Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
Quatrain 1a
I sing the bitter I know, the taste I meet
My enduring of the potion my taste buds greet
The bitter of Sage Tea. Come dear mug
Flow down my throat, and serve as drug
The herb within thee, still angry at being picked
Come work thy magic and this illness evict
Thin my phlegm with thy noxious taste
And leave no malady that might be traced
“Judea as an enemy did not yet bulk large above Himmler’s horizon. He had excluded Jews from his elite SS as racially inferior, but he did not yet recognize the Jews as a noisy and virulent opponent of National Socialism.
He should have paid them more attention. Seen from the relative tranquility of the Twenty-First Century, the Jews of Europe figure disproportionately on each side of the Twentieth’s balance sheets of cruelty, both as perpetrators and their prey – as torturers and tortured, as murderers and victims. They had been comprehensively expelled for hundreds of years from many countries, including the most civilized. Although comprising barely 4% of Russia’s population, Jews were at the forefront of Moscow’s 1917 revolution. By the end of 1918, Jews filled 457 of the 556 top Bolshevik posts. Speaking to a Jewish audience in 2013, President Vladimir V. Putin himself mischievously underlined that eighty-five percent of the first Soviet government were Jews.
Perhaps they seemed far away. Far beyond Germany’s eastern horizon, the Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Ilych Lenin, himself of concealed Jewish origin, had fashioned this rootless, fanatical racial group into the most ruthless arm of his dictatorship. Jews had taken over leadership of the feared Cheka, the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage,’ ever since Lenin set it up by decree in December 1917. The Cheka and its unlovely successors, GPU and the NKVD, established outposts, largely officered by Jews, throughout the Soviet empire, a practice which would continue long after the coming water. Jews had notoriously provided the murderers who had cruelly ended the Romanov (Czar) dynasty. One Jew signed the warrant, and handed it to another Jew to execute; a Talmud student and Cheka agent carried out the actual killings, with two others. They shot, bayoneted, and bludgeoned to death the former Tsar, his wife, and their five children with their staff in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk) one night in July 1918, then pillaged the bodies and attempted to burn them.
Published statistics showed that in 1934 Jews dominated Stalin’s security apparatus; 38.5% of its senior officers were of Jewish origin. Often they had Germanic names, which they as often concealed – Kamenev was born Rosenfeld, etc. A historian, Sever Plocker, also a Jew, estimated that these Jews were responsible for twenty million deaths. While their fellow-travelers in the West turned a blind eye, Lenin and Stalin preferred to rely on Jewish interrogators, executioners, and judges, as Plocker found. Genrich (Heinrich) Yagoda, the founder of the NKVD, alone had ten million lives on his conscience. He was replaced in 1936 by Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov, a five-foot-tall Gentile who had taken a Jewish wife, Yevgenia Feigenburg. Yezhov came to an unfortunate end. His accomplice Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich outdid even him, while Leonid Reichman, the NKVD’s chief interrogator, would deservedly enter the annals of Red Terror. All were Jews. ‘Many Jews,’ summarized Plocker angrily, ‘sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution – and have blood on their hands for all eternity.’
Neither Himmler nor Heydrich had yet taken into account of this Jewish element of Bolshevik history. In Heydrich’s papers, now partly housed in Moscow, we find that for five years after the National Socialists came to power, he ranked the Catholics, followed by Protestants and freemasons as Germany’s most dangerous enemies. Judea – das internationale Judentum – come only seventh.”
David Irving
True Himmler – p. 299-300
“Since, the Mosaic covenant, as noted, was designed in part to highlight the ultimate penalty that every sin deserves, under the protological law of the covenant of Creation (and will be administered at the final judgment). God willed that some sins be met with punishment that can not be accounted for in terms of intra-human relations. These sins are abhorrent to God even if they may strike people today as insignificant (such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath) or as strange but basically harmless (such as sex with animals). In contrast to the Mosaic covenant, the Nohaic covenant explicitly ordains civil penalties only in terms of intra-human relations, and points to the Lex Talionis as the standard for human retributive justice. Thus the fact that contemporary civil law should rest on the Noahic Natural Law again has significant ramifications for thinking through the contemporary relevance of particular civil penalties under the Mosaic law.”
David Van Drunen (DVD)
Divine Covenants & Moral Order – p. 511
1.) Note the hermeneutic of a hard discontinuity between the Nohaic and Mosaic covenant. Hermeneutics of discontinuity are a hallmark of Baptist theologies.
2.) The idea of turning the Noahic covenant into a “common grace/Natural Law” covenant is completely innovative to Reformed theology as pursued first by Meredith Kline and later by David Van Drunen and the R2K fanboys. Nobody of any consequence, prior to DVD sought to bleed off the redemptive continuity found in the Noahic covenant vis-a-vis the other epochs of the one unfolding covenant of grace.
