What A Nation Is … What It Means To Lose A Nation

A nation as a nation cannot exist as nothing more than a marketplace bizarre of workplaces and stores in which tokens earned at the former are then spent at the latter. Mistaking the economic machinery for a nation is the fallacy of assuming that man is nothing more than the sum of his economic spending habits. This is what we might call “the Libertarian fallacy.” A nation is more than the sum of economic individual choices as existing in that nation. A nation is a nation where there is a shared genetic stock who have a shared religion/faith who together built a shared culture with a shared language, a shared history, and a shared sense of purpose all yielding shared memories.

What happens to a society whose people have no reason to go on beyond their set routines interspersed with bouts of hedonism? What happens to a nation that loses its soul? We are living the answers to those questions. Because Christendom has reduced itself to an economic zone no longer asking or answering the larger questions of life we have lost the ability of self-understanding …. of understanding who we are together as a unique people. Having jettisoned our Christianity in exchange for bouts of libertarian hedonism we have lost the ability to think corporately. We have lost the ability to think of ourselves in terms of community being connected not only to the living who share our familial lines but we have even lost the ability to see ourselves connected to both our Fathers and our descendants. Because we have abandoned the God of our Fathers all other roots have been lost to us as well.

And so we have no auto-immune ability to resist the alien and stranger in our midst. No auto-immune ability to identify the rancid theology that is coming to us from our pulpits that reinforce our alienation, even teaching that the alienation is a positive good that should be gleefully embraced.

The first thing to go then was our undoubted catholic Christian faith. With the dissipation of that Christian faith came the dissipation of corporate self-identity. There can be no sense of belonging to a particular nation apart from a shared faith that serves as the coagulating agent that clots a particular people together.

T. S. Eliot long ago warned us that what we are now experiencing would come to pass;

‎”If Christianity goes the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great grandchildren; and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.”

T. S. Elliot
Christianity and Culture; The Idea of a Christian Society and Notes Toward the Definition of Culture — pg. 200

So, because our Christian faith declined the result of that was redefining and reducing a nation to be an economic zone where tokens earned at the workplace are exchanged for goods in the marketplace. What was lost was the ancient Christian teaching that a nation is composed of a particular people, descended from the same ancestors, as located in a particular place. Several generations later we stand on the ledge of a nation that no longer can be a nation because it is now filled with peoples who own contesting religions that work to alienate even people who share the same common Fathers from one another. Now add to this the stranger and alien who serve strange gods from foreign lands and the consequence is “things fall apart. The center cannot hold.”

As far as solutions go, the only one I have is a return to the faith of our Fathers but it strikes me that God may indeed be purging us for our rebellion against His kindness towards us. If you’re a parent with young children the best you can do right now is to pass on to them a Christian faith that is so totatlistic that it explains every aspect of their being and thinking. This must be done because the enemy will search high and low to continue to snuff out all competition to their retooling of the now declining Christendom, so as to refashion it into a haven of demons.

Egalitarianism Is The New Gospel

“Egalitarianism is Atheism because it despises the order that the good God has established in this world and would, if it could, kick God off His throne saying He had no right to make some people better than others.”

Rev. Michael Spangler
Old Paths Podcast

This is consistent with what I said yesterday in the sermon; “Egalitarianism is a denial of the Creator-Creature distinction having the consequence of dethroning God and enthroning sovereign man.”

One cannot be an egalitarian and a Christian at one and the same time because to do so is to reinterpret Christianity through an Cultural Marxist grid that holds that man is the definer of all reality. One cannot flatten all the God ordained distinctions as egalitarianism does without necessarily flattening at the same time the distinction between the Creator and the creature. Only with the destruction of the Creator-creature distinction can the project to destroy all other distinctions between man and man be successful and once the Creator-creature distinction is snuffed out all other distinctions are merely arbitrary — social constructs — and will be wiped out.

Now, since the above is true, and as of recently NAPARC churches have affirmed egalitarianism by condemning Kinism – a doctrine that merely affirms the Creator-creature distinction — therefore we must conclude that NAPARC churches are of their father the Devil.

It is not too late for NAPARC churches to pull back from the abyss of unbelief and rebellion. There is still time for them to heed the long historical record of their Father’s testimony against them concerning this trajectory they are on. There is still time for them to heed the few ministerial voices seeking to love them by calling them back from the abyss. As Christ’s ambassadors we plead with you to pull back from this egalitarianism that has become idolatry and Atheism to you. Why would you wound so severely the bride of Christ? Why would you do such damage to your own souls? Why would you overthrow God’s order and providence in order to gain the applause of those on their way to perdition?

