1.) The idea of a naked “secular” posits an impersonal world, with an impersonal deity concept that requires a personalism that is autonomously created by man’s fiat will. If “secular” means that God’s Law-Word does not govern the secular realm, then the secular realm is both impersonal in terms of divine presence and autonomous. Secularism thus slides easily into the absolutizing of fallen man over the Secular realm and by necessity yields humanism.

2.) The idea of ‘the Secular’ radically (can you say R2K?) separates public and private, and secular and sacred, as a transitional move towards the secular swallowing whole the putative sacred realm into a single unitary realm ruled by man’s experience (Existentialism), emotion (Romanticism), or autonomous reason (Rationalism). This is done by the ever expanding work of the “secular” realm eating up the “sacred” realm. The “Secular” realm of secularism gets larger and larger at the expense of the ever shrinking sacred realm. So, Secularism starts as dualistic but only as a feint to the end of creating a Unitarian reality that finds the Christian sacred completely eclipsed. (For example, when is the last time you’ve heard a sermon on Scriptures teaching on the right to keep and bear arms? You haven’t. Why? because that topic does not belong in the sacred realm.)

3.) Secularism cleverly denies its own religious essence and does so as a means of controlling the public square. By the means of its disguised religious assumptions it destroys the religious givens of all other religious competitors. Secularism thus creates a solely political religion, due to the putative absence of a Theological Word, and so creates a totalitarian impulse to the end of creating Utopia.

4.) Secularism then co-opts all religious competitors by forcing those former competitors to reinterpret their religion in light of the religion of Secularism. This accounts for the rise of R2K in the Reformed World. It accounts for the vicious return of the Baptist doctrine of “soul freedom” in Baptists “churches.” It accounts for the complete sell out to the Holiness movement and an ever increasing number of Reformed Churches to Cultural Marxist categories.

5.) There is no way in which to create a society that is not pinioned upon some faith, worldview, or religious foundation. Even the denial of all religion is a deeply religious tenet and faith commitment. Secularism is a faith commitment that sells itself as neutral regarding faiths.

“Let me give a specific example, and that is student loan debt. Right now in America, African-Americans are more likely to borrow money to go to college, borrow more money while they’re in college, and have a harder time paying that debt off after they get out. Today in America, a new study came out, 20 years out, whites who borrowed money, 94 percent of them have paid off their student loan debt, 5 percent of African-Americans have paid it off.

I believe that means everyone on this stage should be embracing student loan debt forgiveness. It will help close the black-white wealth gap. Let’s do something tangible and real to make change in this country.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren
20 November 2019 Democratic Presidential Debate

1.) If George Wallace or Lester Maddox aficionados had said this these words would have been adduced as absolute proof of their racism. Warren has told us here, by way of some study she does not name, that student blacks, unlike student whites, don’t pay off their debts. Sen. Fauxohontas portrayed blacks, at least when it comes to student loans, as irresponsible deadbeats who are more likely to borrow money and less likely to pay it back. This is called the sin of noticing and this is more than enough to be labeled a “racist.”  Yet, because Sen. Fauxohontas desires to redistribute wealth to the minority community, Sen. Fauxohontas gets a pass.

2.) Were the debt on the loans forgiven as Warren desires this would be tantamount to a form of “reparations.” Yet, it is doubtful that it would be recognized as such and even if Warren were to implement this the chant and demand for reparations would be louder than ever.

3.) In a sane world, with statistics like this, blacks would be required to provide more collateral for student loans, or, failing that, would be turned down more often for student loans, since the statistics reveal that loaning money for student loans to black “would be” students is a bad investment. This, of course, would mean, fewer black college students and fewer (unqualified) black professionals. Because of the diminution of blacks in colleges and the white collar professions loaning agencies will NEVER quit giving out loans to black “would be” students even though the loaning agencies know, by why of the statistical input, that those loans will never be repaid. It is better to make bad investments then to be thought of as “racist.”


Maybe Sen. Warren will release the unnamed statistics which she anonymously cites.

At the completion off WW II American cultural gate-keepers were convinced they had to solve the problem of preventing the possibilities of tyrannies ever rising again in the West. They concluded that the main problem that needed to be tackled was the conviction among the Western peoples that Transcendence, Metaphysics, and the sense of a “Presence of Being” existed since it was those ideas they were convinced that were behind the Hitlerian tyranny. The cultural gatekeepers reasoned that the idea “God willed it” was behind the Wars between 1914-1945.

And so, the Western Cultural gatekeepers entered into a project of stripping Transcendence from the West. Harvard leaders called a conference in 1945 and determined that what needed to be done was a careful balancing of tradition and community (the idea of the volk) with critical questioning and the idea that change was good.

Along the way this inherently unstable tertium quid broke all the restraints of tradition and community in favor of critical questioning complimented with change for the sake of change. Blockbuster books like “The Authoritarian Personality” ripped away any idea that tradition and community could ever compete with the emphasis on critical questioning and the idea that change is good.

This push by the cultural gatekeeper to re-order society, via education, away from the fearful tradition and community that they were convinced were responsible for WW II in the direction of “critical questioning,” and the wholesomeness of change explains the rise of the 1960’s counter culture. It explains the student protests of the 1960’s. It explains, burning bras, and draft cards. It explains “if it feels good, do it,” and “its your thing do what you want to do.” And it explains all the roiling change since the cultural gatekeepers after WW II decided that Transcendence and Metaphysics would no longer be the ground of our social order.

In other words, none of this continued social order rapid change since 1945 has been accidental. The cultural-gatekeepers educated the Boomers, Busters, and Millennials into cultural relativism. (If there is no Transcendence, no Metaphysics, and no remaining “Sense of being” then there remains no norm that norms all norms and cultural relativism has its hand on the rudder.) At the beginning they insisted they were going to balance tradition and community with critical questioning and the idea that change is good but this was an unstable combination that could never be successfully bound together.