3.) By introducing a fracture here in the one unfolding covenant of grace, Kline and later DVD introduces a dualism into their theology whereby the Abrahamic covenant is seen as gracious, the Noahic is seen as common, and the Mosaic is seen as a return to the covenant of works, except when it is not. (R2K fanboys are forever dividing the Mosaic covenant into one of grace for the nation while at the same time being one of works for the individual.) This is a kind of subservient covenant but it is a complete innovation of subservient covenant theology prior to Kline.
4.) For DVD (the disciple of Kline) and for all R2K fanboys, the Mosaic covenant is like a scaffolding that falls away from the building once the New and Better covenant arrives. The Ten Words, particularly as applied to the public square, are eclipsed in a return to the Noahic common grace/Natural law covenant. The dualism remains as the Church is ruled by God’s special revelation while the public square is cordoned off from the Church and its representatives, and is ruled by Noahic Natural Law. These two realms (church and common) are sealed off from one another and the Church has no business speaking to the common realm and the magistrates in the common realm are to be hands off regarding the regulation of the Church within the Church.
5.) Notice, in the quote above, the playing off of the Mosaic covenant with the Noahic covenant. The Mosaic covenant, both in its Moral law and in the application of the Moral law is completely bypassed as a standard for the public realm in favor of Noahic Natural Law.
6.) Notice the Marcion move in the above quote. God wanted His people ruled one way in the old and worse covenant but now in the new and better covenant God has lifted those previous standards and now what was penalized in the old and worse covenant are now bypassed in the new and better covenant. God’s standard has changed and so we are dealing with a different God in the new and better covenant.
7.) DVD does look bad in this quote because God’s abhorrence for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and for bedding farm animals only applies as under the Mosaic covenant. We are now ruled by Noahic covenant & these sins are no longer so abhorrent to God so as to require the death penalty in the non-sacred realm. DVD, is saying here, that since the Mosaic covenant is no longer applicable and since we live under the Natural Law Noahic covenant when active in the public square therefore the civil realm is not required to make laws forbidding bestiality since such action is not a intra-human relationship.
8.) The whole appeal here is to Natural law, in the common square, as established, per DVD, by the Noahic covenant. Noahic Natural law does not necessarily require any kind of civil penalty for bedding farm animals, though if people bed farm animals and don’t repent God will visit their alone and intimate time with farm animals with judgment. God can and will exact penalty. The civil Magistrate shouldn’t exact penalty.
9.) One wonders if DVD himself finds bedding farm animals to be “strange but basically harmless.” It is a curious way to put the matter.
Any engagement with someone on the Cultural Marxist Left (hereafter CML) becomes a revelation of why worldviews matter. Further, any engagement with the CML becomes testimony that arguments and reason are not received in good faith by the CML.
The CML own a worldview that has as it main presupposition that reality is fundamentally made up of a oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic. That is their imagined starting point. Having that as their fantasy starting point they further imagine their Utopian world where oppression (as they define it) no longer exists. They own this vision of an Utopian egalitarian world and then in all their “reasoning” they war against anyone who doesn’t share this primary presupposition and the subsequent implication that the world must be repaired (Tikkun olam) by putting down the oppressors and lifting up the oppressed.
Never mind that the oppressed might be oppressed because they need to be oppressed. If any oppression anywhere exists as experienced by anybody (sodomites, trannies, furries, feminists, Satanists, etc.) that oppression needs to be lifted and it is their mission in life to see that happen.
The CML reasoning matrix looks something like this;
1.) Imagine a egalitarian/Utopian world
2.) Create and name gaps between said Imagined world and the real world
3.) Insist that said gaps are examples of oppression that need to cease
4.) Tikkun Olam
So, when one encounters the CML one is encountering someone who has an alternate view of reality. They used to call that being insane. There is no common ground between someone whose main presupposition is anchored in the oppressed vs. oppressor egalitarian Utopian fantasy world and someone who believes that hierarchy is good, that some people need to be oppressed because they are wicked, that Christianity is superior to all other false religions, and that the CML smells of sulfur.
Let’s us speak here a moment about the vision of the CML. How exactly does the CML want to repair the world. Well, in the CML world the Trustee family (and even the nuclear family) must be destroyed. For CML the family introduces hierarchy into the world. Hierarchy is evil because hierarchy automatically means somebody is being oppressed. As such, the family has to be reimagined and redefined. This usually means the pursuit of tearing down patriarchy since family in the West, created and shaped by Christianity, was patriarchal. Patriarchy, like hierarchy, is oppressive and must be ended. This is turn means rabid support for Feminism since the way to tear down Patriarchy is by having Matriarchy.
Secondly on this score, education becomes a primary tool of the CML to repair the world. Schools have become and must continue to be centers of radicalization. Education as the responsibility of brainwashing children into seeing the wicked oppressive nature of their own culture. White children must be taught that they come from a inherently oppressive and wicked stock. Perversion must be taught as being praiseworthy because by perversion the oppression of the straight white males can be brought to a halt. Schools must teach and inculcate the oppressor vs. oppressed reality and enlist the kiddie to be part of the cadres who are resolved to repair the world by being part of the long march through the institutions. Schools must become transmission belts that pass on the oppressed vs. oppressor world as well as hatred of Biblical Christianity.
