches that;

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;

(Matt. 10:27)

Our highest love then is set on Christ. He is the treasure that is to be gained at the loss of everything else if necessary.

However, Christ does not teach that in order to love him we must disorder our natural loves. He only insists that our natural loves do not rise above our love and allegiance to Him as our summum bonum.

Indeed, Christ demonstrates the necessity for the fifth commandment to be honored when He teaches as against the very same opposition that St. Paul faces in Galatians 2;

“But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— Mt. 15:5

Here Jesus is clearly teaching the importance to honor family.

Paul reinforces this teaching of Jesus when he writes to Timothy;

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8 

So, as we come to Paul here in Galatians 2 we understand that Scripture has taught that our family/our people group is important and is to honored but not as above Christ.

And here we find the nub of the matter in Galatians 2. The Judiazers had lifted their ethnic identity above the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so much that they were insisting that if one wanted to be a Christ follower one had to first become a Judaizer. In other words Paul resists Peter here because it was the Judaizers who were insisting that Gentiles had to cease being Gentiles and become amalgamated so as to be cultural Jews.

The Judaizing sin was to insist that all the world had to be a Talmudic Jew to be a disciple of Christ.

In Galatians, Paul was the one in favor of the Church being comprised of Jew and Gentile but with the truth that these two could come together for worship and fellowship. The Judaizers and Peter were arguing that in order to be justified one had to become a socio-cultural Jew and keep the same Talmudic dietary laws. Paul, on the other hand, was reasoning that one could remain an ethnocultural Gentile and still be Christian. The Judaizers and Peter were the ones trying to force an integrated uniformitarian Church and Paul resisted them to their face and insisted that one could have a Gentile diet and be justified … Gentiles could be segregated and have their own Church. (see also Acts 15).

Peter is practicing an unbiblical favoritism because he is communicating to the Gentiles that they have to reject the new covenant in favor of the Talmudic interpreted old covenant. Paul resists Peter to his face not because Peter withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles but rather because by refusing table fellowship with the Gentiles Peter was favoring a talmudic interpreted old covenant over the new and better covenant. Peter was denying the Gospel in favor or Talmudism.

Now why do we conclude that the issue for Paul in Galatians 2:11f was not his desire for an amalgamationist Gospel but rather the issue for Paul was standing against Judaizing impulses? In other words, we are saying that this whole mess in Antioch that required rebuking Peter was not about the desire to eliminate Jewish and Gentile real ethnic distinctions but rather it was about going after the Talmudic/Judaizing attempt to redefine the Gospel as a different Gospel.

Keep in mind that among the Judaizers there were man made restrictions and stipulations when it came to table habits. These had been handed down from generation to generation by the Judaizing Rabbis who were seeking add to God’s Word. For example the Rabbis had set up a rule where meat consumed by Jews had to be processed in a definite way when purchased by a Gentile vendor. Another example had to do with washing the hands before eating — a washing not for ordinary hygienic reasons but for fear lest the hands be contaminated by contact with a Gentile (Mt. 15:1ff, Mk. 7:1ff).

So, the threat to the Gospel here in Galatians 2 is not the threat of upholding the everywhere taught in Scripture idea that there are distinct nations that remains. No, the threat to the Gospel that finds Paul so vehement about is the threat that the free grace of the Gospel was going to be changed out for a Talmudic Judaizing Gospel.

No one less than the greatest Theologian in the post Bible canon era, St. Augustine, could offer here;

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

So, away with this cultural Colonialism that keeps rearing its head in the cultural Marxist Church today. Away with this notion that Bono sang of when he envisioned “one day all colors bleeding into one.” If Jesus, right at this very moment, can remain a descendant of Judah and David then the Gospel does not include the stripping off of our creational identities.

And just in case in needs to be said, away with the idea that Christianity forbids us from having table fellowship and friendships with fellow Christians of different tribes, tongues, and nations who share a like precious faith.

Summing up this point let us observe that if we were to posit that instead of Gentile table partners the case had been that the table partners in Antioch had been Jews who were not Judaizers, and so non-observant, the complaints of those Judaizers coming from James would have been the same.

The issue here is not eating with Gentiles
The issue here is non-Talmudic lifestyles

Now, we need a sermon on Ephesians 2 in order to cement this but that will have to wait for another time.

Before moving on to the next point let us make an observation here brought up by vs. 14;

II) The Character of Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews?

