McAtee & Fuentes Exposing the Republican Grift

Long ago in my reading I came across a description of a Billy Sunday Revival meeting. Billy was having some of his revivals during the draft era of WW I. In my reading the author was describing how Billy would get the young men “saved” and then the counselors were told to take the young men from the altar where they got “saved” to back behind the podium-stage where these young men could then sign up for military service in the US military in order to fight in W.W. I. Billy’s revivals, in these cases where not really about Jesus but were about using Jesus to fill up the ranks of the US military. Jesus was a gimmick. Jesus, in those Billy Sunday revivals were like the adds you used to see on TV where they were selling product X for 39.99 whereupon the announcer would say … “But if you buy now, you’ll also get products “Y” and “Z” for the same low price. Billy might have said … “Not only do you get Jesus but you get to fight for your country also.”

Well, something similar to that happened on the 21 September at the Charlie Kirk llamapalooza/extravaganza. Jesus was used as the bait in order to hook people into supporting the Republican party. Whereas Billy gave you military service with your Jesus, the Republican party this past Sunday night gave the viewers the Republican party with the views Jesus. “Not only do you get Jesus, but if you buy now you also get being a supporter of the Republican party at the same low low price.”

This was all pure marketing, and manipulation.

Now, I don’t doubt that there are people who were genuinely redeemed last Sunday night. I have no doubt that God will use the death of Charlie Kirk and the Kirk llamapalooza in order to draw people to Himself. I fully acknowledge that Christ was proclaimed by some of the speakers Sunday night. For all this we can be thankful. However,  none of that changes that what happened last Sunday was a con put on by first rate Republican grifters, using Jesus as their rallying point. These chap couldn’t give a horse’s ass about the resurrected, ascended and reigning Lord Jesus Christ except as a means of bringing people into the Republican party. If these politicians thought hooking the name of Charlie Kirk with Satanism would balloon the size of the Republican base they would have a lollapalooza standing with Satan on the side of Charlie Kirk.

Nick Fuentes caught some of what I am getting at above in his analysis of the Kirk llamapalooza

“If you want Christ to be at the center of your politics, he can’t be a fucking gimmick. He’s not a slogan. When we say ‘it’s all about Jesus,’ we are not doing it with our right hand in the air like ‘alight everybody, let’s go and vote Republican.’ No, this is literally life and death. Life and death, for you and and me, for the GOP, for America. It’s something we take more seriously than anything. And so when they’re getting up there and saying ‘Alright, stand up and say you believe in Jesus and scan the QR code and then collect your voter registration,’ it comes across flippant. It comes across as borderline sacrilegious and maybe while well intentioned -maybe it comes from a good place but I don’t like where it is going and where it is going is weaponizing an earnest seeking of people. You have a lot of young people and a lot of even older people — decent people in America – who saw evil take the life of a good man and they were moved to action because we don’t want to see evil takeover our society, and they’re being funneled into this voter registration now. People are coming to this event seeking God weeping and affected and they’re getting fundraising non-profit bullshit which if you’re in the political world you know what that is. You’re getting a girl coming up with an I-pad saying; ‘get I can your email? Ok, we’re going to send you an email. Scan the QR code. We are going to get you set up. Here’s your bag.’ And it’s like ‘can we give them something real?’ To me that came across as cynical, calculated, opportunistic, and exploitative and that’s what politics is but don’t do that in the name of Jesus Christ and don’t do that with the death — don’t do that with the funeral.”

And while we are on this subject, I see a good deal of this kind of grift going on in the “Christian” social media world as well. People, in my opinion, are striking stances on various issues, insisting that somehow these stances are all about Jesus when in point of fact Jesus is incidental to the (sometimes even correct) stances they are taking. There is a huge amount of grift out there in the “ministry” world right now and as always the counsel is to the consumer, “Let the buyer beware.”

Can Propositional Nations Work?

“American nationalism, no less than German, was born out of a core ethnic and religious identity. Over the next 225 years, that identity has been called into question, modified, and expanded but never entirely lost. It has framed the current struggle over what it means to be an American.

