“Christians should look at the energized and emboldened white nationalism movement, and at its fascist slogans, and condemn it — full stop.”

Tim Keller

Keller is once again burnishing his SJW credentials here. I’d love to know what white nationalism he is talking about that isn’t already recognized as a fringe movement. Where is this white nationalism in the “bowing and scraping before the cultural Marxist” Evangelical and Reformed denominations? I wonder if the Dr. Rev. Keller could give five or so well known fascists slogans? It should be easy to do so since they are so prevalent. I wonder if the Dr. Rev. Keller ever raises the same warning against the Minority Nationalism so prevalent in the minority community? LaRaza anybody? Black Muslims? The Black Congressional Caucus?

But what am I thinking? Everyone knows that minorities can’t be racist since in order to be racist one has to have power plus privilege and no minority has power plus privilege despite the reality of affirmative action, hiring quotas, University admission quotas, stipulated point additions for minorities taking the SAT or ACT admissions test, etc. So naturally, the Dr. Rev. Keller groans and moans about something that is almost a non-entity.

White Nationalism? Well, just last week I couldn’t get around Lansing, Michigan because of that damn KKK march. And the week before that it was the burning in effigy of an oriental. I hate crowds.

And the slogans? They’re just horrid

two, four, six, eight
White people are only great

and

Hey Hey, Ho Ho
All you minorities need to go

(I always get that one mixed up with,

Hey Hey, Ho Ho
Western Civ has got to go)

and

Go ahead and try to get ahead
You scumbag minorities

Yep, freaking White Nationalism is everywhere. Why just last week on the way home from Church I counted ten (TEN) burning crosses on minority lawns. The lumber mill is doing a bang up business but I don’t mind as the owner attends the church I serve and he gives generously.

But before the Rev. Dr. Keller’s indignation gets too righteous, he just might want to consider that white people (either real or imagined) not have a corner on ethnic or racial pride.

Below is just a Whitman’s Sampler. Much more could be easily adduce.

(But remember… nothing below is “racist,” because it is not possible for minorities to be racist since they do not speak out of power plus privilege.)

“If God is white, kill God.”

James Cone Black Liberation Theologian

“There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’”

Jeremiah Wright Black Minister

“Elijah Muhammad, is the one who preached that the white man of America, number one, is the Devil!”

Cassius Clay (Mohammed Ali)

 “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

Noel Ignatiev
Harvard Magazine

“So then when we talk about white identity, then we have to talk about what whiteness is. Well, the reality is that whiteness is rooted in plunder, in theft, in slavery, in enslavement of Africans, genocide of Native Americans… Because we have to understand something – whiteness is wicked. It is wicked. It’s rooted in violence, it’s rooted in theft, it’s rooted in plunder,  it’s rooted in power, in privilege.”

Ekemini Uwan — M. Diva
Public Black Female “Theologian”

“For some the Church has become the least safe place for people of color.”

Duke Kwon
PCA Elder

The church’s refusal to de-center whiteness is the primary reason we have failed to address its cultural impact.

Michelle Higgins

The love of a mother is no more or less important than the love of a father. We all know this. But then, in general, mothers should be under no greater burden than fathers to abandon their callings for the sake of their children. The asymmetry in our responses to working mothers and fathers, then, suggests that other factors are in play. In an evangelical Protestant context, the context I have in view here, there is good reason to suspect that these other factors include a tendency to devalue the gifts and contributions of women particularly in positions of teaching and leadership.”

Michael Rea
Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

Why, instead of the conclusion that Rea draws in his last sentence above, don’t we conclude that the reason Evangelical Protestants don’t want women in social order leadership is,

1.) The Scriptures forbid it.

2.) We so value women and their role in hearth and home that we don’t want to treat them like roses used as kindling to start a fire by exiling women from hearth and home in order to embrace the curse of men to till the ground by the sweat of their brow?

3.) We understand and affirm that men and women were not created to be interchangeable cogs as if both sexes were created to do the same thing.

Overall I would say it is Rea, and people like him, who are devaluing the gifts and contributions of women. It is people like Rea who are taking from children their Mothers who are to be the leaders and teachers of the most impressionable in our social order.

