“Joel McDurmon recently asked what conservatives would have done if Obama had ordered the deployment of federal agents to scoop protesting citizens into vans during the night. They would have gone nuts, that’s what.”

Doug Wilson Article

I continue to be mystified by this kind of reasoning on the part of McDumbon. I’ve seen it elsewhere from other people.

The idea seems to be that if conservatives would have been upset at the thought of Obama scooping up conservative protesters therefore it is perfectly legitimate for Marxists to be upset at the thought of Trump scooping up Marxists into vans during the night.

I don’t get it… really, I don’t.

The fact that genuinely conservative Christians (and one can’t be conservative without being a Biblical and dissident Christian) would get upset about their people being illegally arrested by Obama the Marxist doesn’t require them to join the Marxists about being upset when Marxist people are being inconvenienced by being arrested by a President who is legitimately seeking to uphold the law.

This kind of thinking is a “we need to be fair to everyone and treat them all the same,” reasoning. However, it is not unfair when Marxists, anarchists, and fascists are arrested for rioting, pillaging, and burning but conservatives are not arrested for not letting, by dint of force if necessary, the Marxists, anarchists, and fascists from burning their homes and their neighborhood’s down. Similarly, it is not fairness when Black Lives Matter participants are arrested as long as those who are resisting BLM are arrested as well.

McDumbon is hinting at the idea that law, equally applied, means all protesters, regardless of political and military tactics, needs to be arrested in order to be fair and that all people, regardless of their street tactics should be outraged when anyone at all is scooped up in vans and arrested. But that is a non-sequitur. BLM is an admittedly Marxist organization. When their protesters begin to act like they’ve been consistently acting they need to be scooped up in Vans. When those protesters opposing BLM use force to stop BLM it is wicked to scoop them up in a van and arrest them.

So, that I would have gone nuts (per McDumbon) over conservative protesters being scooped up in Obama Vans and arrested does not make me a hypocrite when I start daydreaming about fleets of vans coming to scoop up and arrest the violent BLM protesters (read rioter).

However, there is yet another dynamic here to be considered. When BLM protesters (better said “rioters”) decide that Western civilization as a whole is racist and must be ripped up — root, twig, and branch — then BLM protesters shouldn’t be surprised if they are no longer treated in ways consistent with Western Civilization and its law order. If BLM is successfully rioting against racist Western Civilization then BLM shouldn’t expect to have the niceties of Miranda rights, due process, and habeas corpus be part of the response to BLM rioting. I mean, if you want to get rid of Western Civilization that means getting rid of the necessity of a judge, jury, and sentencing guidelines. It’s so much easier just taking a random rioter behind the burnt down courthouse and put a bullet in their brain pan.

I’m guessing that suddenly racist Western Civilization doesn’t look so bad to the thoughtful BLM rioter. (I know, I know, that bit about ‘thoughtful BLM rioter’ was a oxymorn.)

In Joel McDumbon’s world it makes sense to imply hypocrisy on the part of conservatives. However, in a world ungoverned by Western Civilization who gives a tinker’s damn about hypocrisy?

Ok … now I’m seeing the “Mark of the Beast” Dispies going nuts about masks. As Dispies have done my whole life they are ‘Chicken Littles’ running around like their heads are cut off screaming, “The End is Near, The End is Near.” That is because they think the mark of the Beast is the mask, or the chip, or the vaccine or tattoo tracers or whatever and it all means in their cataclysmic minds that we are entering the Great Tribulation.

A brief primer so as to dismiss those well intended folks.

1.) The Mark of the Beast is not necessarily a literal mark, whether a mask, a chip, or a tattoo and it does not necessarily need to be stamped on our right hands or foreheads. If we read the Revelation passage in context (13:17) we find that there is also a mark of the Lamb in Rev. 14:1. That mark is the name of the Lamb and the Father on the foreheads of God’s people. Now the Dispies get hyped about the Mark of the beast on evil people but I’ve never heard anyone talk about having a literal mark of the Lamb on the good guy saints in this supposedly future contest between good and evil.

2.) So, the mark of the beast is likely a prophetic metaphor which was future to the readers of Revelation but is past to us. As to the symbolic nature of the mark it merely symbolizes total dominion and control over a population, however that may occur. The fact that John writes that the mark of the beast is on the right hand and the forehead is merely telling us that the thinking of those under the Beast’s sway will be controlled as well as all their doing. Throughout history Tyrant states have sought this kind of control, whether one is talking about Stalin or King Cetshwayo’s of the 19th century Zulus or Abraham Lincoln.

