A Racial Review Of Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men”

Out of my deep respect for the memory of Rob Reiner (sarcasm off) I decided to view again “A Few Good Men.” A 1992 film where the white military officers are all evil or inept and the only pure people who exist as the film’s heroes are;

1.) An accused gung-ho black Sgt. in the Marine Corps
2.) A highly principled feminist attorney (Demi Moore)
3.) A black Judge
4.) A White Lt. Col. who shows his purity by killing himself
5.) a Jewish lawyer serving with Cruise on the defense team (character name – Weinberg)

Along the way in the film Tom Cruise is converted by Demi Moore to see the righteousness in not plea bargaining a sentence for the principled black Sgt. and his doofus white underling private who have been arrested for murdering a Hispanic soldier who is portrayed as a saint throughout the film. Throughout the film the white private from Iowa who is a few bricks shy of a full load is contrasted with the wise black Sargeant. The white private is a dunce and is clueless about what is going on, while the black Sargeant is principled.

The villains in the film are all military

1.) The biggest villain is Jack Nicholson’s character
2.) His villainy is shared by his underling, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, played by Kiefer Sutherland

Of course both of these chaps are white and they are presented throughout the film as the problem with the Marine Corps and indeed, by extension, the problem with white people in general. White people just want to both kill off brown people, or failing that, they want to see them unjustly imprisoned as scapegoats for their crimes.

Now, being honest, I have little sympathy for US Military types since it is my conviction that the US Military has served for decades as the muscle for the New World Order (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s “War is a Rackett”). However, it is clear that Aaron Sorokin (Jewish writer of the film) is going after both the US Military and is tying the problem in the US Military with the presence of white people. “A Few Good Men,” is clearly an attack on white people.

The one white person who isn’t an explicit liberal in the film is played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon is the prosecuting attorney and he is depicted as being a guy who is caught in the wheels of the system. He does his job — a job that means he is trying to put away a black man and his dumb white farm boy friend for life for murder, and this despite his sense that he knows that something is amiss in the case he is prosecuting. It is Bacon’s character more than anybody else as the film unfolds how is “just following orders.” Again, a more subtle dig at white people, I would say.

The White people would get away with it all if only Jack Nicholson’s character was just a wee bit sane. But the white man’s sanity is so unstable and his vanity so grand that Col. Nathan Jessep (Nicholson’s character) can’t resist, while on the witness stand, from boldly and proudly confessing to his crime of ordering the black sargeant and the white Iowa farm boy to give a “code red” (illicit punishment) to the poor saintly Hispanic private that resulted in his death. Col. Jessep is immediately arrested and the Jewish liberal worldview is vindicated. The white lawyer played by Cruise is a hero because he has acted consistent with the feminism and Jewish worldview of the characters played by Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack.

Other racial scenes in the film include the point where the black judge is able to put Col. Nathan Jessep in his place by requiring Jessep to refer to him as “Your Honor.” Also Cuba Gooding plays a virtuous soldier who gives righteous testimony during the trial.

There is a bit of class warfare going on in the film as well. Cruise’s character is seen as being a upscale elite Harvard type born to the manor while his opponent (Nicholson) is portrayed as coming from a humble blue collar beginning. This theme is played off a couple times in dialogue between Nicholson and Cruise. Though they are each white they come from different worlds.

One has to like Cruise’s character. Flippant, irreverent, sarcastic, callow, and intelligent. Cruise’s character (Daniel Kaffee) is the perfect anti-establishment foil for spit and polish Col. Nathan Jessep. Because of this the viewer is pulled into supporting Kaffee while abominating Col. Jessep’s character (arrogant, self-righteous, grandiose, dismissive). In such a way worldviews of the viewers are subtly changed over time and with repeated similar messaging.

This film was released in 1992 but even then the worldview of WOKE and Jewish cultural Marxism was working its way into the arts.

Rob Reiner’s Cultural Marxist Jewish worldview is on parade in this film.

Wolfe Rightly Laments The Modern Reformed Clergy Scene

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action.”

Stephen Wolfe

This is almost true. To make this 100% true one would have to say instead that;

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action in overthrowing cultural Marxism.”