Paul’s rebuke of Peter reminds us that nobody in the Church has a status that allows them to be counted as untouchable. If someone is in terrible error then they need to have, out of even love for them,  their ears boxed. Nobody gets a pass when it comes to error of this magnitude. Not even Peter … not even the Pope of Moscow, not even the R2K Escondido lads and not even those — whoever they may be — accounted today to be pillars in the Church. I hope that if I ever am in error of this magnitude someone would love me enough to metaphorically box my ears.

Note the manner Paul rebukes Peter. It is right out in the open before God and man. There is no passive aggressive campaign to undercut Peter. There is no gossip behind Peter’s back. Paul grabs the Mic, and says what he has to say and then drops the mic. There is no more to be said.

Peter’s sin was public and thus so was Paul’s rebuke. It needs to be said here that this provides a template for us when people write or speak publicly. If they are putting themselves out there publicly then it is proper to respond in public — especially when the issue is of great magnitude.

III.) The Content of Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

The context here points in the direction that what we have said so far is exactly the case. You see my friends the issue here is not the idea that the new covenant requires ethnic and cultural assimilation. The issue here is the character of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is the connection between verses15-16 and what went previously. What is being argued here is this;

If a Jew who, having turned to Christ, has learned that strict and exacting obedience to legal requirements — human and divine — will not bring him into the Kingdom, tries, nevertheless, to impose such legalism upon the sinner Gentiles, his effort to place this burden upon them has no excuse.

If we were to paraphrase the verses above into a language that might make more sense to us we would offer;

“Though we are by birth, race and descent Jews who are a highly privileged people, and not nekulturny sinners of Gentile descent, yet, when we learned that our works done in obedience to the law –both divine and human — could never be adequate to make us righteous in God’s sight, and that this standing could be attained only by trusting in Jesus Christ, even we, who in self esteem were always looking down on the Gentile goyim, began to se that before God we were not any better than they. Hence, even we embraced Christ by a living faith, in order that by means of the exercise of faith we might receive as a free gift, that standing of being ‘not guilty, but righteous’ in God’s sight. It was by faith in Christ and His merits, and definitely not by our obedience to the law, that we received this blessing of being righteous, for by works done in obedience to law — human or divine — no weak earthly, perishable human, whose works never reach the goal of perfection, will ever be able to attain to the standing of righteousness before God.”

If this is an accurate free hand rendering of vs. 15-16 we see the abject silliness in seeking to make Galatians 2 prove that the new covenant demands ethnic assimilationism. A thousand times “NO.” Galatians 2 is about the attempt of the Judaizers to deny Justification by faith alone.

The verb “to justify” used here in the passive voice of the Greek verb — hence to be justified — occurs here for the first time in St. Paul’s epistles and is used three times to boot in these two vs.

So, we should ask what is Galatians 2 teaching about “to be justified.” As we examine this keep in mind that the word “justified” has different senses. The context has to be examined.

In Galatians 2:15-16 the three passive verbs of dikaios are used in the typical forensic/judicial sense. In this context justification is best defined as that free and gracious act of the Father, whereby on the alone basis of Christ’s accomplished mediatorial cross work, the Father declares the sinner as meeting all the requirements of His just Law and so is legally just in God’s court — and the latter accepts this by faith. Whereas prior the sinner was — subjectively speaking — judicially under condemnation, now He is justified.

This reminds us that our standing with God is based upon God’s judicial declaration wherein He accepts the blood atoning work of Jesus Christ as our substitute. Justification screams that we are righteous by works but not our work. We are righteous by the works of Jesus Christ. Therefore our works as a consideration are (thank God) not part of the equation. Christ fully meets the demands of God’s law — both the demands for perfect obedience and the demand that past accrued guilt — both natural and actual — be paid with the price of blood.

Conclusion

Briefly, since we are over time now, we want to articulate here something so obvious that it might be missed the way that a fish misses the importance of the water all around him — and that because the water is just so much part of his environment that he can’t see it.

The obvious thing we need to say is that the kind of Judaizing-Talmudism which brought this whole conflict on, hates with a mad passion Biblical Christianity. It is the case here in Galatians 2. It is the case in Acts 15. Judaizing-Talmudism remains in opposition to Biblical Christianity. We would do well to keep that in mind.

Let us continue to pray that God in Christ might grant redemption to the Judaizers-Talmudists as well as the useful idiots in the Church who continue to do their bidding.