Look, the hidden goal of feminism, as a created tool of the NWO, since it’s rise at the turn of the 20th century and its acceleration in the 60’s and 70’s was to destroy the family. By getting women out of the home and into the workforce (i.e. — Rosie the Riveter) via the NWO’s instigation of WW I and especially WW II multiple ends were served, one of which was getting women out from under their husband’s authority and another was separating Mothers from their children — their instinctual impulse. In such a way two things happened. First, children would more naturally become defacto wards of the state (from daycare to Government schools) as two income families increasingly predominated across the landscape of America. Second, women would become less dependent upon their husbands and so have the resources to leave at the smallest provocation. In all this the family would become more destabilized and the State would expand in power where the family decreased in power. Feminism serves the end of the rapacious state. Indeed, it might be well said that state legislation that supports feminism is a case where the State is raping women. For those women who support feminist legislation one might rightfully say that, metaphorically speaking, “those women enjoy rape.”

So, it is in the interest of the tyrant State to breathe life into feminism because by doing so the tyrant State breaks down a potential adversary insuring that the family, as a potential alternate power center does not arise to challenge the tyrant State. This explains why the we have gone from the Trustee family model in the West to the Trustee family model and now ever increasingly to the Atomistic family style. The elimination of the family is life for the tyrant state.

The tyrant state does not want a Christian home where wives and mothers as homemakers are paid and amply taken care of and provided for by a loving Christian husband. Unless there were extenuating circumstances, why should a Christian wife and mother want to work for a different covenant head in the workforce when she can take care of her covenant head and family at home?

I have no doubt that situations will arise where women have to work outside of the home in addition to their work as caring and nurturing wives and mothers in the home. Further, I am convinced where women can do the same work as men they should be paid commensurate with their work.

Having said that, and having worked for the Airlines industry for 15 years I know for a fact that in many career occupations that require strength, women, on the whole, (again exceptions probably exist) can not do the work that a man can do and so shouldn’t be paid what a man is paid.

Men are not women and women are not men and to say that they automatically should be paid equally reinforces the egalitarian agenda.

Now, there are industries where women should might well be paid more than men. Nursing, for example, were predominated by women early on and this because women were seen as natural nurturers and caretakers.

Having conceded that, the best and safest place for a woman is in the home. Women being forced outside the home are being cheated.

There was a time when this kind of thinking was not controversial in the least and was embraced, above all, by women.

No system of philosophy has ever yet worked out in behalf of woman the practical results for good which Christianity has conferred on her. Christianity has raised woman from slavery and made her the thoughtful companion of man; finds her the mere toy, or the victim of his passions, and it places her by his side, his truest friend, his most faithful counselor, his helpmeet in every worthy and honorable task. It protects her far more effectually than any other system. It cultivates, strengthens, elevates, purifies all her highest endowments, and holds out to her aspirations the most sublime for that future state of existence, where precious rewards are promised to every faithful discharge of duty, even the most humble. But, while conferring on her these priceless blessings, it also enjoins the submission of the wife to the husband, and allots a subordinate position to the whole sex while here on earth. No woman calling herself a Christian, acknowledging her duties as such, can, therefore, consistently deny the obligation of a limited subordination laid upon her by her Lord and His Church.

Susan Fenimore Cooper

“The intelligentsia often divide people into those who are for change and those who are for the status quo.”

Thomas Sowell
Intellectuals and Society

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Thomas Paine

This is the progressive battle cry from time immemorial. The progressive desires to always start from scratch. He consistently desires to completely ignore the successes that our Fathers passed on to us in terms how we lean into life. All of that must be scuttled for instantaneous and dramatic change. The world must always be made over again. The old boundaries that our Fathers lived by for centuries must be cast down and new borders drawn. Let us begin the world over again by redefining marriage, by redefining gender, by even redefining public bathrooms. Let us begin the world over by making health care a right, by requiring everybody be vaccinated, by shipping our children out to be intellectually mauled by intellectually impoverished government school teachers. Let us being the world over by pursuing solar energy, wind energy, and fubar energy, while shutting down the energy sources that have expanded our life spans and accelerated Western civilization for over 100 years.

Beginning the world over again was the battle cry of Obama in 2008 when five days before the election he boasted that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” It was heard again just a few days ago when Bernie Sanders, upon winning the New Hampshire primary chirped, “Our campaign is not just about beating Trump, it is about transforming this country.” One never hears a conservative talk this way… not even when there is a need to change in order to undo the random flotsam and jetsam resulting from the “change” wrought by the progressives.