Ministers and theologians have no problem whatsoever with political pushing from the left and toward the left. Clergy and theologians have become agents and shills for the Cultural Marxist agenda. This is found to be the case inasmuch as they refuse to resist it as from the pulpit. They are letting this degraded swill of a culture continue to go unchallenged. Can you imagine a minister giving a series of sermons on the sin of Tattoos or the sin of the redistribution of wealth, or the sin that is the existence of the Federal Reserve. Those topics are NEVER touched by the overwhelming lion’s share of modern putative conservative Reformed clergy and by the refusal to address those issues and issues like them the Reformed clergy aid and abet cultural Marxism.

And I end here with a quote from Stephen Wolfe in his podcast. Wolfe is responding to DeYoung’s “Six Questions For Christian Nationalists.” At one point in both exasperation and lamentation Wolfe, being entirely serious could say of DeYoung’s argumentation;

“It’s really a silly argument and I am annoyed I have to deal with it again.”

Stephen Wolfe
Complaining about a Kevin DeYoung argument

Wolfe’s Accurate Appraisal Of Today’s Clergy Work

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

 

Stephen Wolfe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4FAfBL2Bo 

The prevailing system of the day that Wolfe is rightly complaining about is the post-War/Warren Court consensus “liberalism.” Actually, by the time of the Warren court’s rise “Liberalism” was being used as a shoehorn to bring in legal Cultural Marxism. In other words, “Liberalism” was being re-interpreted through a Cultural Marxist grid. Cultural Marxism had been hard at work in these united States since the late 1930s. The Warren Court, via the civil rights revolution, implemented Cultural Marxist principles and by the civil rights revolution gave us a new Constitution. (See, Christopher Caldwell’s, “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties .)

Wolfe’s quote is accurate. It is indeed the case that;

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

Unfortunately Wolfe’s philosophical humanist Thomism is NEVER going to overthrow what legal Positivism has built under the Warren court since each and both rely on the principle of human autonomy. Wolfe rightfully repeatedly complains about the Warren court but the Warren court was likewise merely acting as autonomous agents implementing their desire. Wolfe has a different desire than the Warren court. Most of that desire I would agree with. However, the methodology that Wolfe is seeking to leverage in order to fight off the legal positivism that juiced the Warren court (and continues to juice legal minds) is afflicted with the same humanism as that legal positivism. With both Warren and Wolfe that which is legal (or should be legal) is mere projection of man said loudly. Neither Warren nor Wolfe anchor their epistemology (source of authority) in Scripture and as neither anchor their source of epistemology in Scripture both end up with subjective routes to their desired ends. Now, as I said, I like Wolfe’s ends. I do think that for the most part they are Christian ends. However, his methodology guarantees that he will not win out. Wolfe’s Thomis is a denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity and so can’t be Christian.

Wolfe rightly rails against the post-War / Warren Court consensus liberalism. The problem is that his Thomism doesn’t have the anti-septic power to deliver us from the scourge of humanism, precisely because his Thomism likewise is driven and authored by Humanism. Humanism will never cast out humanism.

What is needed is the disease delivering power of Theonomy. Only reliance on God’s Word can serve as an epistemological astringent that can deliver us from the poison of the post-War Warren court consensus.

Scripture & Immigration

“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the sojourner who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the sojourner be before Yahweh. There shall be one law and one judgment for you and for the sojourner who sojourns with you.”

Numbers 15:15-16

“The same law shall apply to the native as to the sojourner who sojourns among you,”

 Exodus 12:49 

 “There shall be one standard of judgment for you; it shall be for the sojourner as well as the native, for I am Yahweh your God.”

 Leviticus 24:22  

Now what do we learn from the above Scripture?

We learn that God’s law was to be a unitary factor in providing social consensus and cohesion for how peoples of different stock were to live w/ each other.

We also learn that sojourners were always considered “other.” They may well have lived cheek by jowl with the Hebrews but they were always considered “sojourners.” All in the social order were to be ruled by the same law but not all in the social order were the same people. The law gave a unity wherein the diversity could operate. Unity in diversity.

This bears on immigration policy for a Christian people. If we are to have immigrants (sojourners) dwelling among us they must dwell among us as being beholden to God’s Law. God’s law is the means by which the immigrant is not allowed to re-make the nation he is sojourning into a nation that now serves his foreign gods. By being required to adhere to God’s law as the norm that norms his behavior the sojourner, while always remaining a sojourner, is allowed to functionally assimilate.

When you combine this with Israel’s law about land always returning to the family of origin with each Jubilee it is clear that Immigrants would never be able to take over Israel, as from the inside, in order to re-craft it into a nation serving other gods.