 

 

 

 

 

HC Question 27 — God’s Providence

Question 27: What dost thou mean by the providence of God?

Answer: The almighty and everywhere present power of God;1 whereby, as it were by His hand, He upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures;2 so that herbs and grass, rain and drought,3 fruitful and barren years, meat and drink,4 health and sickness,5 riches and poverty,6 yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.7

In Question 27 we are still dealing with the work of the Father confessed in the Apostles Creed. We now have moved from the creation work of God the Father Almighty to His ongoing work of sustaining (upholding) and governing His creation. The word the Catechizers use for God’s continuous work of upholding (sustaining) and governing His creation is “providence.”

This idea of providence was once central to the ways Christian’s spoke. If you listen carefully, the way we currently speak lacks this idea of providence. Instead, you will hear the idea of “luck” falling out of people’s mouths. And while we don’t want to be too exacting when we deal with people, it simply is the case that “luck” in our thinking has often replaced the idea of God’s total and overweening providence. This is to be expected from a people who have lost awareness of living in God’s presence. “Luck” bespeaks mindless chance, whereas “providence” reminds us that all things happen by God’s almighty and everywhere present power. We live in a world that pulses with God’s providential control exercised as by His upholding and governing all things.

Heb. 1:3, Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The reality of God’s providence reminds us we do not live in a world upheld and governed by dark chaos and old night. The world and the events of the world do not unfold randomly or haphazardly but unfold as ordered by God the Father’s everywhere present power. This providence of God reminds us that God is always present — always present as a Father to His people and always present as an exacting judge to the reprobate. God the Father Almighty is never in need of anything from His creatures and is the one who;

giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

Acts 17:25–28

Were humans wise they would, upon learning this, fall on their faces to worship He who upholds and governs all things.

The fact that God the Father Almighty upholds and governs all things reminds us that God is not absent from the world He has created. God is present and is not silent. His presence is attested to by all that happens. The idea that God upholds all things communicates the truth that the continuance of the cosmos and everything in it is dependent upon God the Father Almighty. The idea that God governs all things communicates the truth that this continuing cosmos is ordered and ruled by the God whose power and person is always and everywhere present.

Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in [c]hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall [d]fall on me,”
Even the night shall be light about me;
12 Indeed, the darkness [e]shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

Psalm 139

Whereas before we have been considering God’s Almightiness (Omnipotence) here it is God’s omnipresence (everywhere present at all times) that is emphasized.

As Question 27 ends we return to the matter of God’s everywhere present power with a litany of examples explaining the exhaustiveness of God’s upholding and governing. It is God’s the Father’s almighty upholding and governing hand that accounts for;

herbs and grass, rain and drought,3 fruitful and barren years, meat and drink,4 health and sickness,5 riches and poverty,6 yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.7

We should not miss here that the Catechizer’s insist everything — both what we call blessing and what we call tragedy — come to us ordered by God’s sustaining and upholding. This life for the Christian is ordered by a personal God whose sovereignty is total and complete.

This is a truth that is required to be embraced by faith. For example, it is only faith in God’s goodness and providence that carried and carries me through having a much loved grand-daughter who was born broken and damaged with severe cerebral palsy. Can I receive even this as coming from the hand of God the Father Almighty who upholds and governs all things by His mighty hand or shall I begin to conclude that somehow God was absent from such a sorrow filled reality? If God is absent from the bumps and bruises of life then when those times come where is the Christian to turn? To the fates? To the idea that somehow Satan overcame God? To some kind of idea that teaches, “well, God didn’t want this but, you know, sometimes God is sovereign enough to not be sovereign.” Away with all such foolishness. If God is God then away with ideas of “bad luck,” or “chance” or anything else. If God is God let us praise His name by kissing the Shepherd’s staff when in His wisdom He wields it upon us. If God’s providence is not true in just this kind of manner then I have no interest in worshiping God. All things are from the Lord God omnipotent. And while I may struggle with some of those realities (a broken grand-daughter for example) at the end of the day I must join with my Father Job and say;

“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”

Other faith traditions (Arminianism) who seek to lessen God’s sovereignty don’t solve the problem of evil. Instead what they give you is the reality of the evil as combined by a God who can’t do anything about it. One ends up with not only the evil but also a severely diminished God hardly worth worshiping.