3.) The time references in Revelation force us to conclude that the threatened Mark of the Beast was future to John’s readers but is past to us today. We are not looking for a “Mark of the Beast” that has any connection to some “this has to happen before Jesus can come back” prophetic timeline. Nearly all of the time marker references in John’s Revelation are references that bespeak an imminent occurrence in the lives of John’s audience. After all, John repeatedly writes of the events under consideration as the time being near, Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10. If we are still looking for John’s “time is near” events then time stamps are useless.

4.) Who John’s book is written to (audience) forces us to dismiss the idea that all that John writes of remains future to us. John was not writing to warn us about a “Mark of the Beast.” John was writing the seven persecuted Churches (Rev. 1:9) of the 1st century to warn them about the “Mark of the Beast.” It would have done precious little good to warn the seven Churches of Revelation about a Mark of the beast that wouldn’t take place for 2000 years.

5.) The purpose of the book of Revelation forces us to dismiss the idea that all John writes of in his Apocalypse remains future to us. John wrote Revelation with the purpose of speaking to the promised coming judgment upon Israel (Rev 1:7; 11:1–2, 8) for her unfaithfulness. The threatened judgment on Israel was fulfilled in AD 70 a time near to the time of the writing of Revelation. (The dating of Revelation is a hotly disputed subject.)

Now, having said that, no one denies that Marks of dominion, and control on the part of future tyrants may well be future to us but such future marks of future beasts have nothing to do with the prophetic “Jesus is coming back” clock. The contemporary masking is indeed a sign of dominion and control and so will be any vaccines or chipping and Christians should be in the front rows of opposition due to the Kingship of Jesus Christ. However, none of that is relevant to the prophecies of Revelation. We may even see the day again where some lunatic, like Nero of old, has divine aspirations and desires worship. If we do though, we will, of course, oppose it as Christians but it will have nothing to do with the prophetic clock.

So, a Biblical hermeneutic insists that the “Mark of the Beast,” in Revelation likely refers to the attempt by Nero to have absolute dominion and control — even unto the point of being worshiped — as other populations were under the shadow of Rome’s hegemony and correspondingly has nothing to do with Jesus coming back in 2020.

1.) Inasmuch as face masks remove the communication abilities found in subtle facial gestures in that much the mask is a de-humanizing instrument. That it is also de-humanizing is seen in how the masks eliminates our distinctive humanity in favor of giving us all an egalitarian flavor by the sameness that it enforces upon the hoi-polloi. Looking over a crowd one no longer sees individuals. Only only sees the occupants of the anthill or the beehive. The masks strip away our individual humanity.

2.) The mask also, much like Baptism, serves as a sign and seal of ownership. Whereas in Christianity Baptism marks out a person as being owned and named by God, in our current religious humanism climate that mask is becoming a sacramental sign and seal that the wearers belong to the State, in who they live and move and have their being. The mask as sacrament to the God state is a sign of the wearer’s ownership, subjugation and enslavement to the God state.

3.) I’m learning from my reading that the proposed “RNA vaccine” will alter human DNA. (Of course the NWO Medical community is denying that.) If human DNA is altered doesn’t that mean that the one receiving the RNA vaccine is no longer human? And if no longer human then no longer an Image Bearer of God and no longer a Image Bearer of God than no longer protected by the 6th commandment? If human beings end up being patented because of the changes wrought upon them by a RNA vaccine does that mean whoever owns the patent on the human being RNA vaccinated is now the owner of the RNA vaccinated?

Does it change Lord’s Day #1 of the Heidelberg Catechism?

Q — What is your only comfort in life and death?

A — That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul,both in life and in death, to my faithful patent owner Bill Gates

4.) Whereas Christianity teaches the “fellowship of the saints,” Covidianity teaches the distancing and alienating of the ‘saints.'”

5.) New Church Signs (Not making this up)

a.) Mask it or Casket
b.) “Jesus wore a thorn of crowns. You can wear a mask.”

6.) Like all religions the humanist state has created “clean” and “unclean” categories. If you refuse to wear the mask then you are unclean and must be treated as such.

The idea of marking people out by clothing has historical precedence. Most people know of the Yellow Star Jews have been required to wear at different times in history to mark themselves out as Jews. However there have been other incidences of this as well. In England, under legislation in 1697, paupers in receiving parish relief were required to wear a cloth symbol of blue or red cloth on the shoulder of the right sleeve in an open and visible manner. This was done to discourage begging and worked since there was a public shame associated with begging.

In early Rome the toga eventually became a sign of the Prostitutes as the Roman Matrons moved to the stola as their form of dress.

In the 13th century after the Cathars had been put down by the papal crusade against them Pope Gregory IX required Cathar penance by the wearing of a Yellow Cross on their clothing in order to be identified as penitent Cathars once convicted of the Albigensian heresy.