The result of the disappearance of Transcendence has been the shift of Truth to meaning, Metaphysical notions of right and wrong to cultural consensus, and the “lightening” and “weightlessness” of modern man. There are no longer truths to die for, no longer a tradition to pass down to our children, no longer a “Faith of our Fathers” which might become the faith of our grandchildren.

In these respects the generations since WW II have all been of the same generation. We’ve all been educated into imbecility, all been taught that the only rampart to stand on is the rampart that says there are no ramparts to stand on, all been taught to despise each previous generation, all been taught, in the words of the Pied Piper of this Revolution,

“Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too ”

And there is only one word that fitly describes all this. A word that brings all of these plans into focus and reveals the puppet masters behind the puppets. That word is “rootlessness.” We have been trained that rootlessness is an absolute positive. Transcendence need not apply. No tradition to be allowed. No generational passing of the torch. No “presence of being.” No volk. No sense of place. No covenant belonging-ness.

Through the generations there have been one people who have excelled at rootlessness and now we Westerners belong to that tribe.”

“But what does multi-culturalism mean? Some think it means a ‘multi-racial society.’ I do not agree. What multi-culturalism means in essence is a multi-religious society.”

Stephen Perks
Common Law Wives and Concubines — p. 144

Actually, Mr. Perks is wrong here on several counts.

1.) The “multi” in “multi-culturalism” is a mask. What multi-culturalism aims at is in point of fact a mono-cultural social order. This is so because in saying that all cultures are equal what is really being said is that all cultures are the same. If all cultures are the same then which ever culture that insists that it is to be treated as unique because it is superior to all the other equal cultures must be squashed and eliminated. Multi-culturalism desires a culture where all cultures share the common ground of outlawing cultures that insist that they are superior. In this regard multi-culturalism desires to build a mono-cultural world which excludes cultures that insist that they are superior to the multi-cultural mono-cultural model.

2.) Mr. Perks insists that what multi-culturalism means is a multi-religious society but this statement is a contradiction since a genuine multi-religious society would always produce a multi-cultural society since culture is religion externalized. Any genuine multi-religious society would by necessity be a multi-cultural society.

3.) However, it is NOT true that multi-culturalism means in essence a multi-religious society. In point of fact inasmuch as multi-culturalism pursues a mono-cultural reality (see #1) it also pursues a mono-religious program. Multi-culturalism may allow for a plethora of cults in the social order but insists upon only one religion. All the cults must pinch incense to the genius of the Emperor of Statist Pluralism. Any religion that insists that it is to be superior to the mono-religion that requires all cults to pay homage to Caesar will be a religion that will be persecuted. The last thing that “multi-culturalism” desires is multi-religions.

4.) Now, as to touching the race issue that Mr. Perks raises it needs to be understood that a multi-cultural (monocultural) and multi-religious (monoreligious) social order MUST, by way of necessity, have a multi-racial (monoracial) society. If all cultures and all religions must be in subservience to the Unitarian motif of multi-culturalism then all races likewise must bleed into one. Multiculturalism will ALWAYS pursue a cafe latte colored people, if only because such a people serve as the perfect reflection of the Unitarian vision of all religions and cultures bleeding into one.

The origin of critical theory,

In 1843, some five years before the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote to a friend:

“Here is what we have to accomplish: ruthless criticism of all that exists. Ruthless in two ways: the criticism should neither be afraid of its own conclusions nor of the conflicts with the powers that be.”

In our current climate all this “Transvaluation of all Values” that began with Marx’s ruthless criticism began to accelerate with the work of the Frankfurt School. In 1950 one of their devotees, “Theodore Adorno” wrote the book “The Authoritarian Personality,” which became the book that pushed the Transvaluation of all Values into Western Christian Family life and so deconstructed the idea of the Christian family.

Consistent with Franz Boas anti-Christ anthropology and anti-Christ Freudian psychoanaltical psychology Adorno’s “Authoritarian Personality,” was a tome which under the pretense of social science and research offered “proof” that heretofore normative cultural behavior and attitudes centered on patriarchy were indeed guilty of being abnormal and fascistic in terms of where authority was located in Western civilization. Adorno, as a leading member of the Frankfurt school was in his book practicing what came to be known as “critical theory.” Critical theory was simply destructive criticism of the bulwarks of Western civilization – Christianity, Biblical Capitalism, patriarchal authority, monogamous family structures, hierarchy, Christian morality based on a Transcendent law, tradition, sexual boundaries and restraints, loyalty, love of country, heredity and love of homogeneous social orders.

Adorno’s book painted a picture of the West and Middle America as being inherently Fascistic according to his “F-scale” as well as being given to antisemitism. Adorno’s book was a large piece in the march through Western Christian institutions and it had as its goal the Talmudification of America, with its setting on its head and inverting all that was good so it was considered evil and all that was evil so it was considered good.

One of the major social factors under relentless assault by these destroyers, the critical theory practitioners and the Cultural Marxists is the whole concept of consensus or social norms. Social norms can be best described as the consensus arrived at by the majority of a contained population as those norms and that consensus which reflects Biblical social order. The destroyers intend to abolish all ideas of consensus and all standards of social norms in their effort to bring down Western Civilization.

As it stands now, because of the success of Adorno and the Cultural Marxists anything that people once described as “abnormal” is now celebrated in order to take away attention from its abnormality (perversity) and anything that was once “normal” is viciously attacked as racist or homophobic or out of date. By this tactic, the destroyers have wiped out any idea of consensus or social norms.

The only consensus left is the war of all against all and the only social norm left is that no norm will be allowed to be the norm that norms all norms.