When God chooses to send to His people drought, barren years, sickness, and poverty, God’s people must be equipped in knowing that God is good and that this good God has sufficient reasons yet unknown and undeclared to us as to His purposes for the drought, barren years, sickness, and poverty that are providentially sent and ordered for our lives. We must remember that our good God will “will make whatever evils He sends upon me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage.”

The Scriptures that explicitly teach that God the Father Almighty, in His work of providence, does indeed governs all that comes into our lives is taught explicitly in Scripture;

A.) God’s providence and rain

3Jer. 5:24, Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in His season: He reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.

4Acts 14:17, Nevertheless He left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

B.) God’s Providence and sickness and health;

5John 9:3, Jesus answered, Neither hath this (blind) man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

C.) God’s providence in wealth and poverty;

6Prov. 22:2, The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all.

Job 1:21, And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

D.) There is no such thing as chance. God providentially ordains all;

7Matt. 10:29–30, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Eph. 1:11, In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.

Christians have a choice. They can either worship the God of the Bible who by His providence upholds and governs all things and so be realistic about the word “sovereignty” or they can worship a god of their own imagination.

Addendum

One final word here. When it comes to God’s providence we insist that though we affirm God’s providence we admit that we don’t always know what God is doing in His providence. There is, within some expressions of Christianity, a knee-jerk pseudo-prophetic inclination for people to think they can always interpret God’s providence. Some people are inclined to think they can file through God’s filing cabinets are hard drives and be able to tell you why a hardship comes into your life. While, it is certainly true that there are times when we may be able to trace out the lineaments of what God is doing in His providence, we need to be careful about falling into a “this is that” mentality. It simply is the case that we often do not know why God is doing or has done what He is doing or has done. For example, I will never know, in this life with certainty, why God wounded my Grand-daughter Ella. Similarly, there are many things that will come into our lives that we will have to wait till the eschaton arrives in order to understand. Be wary of people who think they can tell you what every piece of God’s providence in our life means. They can be well intended and fruit-cakes at the same time.

Blessing the Name of Achord While Extending a Fie Upon the Enemies of Dr. Achord

I don’t personally know Dr. Achord. I have profited greatly from his Anthology “Who is My Neighbor” co-edited with my good friend Darrell Dow. I have listened to him on his Ars-Politica podcast. I have seen him interviewed. And now I have read his explanation of what happened to this good and godly man in experiencing cancel culture as levied by those considered to be “pillars in the Church.”

This one cuts kind of close. As the readers here know, I was the target of a huge doxxing and cancel culture effort at the beginning of 2020. This was on the heels of a mighty struggle against the ecclesiastical structure that I was at the time associated with (and yet not really a part of) at the end of 2018. I don’t mind saying that those 18 months took the wind out of my sail. At the time I didn’t think I was going to survive that travail. All of it raked on my soul and frankly unmanned me. Only God’s mercy and grace brought me through. So, I know personally and up close what Dr. Thomas Achord may be going through.

Today Dr. Achord provided his side of the story in this matter here;

View at Medium.com

The reading of the above reveals that Thomas is a man of character. I can guarantee you that I would not be so generous as he is being.

And here Dr. Stephen Wolfe provides an explanation of this outrage;

Now, one’s temperature begins to rise when one realizes that those “Christian” men responsible for this Achord doxxing are not going to be held responsible in this life. This is one of those cases that we entrust that the guilty will get their comeuppance in that great and final day. God will make all accounts right.

I am going to mention here that some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the Institution that allowed themselves to be stampeded so as to “resign” Dr. Thomas Achord. Dr. Achord seeking to pour oil on the waters bows out with grace. However, I must say that it seems it is the same kind of men who are in charge of our Institutions as who are out there doing the doxxing. Could not these men at the Institution in question and who agreed to  Achord’s “resignation” at least waited until the smoke of battle had cleared to assess what had really happened?

Another thing to consider is how weary I am with the “point and splutter” technique that remains so successful among our wussified culture. The whole thing is akin to a bunch of Jr. High girls screaming about a mouse loose in the lunch-room. The analogy is especially apt since those doing the doxxing are indeed acting like Jr. High girls. If they were men they would demand a duel or try to bring the man up on charges in some Church court. Instead they scream like little girls. Disgust is too mild of a word for what I feel for these effeminate creepers. It is the same way I felt about those who hid behind their media empire when blackening my name.