The current immigration laws that began with Hart-Cellar  in these united States guarantees and ensures that the current nation, once comprised by particular Christian European peoples, will eventually become both a non-Christian and a non-European descendant people. We are seeing that already happen in places like Dearborn, Michigan and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Epic City, Texas and Lewiston, Maine.

All of this is in conjunction with the long goal of the New World Order types to replace the White Anglo Saxon Protestant with the third world denizens. Its success is seen in the Muslim call to prayer heard from loudspeakers in Minneapolis, its success is seen in the intent to rule by Sharia law in Epic City, Texas, its success is seen in the fact that Dearborn, Michigan is renaming streets in memory of a Hezbollah terrorist, its success is seen by Lewiston, Maine being nicknamed “Little Mogadishu,” its success is seen in countless numbers of Muslim, Hindu, and Pagan candidates running for major offices around the country.

Our current legal immigration policy is a death wish. It is not enough to close our border to illegals. It is not enough to ship back all the illegal immigrants (presuming of course that is even really being tried). What is needed is a return to a 1924 type of immigration policy that was supported by a President who could say today along with President Calvin Coolidge in the run up to the 1924 immigration legislation;

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”
 
“Whose Country Is This?,”
Good Housekeeping Magazine (February 1921).

 

Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s Six Silly Questions

“A Reformed understanding of human nature should lead one to grant the civil magistrate less power in matters of religion, not more.”

 

Dr. Rev. Kevin DeYoung

Proof that having a Ph.D. doesn’t mean Jack Shinola

A Reformed understanding of the nature of reality should lead Kevin and all people to understand there is no such thing as one magistrate who is more or less religious than some other magistrate. All magistrates are equally religious. All magistrates push the state religion on the people. There is no “less” or “more” when it comes to power in matters of religion. There may be different means and ways for the magistrate to use his power in matters of religion but it is never a matter of “less power,” or “more power,” in matters of religion.

Now, it is true that some magistrates hide the fact from themselves that they are pushing an official state religion while other magistrates step up to the mic and say it out loud. But regardless, whether the magistrate is hiding from himself his religious pushing or whether the magistrate is embracing his advocacy openly, all magistrates push their religion in the same way. This is due to the fact that religion is a hopelessly inescapable concept. It is never a matter of either pushing or not pushing one’s religion as magistrate. It is only a matter of which religion will the magistrate push.

Let’s use an example. In one case the Magistrate might force the citizenry to pay a tax to support a state established church. In another case, such as our own here in the States, the Magistrate says he isn’t doing that. However, the truth of the reality is that the Magistrate is still forcing you to pay a tax to support the state established church. The gimmick is that the Magistrate here has figured out a way wherein you don’t know that you are paying a tax to support a state church. In order to fool you into thinking you don’t have a state established church here in this place where putatively, “the Magistrate has less powers over matters of religion,” the magistrate has hidden from you the fact that he indeed has great power over religious matters because he is taxing you to support the state church and that tax is found in every nickel and dime that goes to government (public) schools. Those government funded schools are in point of fact state churches wherein the state established religion is catechized into children from morning to late afternoon.

So, Rev. DeYoung is just flat out in error. We should say instead;

“A Reformed understanding of the nature of reality should lead one to understand that civil magistrates will always have the same amount of power when it comes to matters of religion, though some magistrates will hide that power from themselves and the citizenry better than other magistrates.”

Because there is no such thing as neutrality, the magistrate is always committed all the time to some God, god, or god concept. There is no lesser and greater. There is only the reality.

DeYoung, despite his good intentions, is not giving us Reformed theology here. To think that it was possible for a Reformed magistrate to have “less power in matters of religion” is to introduce a diminishing of God’s sovereignty as it relates to the state. If God is sovereign, as Reformed theology teaches, then God’s sovereignty ought to be explicitly brought to the fore in the public square by those magistrates ruling in as His vassals. To argue that Christian magistrates should somehow be hemmed in from being “too Christian” in their rule is to deny the sovereignty of God. De Young is giving us here, not only bad anthropology, but also bad theology proper.

DeYoung needs to muse on Van Til;

“The attempt to bring about a neutral culture, in which all religions and philosophies are equally tolerated, is in reality an attempt to dethrone the living God and to enthrone man in His place. There is no neutrality; every culture is either for Christ or against Him.”

When DeYoung argues for less power in religious matters he is arguing that the Magistrate might have the ability to be more neutral in religious matters. DeYoung is not arguing for a Reformed understanding. DeYoung is arguing for a anti-Reformed understanding.