A concomitant of this need to begin the world over is a crisis. It is always the case that the demand for change that fundamentally transforms is because some kind of crisis is upon us which the ways of our fathers cannot handle. In FDR’s era it was the manufactured crisis of the banks failing that demanded that FDR’s brain trust fundamentally transform America. Today it is the manufactured crisis that is global climate change that has the “changers” doing their best chicken little imitation crying that “the sky is falling,” “the sky is falling,” and so we must fundamentally transform America. In the end it is not really change that is needed, but instead the genesis of this cry for change is a combination of desiring to line one’s pocket with the will to power and desire to control populations (you and I).

The people who cry for the world to begin anew are demons loosed from the pit. Listening to them and yoking with them by voting for them is a sure way to impoverish yourself and the generations behind you.

Besides, positive change never comes by the social engineering that these doomsayers always offer as the cure-all for the crisis. You’d think by now mankind would have learned this. Fundamental change comes by winning hearts and minds, and not by giving the keys of legislative authority to a group of people who have more in common with Svengali, Rasputin, de Sade, and Kinsey then they have in common with the values handed down to you by your Christian Fathers.

Changing yourself will do more to make the world over again than empowering these madmen by voting them into office.

In I Samuel 5 the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant after the Israeli’s had recklessly brought it into battle as a kind of talisman in order to manipulate God into giving them a victory over their arch-enemy. Instead the place of God’s dwelling on earth was captured and Israel routed in battle.

Lesson 1 — God will not be manipulated into serving the ends of a disobedient people.

From here the Philistines full of chutzpah over capturing Israel’s God (for that is the way they would have looked at it) decided to dedicate the Ark to their god Dagon. So, they brought the presence of God into Dagon’s temple and sat the presence of God before Dagon, thus communicating that Dagon had triumphed over the God of the cosmos.

However, as we know Dagon was smart enough to know who should be worshiping whom and when the servants of Dagon came in the next morning they found Dagon prostrate before the presence of God (I Sam. 5:3) where he belonged.

The Philistine priests, being good acolytes, got Dagon back up on his feet with the presence of God remaining before Dagon. Some people don’t take hints.

The next morning it was worse than before (I Samuel 5:4). There was Dagon again prostate before the presence of God but this time with his head and hands severed. Dagon had struck the heel of Yaweh by defeating His people in battle, but now God had crushed the head of Dagon. Dagon had failed to submit to God and now he had perished in the way.

Somewhere in this mix someone decided to take the presence of God on a tour of the major cities of Philistia. In what was billed as “The Tumor tour,” they started in Ashdod, they played next in Gath and then in Akron but at every stop on the tour the wrath of God in the way of a plague descended upon the inhabitants of the cities of Philistia until they cried out to have the presence of God removed from them.

Lesson #2 — Nobody captures God and lives to tell about it –especially His enemies. God is Holy and is not to be trifled with.

Finally, the Philistines wise up and decide to try a fleece to determine whether Israel’s God was in all their catastrophes or if it was just a matter of chance. As such they yoked together milk cows who had never been yoked together before (6:7) so as to pull a new cart. The Philistines watched closely to see what would happen and when they saw the never before yoked together milk cows working together to take the Ark straightway back to Israeli territory they knew that God had been among them.

Lesson #3 — There is no such thing as chance. God’s providence governs all.

But this is not the end of this account. Israel, like their Philistine enemies had to learn again that God is Holy and that He is not to be treated casually.

When the ark returned to Beth-Shemesh, the Israelites rejoiced, worshiped, and sacrificed to God. However, a number of them learned what Nadab and Abihu had learned earlier and what Uzzah would later learn and that is God will kill those who treat Him casually and without deference to His Word. Seventy of the citizens had sinned the same type of sin as the Philistines. They looked inside the Ark of the covenant which God had forbidden (Numbers 4:19-20), and they were struck dead.

Lesson #4 — God is angular and will never be made smooth.

The overall lesson that begs being made is that God is Holy and that His Holiness is dangerous to those who treat it casually or to those who disrespect it. Does our understanding of the Holiness of God fill us with a filial fear that fills us with reverence when we are in the unique presence of God as we gather to worship? The reality of God sits upon His people so lightly. Would that we would once again have some measure of comprehension of His Holiness.

Thank God for the covering we have in Jesus Christ who brings us safely into the presence of God so that even when our worship might be reckless, casual, and disobedient we are kept safe from this righteous out-breaking of God’s discipline. Were it not for the work of Jesus Christ to forgive sinners none of us could last long in the presence of God.