Book Review — “Lies My LIberal Teacher Told Me”

Completed … “Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me,” by Wilfred Reilly.” Reilly does a good job at quick overviews of various strains of the Cultural Marxist DEI PC narrative that has the white people in this nation under its sway. The summ effect of Reilly’s book is to give white people especially the ability to easily disassemble some of the major myths that are used to make white people feel guilty for their past. Along the way Reilly, often using a statistical approach, reveals the lies that are sold as “everybody knows this is truth,” as inflicted by secondary Government school teachers to University Professors.

Many of the sources that Reilly cites are from books that deal uniquely with the issue being covered in a particular chapter – and are books that I myself have read in the past. For example, in Reilly’s chapter that overturns the lie that Sen. Joseph McCarthy created a witch hunt atmosphere which was completely manufactured, Reilly appeals a great deal to M. Stanton Evans’ book, “Blacklisted by History.” Another example is Reilly’s appeal to the book “White Cargo” in order to overturn the lie that teachers tell that somehow black slavery was a uniquely heinous crime committed by White Westerners against the sons of Africa. “White Cargo” was one book I read years ago that made Reilly’s argument easy to navigate through. Still, having all these resources referenced in one place in order to overthrow the lies of the cultural false narrative is quite helpful.

Along the way Reilly skewers other assorted lies besides the ones touched on above. Reilly deals with the common lie taught that the Indians were noble savages who were spoiled by the arrival of the white man. Reilly deals with the lie that the 1960s counterculture was an Aquarius Utopia that advanced the happiness of nubile women who freely gave themselves in multiple and random sexual encounters. Reilly pulls back the curtain and reveals a wee bit of the flotsam and jetsam that became of many in that generation because of the lie that the Sexual Revolution was great for women and Hippies were the good guys.

Next up Reilly exposes the nonsense that somehow white people need to be ashamed of themselves for the clause in the US Constitution that held that black slaves were only to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for taxing and representation purposes. In this chapter Reilly still presupposes that slavery was wrong (a view I do not share) and argues that the 3/5ths clause was a mercy pursued against slavery as pushed by opponents of slavery. Reilly argues that by insisting on a 3/5ths clause that the Northerners were insuring that the South would NOT get the upper hand in voting in the US House and in the Electoral College by having a greater population count that would swamp Northern numbers. By only counting each slave as 3/5ths a person Southern power was cut and so in Reilly’s reckoning that was a good thing.

The chapter I learned the most from was his chapter defending European Colonization as a net positive for those peoples who were colonized. Here Reilly argues that the advancements in technology, education, medicine and legal infrastructure has to be considered in the consideration of whether or not Colonialism was a good or bad thing. Reilly makes it clear that this lie that all Colonialism was only evil all the time is one of the main lynch pins of Marxist thought that is used against the White European. So contentious is this issue that Poli-Sci Professor, “Bruce Gilley” work supporting the positive good of Colonialism has caused a major uproar in this field of study with attempts to ruin Gilley merely because he dared suggest that colonialism was a positive good. Reilly, also, in this chapter notes that colonialism has been pursued throughout history and that the Western White man is hardly uniquely guilty (if guilt is to be assigned at all) of somehow being uniquely evil in his colonial work. This chapter, for me, was worth the price of the volume.

The chapter I disagree the most with was the chapter that defended dropping the Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t think Reilly has done his research here. Reilly argues the traditional case that the dropping of the bombs saved American lives that would have been cost with an invasion of the Japanese homeland. However, other works suggest that the Japs had already agreed to the very same terms of surrender that were finally presented to them after the bombs had been dropped. In other words, we could have had the Jap surrender before the bombs being dropped on the same terms that were achieved before the bombs were dropped. So, this chapter left me unconvinced that the dropping of the Nukes on the Japs was not evil and unnecessary.

Next up is the lie that White flight in the 50s-70s was cause by racism. Reilly argues that this can not be sustained and that it was a matter of white flight being due to an uptick in the socio-economic status of White people during that period.

If you are new to these issues it would be a good book to get ahold of. I have a niece, for example, who I wish would read this volume but I suggest she is so far over the falls now that she can’t be rescued. This book is important because of people like my niece have bought into many of the lies that this volume unravels and have organized their lives consistent with those lies that they were told by their teachers.

The Cultural Marxist Contradiction That Gives Away The Game

The Cultural Marxist left has a glaring contradiction at the center of their warfare against blood and soil nationhood. On one hand the WOKE crowd wants to say that nations are not blood and soil but only voluntary to anybody who would affirm certain propositions. This conviction is so central to the Cultural Marxist crowd that they will insist that an third world immigrant who has been here for 10 minutes can be just as American as a White man whose family has been here for 10 generations. At this point the Cultural Marxist vehemently denies ethnicity, heritage, and identity in favor of nations as a social construct.