Today has been a somewhat hard day for me because all that has happened to Dr. Achord brought back to me the hard years of 2018-2020. I have finally arrived at the point that Thomas is already at and that is the reason he has my admiration. He got there much quicker than I did.

However, while we as Christian men seek to take these kinds of things in stride and with a sanctified aplomb we must also at the same time pray imprecatory prayers against the kind of wicked wicked men who would go to these ends to do the ruinous to god-fearing men. While we pray that they may know the joy of conversion, we at the same time pray that if they refuse to bend the knee that God would utterly destroy them.

If you want to do a good work you can go here to help support the Achord family until Thomas and his growing family gets back on his/their feet;

https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1?sharemsg=display&fbclid=IwAR0hEhJcGv7bZjbBS5DWyjBsuqWno7aBIQmj47wGtfYnYv9gUw6HEdKXEB8

Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “Breadcrumb Methodology?”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe discusses the blood ties between Moab and Israel as and example.

Then he says this:

“Nations today are NOT built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial. The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations–those of his kin. But the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place. Christian philosopher Johann Herder was correct in saying that the volk is a ‘family writ large’. This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood, but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land–to this nation in this place–and so they bind you to that people and place creating a common volkgeist.”

Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism — p. 139

When I first read the above I found it to be a word salad that is full of both implied and direct contradiction. I still find it perplexing unless…

I am rethinking Wolfe’s book in the context of all the Hub-bub it is creating. It is the darndest thing to see Wolfe getting hit by all sides. I have read reviews that claim that Wolfe is being a clever Nazi and comparing Wolfe’s book with Mein Kampf. (The good ole “ad-Hitlerum” logical fallacy.) Then there are people like me who don’t see Uncle Adolph (inside joke) but instead see Wolfe trying to avoid the inescapable “ethno” in the idea of Nationalism. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy getting hit by both sides like this. I hope the man makes some good money off the book  in order to offset all the grief he has been getting — even to the point of people destroying his friends livelihood in trying to pull Wolfe down by being associated with these alleged Nazi racists.

Because of all this fire from both sides I have been re-thinking what this book of Wolfe is. What is it trying to accomplish. What accounts for the methodology behind the book?

For the sake of argument just pretend you’re writing a book for an audience that is receptive to Nationalism but is on the fence regarding the ethnic side of it. Pretend that you as the author understand that the ethno in ethno-Nationalism is never going to fly in this politically correct, multi-cultural context. How would you go about writing a book that advances the ball on ethno-Nationalism while avoid the issue of the ethno? You know if in the book you state the obvious about Nationalism it will never even get published.

As such you decide to go all clever and describe all the accouterments of Nationalism in your book hinting strongly at the ethnic part and yet keeping it at arm’s length in terms of explicitly saying it. You get close to speaking about the ethno in ethno-Nationalism and then you beat a hasty retreat in order to avoid outraging the normies and the cultural-Marxist gatekeepers in the Western Church.

Instead you decide to drop all kinds of breadcrumbs to lead your reader, who may be hesitant to come to your conclusion if you said it overtly, to the conclusion that can’t help but be reached concerning ethno-Nationalism because the breadcrumbs you have dropped along the way in your book? Perhaps Wolfe is seeking to get people wet before he advocates swimming?

Now, this methodology is not for me, and I think it is better to throw a bucket of cold water on those who can’t swim. I think it is better to fastened your bold colors on the mast so that people know who you are from a league away. However, though it is not my style, and though I don’t think it is particularly effective, I can see other people believing this methodology might work.

Was Wolfe being this kind of clever in his book? Did he realize that most people embracing his broad outline of what Christian Nationalism is would then invariably embrace the ethno part of ethno-nationalism without him even having to be overly clear about his conviction on the matter?

I’m beginning to think this is a possibility. I think that Wolfe may have been going for conversion via the indirect route as opposed to going for conversion by my “in your face” route.

As an addendum please pray for Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Achord. Dr. Achord, a close friend of Wolfe’s was doxxed and fired from his job with the hopes that Wolfe could be found guilty by association with Achord.

Now, Achord has done nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has written if we were living in a sane world. But we are no longer living in a sane world. The Stalinists in the Church are in charge, and the Stalinists are insisting that if you do not embrace their vision of Christianized Cultural Marxism then it is “off with your head.” 

Achord is not the first victim of this bull fecal behavior and he won’t be the last.