E. Michael Jones posits that Denconstructionism in English Literature is merely Sola Scriptura as applied to other literary texts.

WHAT AN IDIOT

Dr. Jones, in his many books, is often brilliant in his cultural analysis but when it comes to his commentary on the Reformation and the Reformers he is every bit as atrocious on that subject as he is brilliant on cultural analysis. Below is another example. This is a quote from Jones’ Degenerate Moderns:

“Lutheran ideology unleashed libido to achieve its political and ecclesial ends, and Luther, like Hugh Hefner, discovered that the only way to make use of libido effectively was to create for his contemporaries an escape from the guilt that accompanied its satisfaction. The sixteenth-century equivalent of the Playboy Philosophy was justification by faith alone, culminating in the doctrine of the enslaved will. De Servo Arbitrio, it should be remembered, was published in the same year that Luther married. Luther, in creating his doctrine of the enslaved will, became the first modern man, and Lutheranism became the first modern ideology. Its primary attraction to the hordes of apostate priests and nuns who flocked to Wittenberg to follow him lay in its ability to rationalize sexual license and broken vows.”

So you see, Dr. Jones is an idiot when it comes to his comments on the Reformation. However, understandingly enough Dr. Jones took exception to my characterization and a conversation ensued

—-

E Michael Jones Before you call someone an idiot, it’s always good to know what he actually said. I said that the New Criticism was a form of sola scrptura. Deconstructionism is Talmudic.

Now in order to understand this conversation let us define briefly “New Criticism” and “Deconstructionism”

New Criticism was a 20th century American invented methodology for reading literary texts. It stresses close attention to the internal characteristics of the text itself, and it discourages the use of external evidence to explain the work. As such, matters like authorial intent, usage of words in their original historical and cultural context, historical influences upon texts as well as historical circumstances out of which the text arises are all largely ignored. Some have characterized it as texts where the author has disappeared.

Deconstructionism, as a hermeneutical grid for reading texts takes the New Criticism one further step and eliminates the presence of the text. The text itself no longer has any objective intent or meaning, thus allowing the reader to engage the text to give it whatever meaning the reader can read into the text. The text is deconstructed in any original meaning and reconstructed in the image of the reader.

Now that we have that down we can observe the conversation between myself, Dr. Jones and a few other conversational partners.

 

Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

The New Criticism is merely a 1/2 step away from Deconstructionism. It’s still an idiotic statement. You’re a person who has a mental or learning disability when it comes to all matters Protestant but yet someone who is extremely gifted in analysis on many other matters. You should just put your pen down when writing on Protestantism.

I’ve read tons of your stuff and will continue but you are of Rome and I am of Geneva and never the twain shall meet.

Now about your statement that Muslims and Christians serve the same God?

Note — Dr. Jones has publicly said that Christians and Muslims serve the same God. Since I had his attention I thought I might try to draw him out on that subject.

E Michael Jones writes

 Bret L. McAtee Your intemperate language and unsupported claims are giving Protestantism a bad name.  

Bret L. McAtee I’ll take my chances Doc.

Now … what about your statement that Christians and Muslims serve the same God? 

Dan Brannan Believe it or not, E Michael Jones, you are among Protestants who appreciate your work in many dimensions here. But on the subject of Rome v Geneva — and you’ll forgive my intemperance — you have lost the plot, entirely.

Bret L. McAtee

Doc Jones,

Just to confirm Dan’s statement that your work among the Protestants engaging you here is true here is a list of your books I have read.

1.) Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control

2.) The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History

3.) The Jews and Moral Subversion

4.) Jewish Privilege

5.) Catholics and the Jew Taboo

6.) Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution out of the Spirit of Music

7.) Degenerate Moderns: Modernity As Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior

8.) Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film

I think this makes me a fan. It certainly makes me someone who is lining your pocket. 😉 Thanks for your work Doc.

However when it comes to the Christian faith… well, my love for you requires I call for you to repent. 

Dan Brannan I’ve probably read half that many of his books, but I long since lost count of the articles, podcasts, interviews and debates of his which I’ve imbibed. 

Bret L. McAtee Oh … and so as to just keep on track Dr. Jones…

What about your statement that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Dan Brannan When Papists claim on one hand that Protestantism was actually an Islamic movement, or a Jewish movement, and on the other, that Islam and Christianity worship the same God all I can think is that they are speaking with a Talmudized tongue, themselves.  