However, the Left is in contradiction here when it pivots, for example, to indict the White man with colonialism or his alleged mistreatment of minorities. Now, the Cultural Marxist has shifted feet, and is now saying that ethnicity, heritage, and identity does exist. Now, it is the case for the Cultural Marxist, that a nation is not a social construct, as he insisted in the first paragraph, but rather now the Cultural Marxists are arguing that a nation is indeed a blood and soil reality filled with villains belonging to that blood and soil people.

We see thus that when it is convenient for nations to be social constructs for the Cultural Marxist they are but when it is not convenient for nations to be social constructs they are not. If guilt can be inherited then so can belonging. If the white man is uniquely guilty for his putative crimes against humanity then clearly the white man exists as a ontological reality and not as a social construct. If the past can be uniquely measured against white people then it must be the case that heritage and race does matter. But if heritage and race matter than propositional nationhood doesn’t work.

One can not consistently argue that national identity is purely voluntary as answering the question “Who is a European,” while simultaneously treating history as a moral ledger in which only one ethnic people incur guilt … indeed cannot avoid guilt due to their genetic identity.

The Cultural Marxist have a contradiction at the center of their thinking. So, either race/ethnicity is a thing so that racial guilt can be assigned with the consequence that it is not possible to arbitrarily claim that a Hottentot can just claim to be a European just because of magic dirt, or, race/ethnicity is not a thing so that racial guilt can not be assigned with the consequence that our Hottentot can claim to be a European five minutes after being here.

So, to be consistent, the Cultural Marxist has to either give up their rejection of blood and soil, the rejection which produces the whole propositional nationhood bit or they have to give up their insistence that there exists a white people who are uniquely guilty for anything. White people can’t exist to be guilty of anything if being White is just a social construct.

The blood and soil crowd, on the other hand are perfectly fine with saying that belonging to nations has a blood and soil component while being willing to accept the possibility, where it can be proven to their satisfaction, that somehow they are uniquely guilty, as a people, for this or that historical action.

Just so you know though … epistemologically self-conscious Christian Whites will argue that colonialism was a net positive good for non-White people. White people are proud of their colonial ways in which we bore the white man’s burden.

McAtee Contra Dr. James White On The Crusades

“But the fact is these folks are saying the Crusades did not go “far enough.” Far enough in what? Blaspheming Christ? Disparaging the gospel? Promoting hatred? What would you like to see more of, exactly? What would be “far enough?”

James White

1.) First, we have to distinguish between Crusades. Some of them were noble ventures. Some of them (like the 4th crusade) were Banker inspired and disastrous, finding Christians fighting against Christians. Notice though, that James doesn’t distinguish.

2.) One can only hold that the Crusades blasphemed Christ if one does not believe in Just War Theory, or in defensive war. White seems to not know that the initial Crusades were fought in response to Mooselimb conquering of Christian lands and the abuse of those Christians on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The initial Crusades fall under “Just War Theory,” and were honoring to the Lord Christ as the weak and judicially innocent Christians were being protected by the Knights of Europe.

2.) White complains about “promoting hatred,” seeming not to realize that there is not a thing unbiblical about hatred that is Biblical. All Biblical hatred is, is the response to someone that is attacking and seeking to destroy what the Christian loves. Hatred then of evil, is the necessary and corresponding mindset to loving what is good. As such, there is nothing wrong in the least with promoting hatred if the hatred we are promoting is wrapped up in our love for the good, praiseworthy and beautiful. The simple example is found in our loving God. If we love God we will “hate that which is evil,” as Romans 13 explicitly teaches.

In the Crusades the Mooselimbs were seeking to snuff out the Christian presence in lands that had been for centuries previously Christian. It was good to hate those who intended to destroy Christendom.

3.) Exactly, I would have liked to see more Islamic lands conquered by the sword for Christ. I would have liked to see the Mooselimb threat extinguished.

4.) Far enough would be seeing the nations covered with the Kingdom of Christ as the waters cover the sea.

5.) When the Crusader Knight Godfrey of Bouillon captured Jerusalem in the First Crusade they offered to make him king. He refused and said. “I will not wear a crown of gold in the city where Our Lord Jesus Christ wore a crown of thorns.” James White considers this blasphemous? In the Dr. James White quote above White puts on display is Anabaptist credentials. Either that or Dr. White has been educated and marinated in the soup of Enlightenment humanism and so his worldview is what it is.

James White and I really hold to two vastly different Christianities.