The creation of the American identity began even before the revolution. There was a sense of common ancestry and belief that underlay the difficult transition from colonial Britain to revolutionary America and to the ‘we the people’ of the Constitution. In his plea for a United States, John Jay described this basis for the new nation;

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

John Jay
Federalist no. 2

In 1790, when the first census occurred, about 90% of white American settlers were British in origin – 82% were English. An even higher percentage of them were Protestants. Not all settlers had sided with the revolutionaries against the British, but the revolutionary victory in 1783 had consolidated the understanding of settlers as ‘Americans’ as distinct from ‘Britons’ or ‘English.’ While the framers of the Constitution would resist the term ‘nation’ – they preferred ‘union’ – what came into being after the Revolution was, however fractured into states, a new American nation where most of the inhabitants felt a sense of kinship.”

John B. Judis
The Nationalist Revival – p. 48-49

Pat Buchanan notes something similar as Judis notes above when he wrote;

Should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive. For nowhere on this earth can one find a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation that is not at risk. Democracy is not enough. Equality is not enough. Free markets are not enough–to hold a people together. Without patriotism, a love of country and countrymen not for what they believe or profess but for who they are, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Pat Buchanan
State of Emergency

Right now, all across the West, the attempt has been made and is being made to deny the need for a common ancestry as definitional of what a nation is. Our “leaders” have and continue to insist that a nation can be constructed along the lines of the citizenry having only in common a commitment to a shared set of propositions. This program fails because propositions are only as good as the people who are interpreting those propositions. For example, one needed proposition to be an American, it is reported, is the affirmation that “all men are created equal.” I can affirm that but when I affirm that I do not affirm that the same way somebody else might. Someone else might affirm that equality means the need to make sure, by way of legislation, that all people have the same starting point. Yet another person might affirm that equality means that all people have an equality of outcomes and that such a program should be pursued by way of legislation (equity). I, however, take the phrase that “all men are created equal” to mean only that all men are equal before the law and that all men are equally held to be sinners before God. I hold that “all men are created equal” was a statement that in its original context merely meant that all Englishmen were created equal with one another in terms of political rights. This is but one example how various men can all affirm the same proposition while that phrase has radically different meanings. Propositional nations will never do because they cannot work because men — especially from different races, cultures, and faiths, — will always fill those propositions with different meaning.

And so, a nation can only succeed when it is comprised of a citizenry with a shared blood and a shared faith. Out of those two realities will then arise a shared culture, heritage, and history. Not even differing languages will by itself divide a nation that has a shared blood and a shared faith though it will make matters more complex.

If the West does not realize this simple truth the West is going to go into the abyss because as Buchanan notes above;

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Pin The Tail On The Theonomist

Was John Wycliffe a theonomist?

“The law of Christ, when perfectly executed, teaches most rightfully how every injustice must be extirpated from the commonwealth, and how those offending against the law should be chastised.”

John Wycliffe

Was John Calvin a Theonomist?

“That to discern that there is nothing but vanity in all worldly devices, we must know the Laws and ordinances of God. But if we rest upon men’s laws, surely it is not possible for us to judge rightly.”

John Calvin

Was Heinrich Bullinger a Theonomist?”

“Kings are not as lords and rulers over the word and laws of God; but are, as subjects, to be judged by God by the word, as they ought to rule and govern all things according to the rule of His word and commandment.”

Heinrich Bullinger

Was John Knox a Theonomist?

“Kings then have not absolute power to do in their regiment what pleaseth them; but their power is limited by God’s Word. So that if they strike where God commandeth not, they are but murderers; and if they spare were God commandeth to strike they and their throne are criminal, and guilty of wickedness that aboundeth upon the face of the earth for their lack of punishment.”

John Knox

Was Zwingli a Theonomists?

“For He [God] wills that His Word alone be obeyed, and that the life be regulated by it alone.”