Thirdly, Western culture being a primary carrier of oppression must be socially re-engineered. Culture is a means by which consent is arrived at and so culture must be commandeered by the CML to manufacture a oppressor vs. oppressed worldview. Culture is socially engineered by the media world producing film and television that mocks the “oppressors” and honors the oppressed. Culture is socially engineered by the State as it passes laws that countenance and approve of things like sodomy, abortion, and transexualism. Culture is socially engineered by the “Church” when it retreats in the face of the work of the CML to “repair the world,” and by becoming silent. Cultural is socially engineered by parents who refuse to say “no” to their children who have are and becoming socially engineered because the parents are too afraid of losing Johnny or Susie.
Fourthly, even something as benign as language must be weaponized to advance the cause of the CML. Language is thought to have encoded power dynamics and so it must be altered to serve the CML ends. Pronouns become person variable. Certain words are not allowed to be uttered. Orwellian doublethink must be learned and employed.
Consider also that the CML worldview is not falsifiable. This means that the oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic can never reach a point of resolution because there will always be a new oppressor and oppressed class. The CML requires oppression. It is the fuel by which it is propelled. This means that for every putative oppression that is ended in the pursuit to repair the world, there will be three more putative oppressions that will arise that need to warred against. The CML demands a lowest common denominator world as it always pursues ever more disintegration into the void of egalitarian Utopianism. There is always someone who is not equal and we all must be brought down to that lowest level. If you disagree at any point along the disintegration into the CML void you will be cast aside as a “bigot,” or as someone who wants to protect their privilege or as someone that is inflicting harm.
The CML is living in a different reality and their goal is reshape the world (Tikkun Olam) to fit their alternate delusional reality. Reasoning with these people is a waste of time. They are examples of those Jesus the Christ spoke of when he advised the necessity of shaking the dust off your feet. To reason with these people is to cast pearls before swine. Our prayers for them must be that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to see the miserable end that their thinking will bring them that they might repent and trust Christ alone.
“Despite the Knights Templars’ explosion in popularity, then as now, there were naysayers and scoffers who criticized the fledgling brotherhood for taking up arms, instead of behaving like ‘true Christians’ — that is, forsaking the world and leading purely contemplative lives praying, fasting, and mediating.
Others were more explicit. Safe in his monastery near Poitiers the Cistercian monk, Isaac of Etoile, could scoff; ‘There has sprung up a new monster, a certain new knighthood [Templars], whose Order… is set up to force unbelievers into the Christian faith by lances and cudgels, and may freely despoil those who are not Christians, and butcher them religiously; but if any of them fall in such ravaging, they are called ‘martyrs of Christ.’
One that wrote under the name ‘Hugh the Sinner,’ answered these false accusations;
‘We have heard that some of you have been alarmed by certain indiscreet persons, as if your profession — in which you dedicate your life to bearing weapons against the enemies of the faith and of the peace and for the defense of Christians — as if that profession was illicit, or harmful, a sin or an obstacle to greater progress.’
What is fascinating here is that this battle between the retreatists (James White, N. T. Wright) who will argue that the Crusades were an example of evil Christians holding a misplaced Christian faith as opposed to those of us who think the principles behind the Crusades were something that needs to be restored. We continue to have those in the Church who think it is sin to take the fight to the enemies of the Cross — even if only verbally. The retreatists refuse to countenance the idea that Christians must, sometimes literally, fight back against those who would bury the Christian faith. The retreatists, pietists, and quietists, think it is automatically a noble thing for Christians to be defeated and weakened. They have no room in their theology that it might be a Christ honoring thing to do to kill the enemy before they are able to follow through with their desire to kill Christians and the cause of Christ.
Of course, normatively, this defense of the cause of Christ against those who would seek to roll Christ off His throne would happen under the direction of a Christian prince, just as was the case during the Crusades.
There is something that is terribly wrong with a faith that refuses to defend itself against those who would snuff it out — even if the bearing of arms is necessary. Any faith that has lost its survival instinct is not a faith worth owning. Any faith that will not defend itself and/or others who share a like precious faith is an anti-Christ faith. Under the guise of piety Lucifer seeks to disarm the Christian faith. Christians should not flee from the virtue of manly self-defense and just war, but instead should flee the sin of a Anabaptist like pietism that finds a sense of holiness in being downtrodden by the infidel.
We end by noting a segment in “The Song of Roland,” a famous epic poem that comes to us from the Medieval age (circa 1040);
In “The Song of Roland” while watching Roland ‘slicing’ a Muslim ‘in two,’ an archbishop observed, “You act very well. A knight should have such valor, who bears arms astride a good horse. In battle he should be strong and fierce, or else he is not worth four pence. He ought rather to be a monk in one of those monasteries and pray all day long for our sins.”
The modern “conservative” church is filled with clergy and laymen who are not worth four pence because they cannot fathom that the Christian might ever have to fight… might ever have to literally defend the faith and the honor of the ascended King of Kings.