A Bird’s Eye View On The History Of The Post-War Consensus And Some Implications

As of late the idea of “the post-war consensus” has been getting a good deal of air time. This has been a handy phrase but it really failed what it was trying to describe. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy makes it clear in his book “Out of Revolution” that we are now calling the “Post war consensus” should properly be termed as the “post Enlightenment consensus” or, the “post-French Revolution consensus.” All that we are fighting now in our labeling of the “Post war consensus” was present in and after the French Revolution. This is due to the fact that it’s all the same consensus and that consensus is based on the idea of Revolutionary thinking. It really has been the case that at least since the French Revolution the West has been Trotskyite, inasmuch as we have been living in perpetual Revolution. All of this is what Rosenstock-Huessy labels, “The Autobiography of Western Man.” What we have now with what we label the “Post-war consensus” is merely the Revolution inaugurated in France all growing up into adult maturity.

And the sad news here, is that unless this is reversed the French Revolution consensus will continue to expand its monstrous nature so that 50 years from now we will be calling it the “Post new century consensus,” or something like that. This consensus thing is never going to quit growing until the life is choked out of it.

And the only way that happens is by a return to Biblical Christianity. What we call “the Post War Consensus” might be more properly called “The Anti-Christ consensus.” The French Revolution was all about overthrowing God, King and Church — the Ancien Regime that was based on that. Remember the motto of the French Revolution was “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Their rally cry was “No God … No King.” All that we see now is just the working out of that principle as subsequent to the latest great leap forward in this Revolution — what we call WW II.

The cure to all this is what Kinism is all about. People think Kinism is merely about marriage, adoption, and the proper order of natural love. Kinism is about that but it is about much more than that. Kinism is and always has been about overturning what we call the post-war consensus, and inasmuch as one can’t have consistent Kinism without theonomy so it is the case also that theonomy has always been primarily a counter-revolutionary movement against the post-war consensus and its greater Father, “the post French Revolution consensus.”

This is why the work done against Doug Wilson is so important. Wilson, White, Boot, Sandlin, etc. all would drag us back to continue to live under this Revolutionary autobiography of man. Oh, sure, they would sanctify it and make it “more tolerable” but at the end of the day these chaps want to smoke a peace pipe with the age of Revolution. The work being done by Kinists and others who have not yet the consistency of the Kinist movement is instrumental in overthrowing this 200 plus march of Trotskyite social order revolution. This is not primarily about marriage, nations, Natural law vs. God’s law, etc. This is about whether we will have civilization as defined theocentrically or whether we will have civilization as defined anthropocentrically. The question reduces down to whether we will be governed by our Christian confessions or will we be governed by the Humanist Manifestos.

There are good men out there right now who are being mowed down by other men that people want to think are good. Keep in mind that not all that glitters is gold. Many Christian men atop many Christian organization are pulling an Esau on us and are selling our birthrights as White Anglo Saxon Christians.

This is a time of dividing. As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

Multiculturalism Meets Law Enforcement

NYC Cops are now turbaned Sikhs
And in Dearborn they model Burqa Chic
In LA they’re playing in Mariachi Bands
While in Minneapolis Cops belong to the Somali Clans

We call it the multicultural Dance
Change your zip code, take your chance
We’re all one big happy nation
The United States of Aberration

And when this kaleidoscope music finally stops
When Heritage Americans need a friendly Cop
When fleeing peril or escaping plight
They better hope their Cop is White

Synchronicity …. Wherein Martin Luther & The Outlaw Josey Wales Agree

“You can expect from me everything save fear or recantation. I shall not flee, much less recant. I shall go to Worms if there were as many devils there as there are tiles on the roofs of the houses.”

Martin Luther

“Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”

Josey Wales

Muslim Apologetics In Two Minutes

A well-known evangelist was entering a Muslim country and had this conversation with the customs official.

Customs Official: “For what purpose are you entering my country?

Christian Traveler; “I am a Christian evangelist and have been invited by here by your government for a debate at one of your universities.”

Customs: “Tell me sir. What do you think of Mohammed?”

Christian Traveler: “May I ask you a question?”

Customs: “Yes.”

Christian Traveler:  “Can a prophet lie?”

The Custom’s Officer  thought for a moment and said,

“No. A prophet cannot lie.”

Christian Traveler:  “Mohammed was a prophet?”