Even here in colonial America, during the 17th and 18th centuries New Englander Puritans required people who were convicted of sexual perversity to wear cloth letters of “A” or the letters “AD” for adultery on their persons. There were even those required to wear the letter “I” when convicted of Incest.

So, in a slight twist of all this it is going to be the non symbol wearers (non Maskers) who will be singled out as uncivilized and unclean.

7.) Just as in Muslim countries where impugning the Imam and his interpretation of the Koran can get you killed or at the very least shunned, so in Wuhan America impugning the Medical Imam’s and their interpretation from on high will get you shunned, maced, and thrown out of stores.

“There is only one God and Wuhan is His name and Fauci is His Prophet.”

Scriptural Principle for lying to Magistrates seeking to harm you.

Some of the examples we find of lying in Scripture,

A.) Hebrew Midwives lying to Pharaoh

Exodus 1:¹⁵ Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; ¹⁶ and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” ¹⁷ But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. ¹⁸ So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”¹⁹ And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” ²⁰ Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. ²¹ And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

B.) Abe lying to Potentates about Sarah being his sister (not wife)

Genesis 12:¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to dwell there, for the famine was severe in the land. ¹¹ And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. ¹² Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. ¹³ Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that ^[e]I may live because of you.”

Genesis 20:1 And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. ² Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

C.) Isaac lying for the same reason about Rebecca

Genesis 26:⁶ So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. ⁷ And the men of the place asked about his wife. And he said, “She is my sister”; for he was afraid to say, “She is my wife,” because he thought, “lest the men of the place kill me for Rebekah, because she is beautiful to behold.”

D.) Rahab being commended for lying to her city officials about the spies.

James 2:²⁵ In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

Hebrews 11:³¹ By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

Many commentators note that Abraham and Isaac were dead meat if they had admitted that their wives were their wives. The Kings would have just killed them and taken their wives. However if their wives were thought to be their sisters then Abraham and later Isaac would be plied and wooed with gifts in order to convince the brothers to give their sisters in marriage.

We must conclude that the principle that justifies lying in these cases in Scripture is that we do not owe the truth and so are not obligated to tell the truth to anyone who intends to unjustly harm either us or loved ones were we to tell the truth. Lying in order to protect God’s people, it seems, is warranted in the Scripture.

It should be noted that nowhere in Scripture does the Holy Spirit condemn Abraham and Isaac for being in sin for lying to the potentates. We can only conclude then that Abraham and Isaac were righteous in what they did in these cases.

Indeed if we look at other cases of deception as practiced in Scripture by God’s people (Ehud with Eglon, David feigning madness with the Philistines, Tamar with Judah, etc.) there seems to be a principle that deception is allowed to protect the people of God and / or to advance the Kingdom against enemies of God.

Now applying to this principle to our current situation we would note that many of the State Governors as well as many of the agency of either the FEDS or the United Nations intend to harm us by their order for us to mask up when masks do nothing to stop the Chinese communist virus. The harm is found in their intent to fill us with fear so that they can control us and others to do their bidding once vaccines come out. There is also the issue that wearing the masks is a violation of not only the 9th commandment but the 6th commandment as well as masks work to the end of self infecting. This is why lying about having a medical condition to those who ask and so refusing to wear a mask is pleasing to God while damning the State for insisting that we live by lies by wearing the mask is proper is also pleasing to God.

“Feminism offered corporations an excuse (what the political philosopher Nancy Fraser called a “legitimation”) for breaking the implicit contract to pay any full-time worker a wage he could raise a family on. It was feminism that provided, under pressure of the recessions of the 1970s, a pretext for re-purposing household and national budgets. Instead of being used for reproduction (understood as both family-forming and investment), those budgets would now be consumed. The increment in the family wage that had been meant for the raising of children was withdrawn. Families were no longer entitled to it—mothers would have to enter the workplace to claim it. But they wound up getting only a small part of it, and their competition drove down their husbands’ wages into the bargain.”

Christopher Caldwell
The Age of Entitlement

1.) Put women in the work force
2.) Larger labor pool leads to
3.) Reduced wages for men which
4.) Creates necessity of double income homes which
5.) Creates DINKS (Double Income No Kids)
6.) Where there are children they are put in day care
7.) Children thus do not form normal family bonds
8.) Men and women apart in the workforce fosters adultery as men bond to women who are helpers in their workplace and women bond to men they are helpmeets to at the workplace.
9.) Thus increasing divorce rates
10.) Thus creating more consumption and less saving as income must now support two households. One household by way of alimony and child support a second household as men remarry.
11.) Thus creating broken dysfunctional people and families
12.) Rinse and repeat.