E Michael Jones responds to Bret

 Monotheists worship ipso facto the same God. They differ in their understanding of God, not the object of their worship.  

Bret L. McAtee So … Jews worship the same God also?

I must admit that I find this answer wildly unsatisfactory.

Let me get this straight. If Mohammed the Muslim insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and requires the death of Jews and that the infidel when alive to pay the Jizya tax and that Allah requires Hjra in order to conquer Christians and that Allah takes pleasure in the honor killings of women for the slightest of infractions and that Allah will serve up 70 virgins to warriors who strap on a vest bomb to blow up children (shall I continue?) is the same God as the God of the Bible?

Let me get this straight. If Levi the Jew insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and insists that Jesus is boiling in semen in hell, and insists that the Jews are their own Messiah, and commands the Gentiles must have fixed upon them the Noahide laws, and teaches that a woman’s unborn child is “rodef” and so can be killed, and teaches that Jews cannot be held responsible if they kill a gentile you believe this “ipso facto the same God” the Christians serve.

Dr. Jones … I can’t believe you really believe that

Rev. John Rutowicz writes,

 Dr. Jones’ confession does not sound like the confession of a Christian but that of a monotheistic type of Perennialist. The Christian agrees with St. John “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23 

Bret L. McAtee Jesus speaking to the Monotheist woman in John 4

22 “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship…”

E Michael Jones  responds to Bret L. McAtee 

Muhammad worships a God whom he does not understand. Jews worship money. The quote from John 4 makes my point not yours. 

Dan Brannan You cannot worship something which you do not know. That’s the point of the verse Rev. McAtee quotes.

Which is why Hebrews 11:6 says “And without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith has doctrinal content. 

Bret L. McAtee responds,

Dr. Jones,

Pray tell, how is it that you know that Mohammed worships a God whom he does not understand? What text tells you this?

It seems by my observation that Mohammed understands perfectly the nature of Allah as seen by the fact that the character of the demon God Allah becomes incarnated in the sons of Allah, just as the character of the Jewish demon God is incarnated into the sons of the Jewish demon God.

It seems we ought to take seriously what the sons of Allah would say here. I’m confident that they would say that they do indeed understand whom they serve. They serve a Unitarian God which Scripture itself says is no God.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23

But I understand here that you are making the same error that C. S. Lewis made in his novel, “The Last Battle.” In that novel Lewis has the servants of Tash being accepted by Aslan because those servants didn’t really know they were serving Aslan when they were serving Tash. This error seems to be the error that many Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and Arminians make.

You are being inconsistent Dr. Jones. If the sons of Allah serve the same God as the Brothers of Christ serve then so do the monotheistic Jews. 

E Michael Jones responds to Bret,

 Bret L. McAtee The intensity of your opinions is in inverse proportion to their plausibility. 

Bret L. McAtee Says you Doc.

Anyway …. thanks for what you get right despite your denial of logos. I can see the hand of God’s common providence in your work. Your work has helped me immensely. 

I do think you are not marketing yourself well in order to sell as many of your books as possible Dr. Jones. Your natural market is unto conservative Christians and when you start going all “Christians and Muslims worship the same God,” you are at that point alienating your natural constituency.

But … it’s your dime.

By the by … if Christians and Muslims worship the same God does that mean that moral Muslims are accepted by God?

E Michael Jones writes,

Bret, I never said that Islam was efficacious for salvation.

Bret L. McAtee I know you didn’t say that. I was asking just to make sure where you were on that.

Dan Brannan If Islam is not efficacious for salvation, they are not, in fact, worshiping the true God. Because worship of the true God is the prerogative of the Regenerate, not Heathen, nor Reprobates. 

Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

In point of fact it is not possible for Muslims to worship the same God as Christians since worship of the one true God can only occur as one is covered by the Son and united to the Son.

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

No faith in the covering of Christ … no peace with God … no worship of God.

As such (as Dan has implied) either Muslims in their worship are accepted by God OR Muslims and Christians don’t worship the same God.

Stuart DiNenno Christians are monotheistic and worship the true God. Muslims are also monotheistic, therefore Muslims must also worship the true God.

John drives a car which is a Mercedes. Harry also drives a car, therefore Harry must also drive a Mercedes.

Bret L. McAtee John drives only one car which is a Mercedes. Harry drives only one car which is a beat up Kia Forte.

John and Harry drive the same car.