Customs:  “Yes.”

Christian Traveler;  “Mohammed said Jesus was a prophet?”

Customs:  “Yes.”

Christian Traveler;  “Jesus said He was God. If Jesus was right then Mohammed was wrong. And if Jesus was wrong, Mohammed was still wrong because Mohammed said Jesus was right!” 

The Customs official stamped his passport and said,

“Get out of here!” 

Exposing The Nakedness Of R2K On The Noahic Covenant

“The pluralism of the Noahic covenant requires members of the human community, Christians included, to cultivate the virtue of tolerance. Tolerance is a proper feature of justice in our fallen but pressured world.”

David VanDrunen
Politics After Christendom

In R2K “theology” The Noahic covenant was a covenant that applied to all mankind and not merely the redemptive line. It was a common grace covenant. This means therefore that in the public square we must realize that God rules by Natural Law and because the public square is the space of common grace where all men interact, therefore the public square must be characterized by tolerance (principled pluralism). This means that no one God can be uniquely God of the public square since God, via the Noahaic covenant has ordained that the public square is a realm of common grace and not saving grace.

Therefore tolerance is the virtue of all virtues as it relates to the public square. The Noahic covenant including all mankind is the basis of a required tolerance in and for the public square.

However, if the Noahic covenant was NOT an expression of the one redemptive covenant of grace as per Van Drunen and the R2K boys then we should not have found in the Noahic covenant;

1.) Noah as a High Priest
2.) Making sacrifice
3.) On an altar
4.) Wherein God takes pleasure
5.) And provides a covenantal sign
6.) to not destroy mankind
7.) so that He can continue to Redeem his people from the world

The Noahic covenant IS an expression of the one redemptive covenant of Grace. David Van Drunen and the R2K lads are full of Shedd’s Nutty Peanut Butter.

The Noahic covenant is made with Noah — God’s representative covenant head — and Noah’s household. This clues us in immediately that this covenant is indeed a redemptive covenant since it is a covenant made with those who have experienced God’s redemption. (Note also that the language, in speaking to Noah and His household, is the same kind of language used when God makes covenant with Abraham.)

We thus finding continuity with the sacrificial, typological, and gracious character continued with the Abrahamic covenant, which in turn teaches us that the Noahic covenant is continuous with God’s unfolding of the one covenant of grace. Now, one of the bits of additional revelational information about the one covenant of grace that we get with the Noahic covenant is that the covenant of grace includes provision that will sustain all creatures so that all creatures can experience providential benefits that are the residual effects of God’s redeeming of his particular people.

From this we learn that the Noahic covenant is not directly made with all people, though the Noahic covenant has an indirect and consequential effect on all people. This means that Van Drunen is clearly in error when he teaches that the Noahic covenant is a common grace covenant that is non-Redemptive and if the R2K project is in error at this point it fails completely. Do not misunderstand this point. If the Van Drunen (R2K) interpretation of the Noahic covenant fails then the whole idea of a common rule fails and the whole idea of Natural Law ruling the common realm fails. So also falls the R2K allegiance to principled pluralism as a Christian virtue fails. It all comes tumbling down.

Whether one views the Noahic covenant as a administration of the one covenant of grace or views it as a kind of gracious interruptus that teaches a common grace covenant what we must say is that the difference here ends up being a continental divide in one’s theology, personality and character. If it is true that as a man thinketh in his heart so he is, the thinking on this point ends up making HUGE difference all the way down the line. The implications are MONUMENTAL.

Because of the vast implications we would offer that the theologoumenon  (a theological statement which is of individual opinion and not doctrine) of the non-redemptive Noahic covenant is a mischievous heresy, and ought to be prosecuted in Church courts as such. Such an opinion is anti-Christological to the core. See Col 1 and Eph 1.  The fact that such an opinion should be prosecuted in Church courts is all the more necessary because this trash doctrine is being used to lock people out of ordination.

Every administration of the one covenant of grace brings a further expansion of revelational insight into the meaning of that one covenant of grace. As such, to insist that the Noahic covenant was NOT an expression of the one covenant of grace, but was instead merely a “common covenant” as R2K does is a ham-fisted handling of the covenant of Grace. Only someone trained at a Jesuit College could figure out how to so convincingly bollix up the history of redemption found in covenant theology.