Ulrich Zwingli

Believing That Race Is Real Is A Gospel Issue

“Now of course, belonging to a people (nation) is always more than being descended from a common ancestor but it is never less than that. The chief addition to belonging to a nation is embracing a shared faith/religion. This explains why many people have a short definition of nation that reads; “A nation is particular ethnos who share a common religion which together creates a common culture (law, customs, language), as normatively sharing a common geographic setting.” Clearly, like Israel of old, the foreigner may dwell among a particular people but the foreigner will always be understood by himself and the people as a foreigner – even as treated with dignity.”

Reed M. Walters

To dismiss as important the issue that race is real simply because it is not directly related to the gospel is foolish and it is foolish because the issue of race is directly related to the Gospel. To deny race is part of the egalitarian push to deny distinctions. The ultimate distinction that the consistent egalitarian who denies race wants to deny is the distinction between God and man. It ought to be obvious now that this is where all this distinction denying is leading. First we started with the denial of the distinction between races and now we are denying the distinction between male and female. How can people not see that it won’t be long till the egalitarians  overtly stating what they are secretly presupposing and that is that there is no distinction between God and man?

If there is no distinction between God and man then there can be no Gospel. So, dismissing the issue of race because it is not directly related to the gospel is a non-sequitur that can only be championed by people who have no ability to do consequential thinking.

Clergy who deny the existence of distinctions in races and yet affirm the existence of the distinction of God and man are just one generation from their children being consistent.

Now, can people be saved by the Gospel who remain practitioners and champions of egalitarianism? Only God knows but I would think that it depends on far they take their egalitarianism. You see, egalitarianism is another religion, with another definition of sin, another definition of Jesus, another definition of salvation, and another definition of sanctification. How wrong must one be before they are so wrong that they can’t be Christian?

Only God knows. But why try to press the boundaries to find out?

Culture, Peoples, and Beliefs

“The idea that some cultures are better than others and that some are worse than others was the most common Christian thing until our brains were broken and we were forced to pretend not to know things.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
X post

Bret responds

The above is true but it is more true than Wolfe might even like to admit. Culture is not something that drops out of the sky. Culture is the result of a particular set of beliefs as embraced and lived out be a particular ethnic people group. This is why we can say that culture is theology externalized. When we say that culture is theology externalized we are noting that a particular ethnic group have owned a particular theology and they are, as a particular people living out that particular theology. This is why it can also be said that culture is the outward manifestation of a particular people groups inward beliefs.

Because culture is one part genetics and one part plausibility structure as owned by that genetic grouping it is the case that should either of those two factors be changed out, the result will be a different culture. So, if one changes either the people group who are doing the believing or if one changes out the set of beliefs that the particular people group believe the consequence will be a different culture. This explains why if you have different races occupying the same geographic space that there will be conflict even if those different races hold the same beliefs. There will be conflict because genetics matter and genetics are one of the two factors that comprise culture. The same is true if you flip the scenario. If you have the same racial/ethnic people group occupying the same geographic area but some of the people in that people group own a different religion there will be conflict that rises up between the varying belief systems. For example, White people who embrace Marxism, living cheek by jowl with white people who embrace Biblical Christianity will not get along.

Now, imagine what we are trying to do now in the West. We are trying to put together in the same geographic space different peoples groups with different religious beliefs. We are trying to place alien Mooselimbs, Jews, and Indians (dot not feather) Hindus, etc. together with white Christians into one living space and we are expecting that there is going to be harmonious culture. It is as rational as to geld a horse and then expect it to be fruitful.

Let us add to what was said above; since cultures are a combination of particular people and their particular beliefs this necessitates thinking that some particular people(s) and beliefs are better than other particular peoples and/or beliefs. If one culture is superior to another culture or if one culture is inferior to another the reason for that superiority or inferiority is going to be found in one of the two realities that comprise culture. Culture A is going to be superior to culture B either because the people themselves are a superior people or the beliefs of the people in culture A or superior to the beliefs of people in culture B or some combination of the two.

We cannot argue that cultures are superior or inferior to other cultures without arguing also that the reason this is so is because a combination of distinct ethnic/racial people groups and their beliefs are at the same time superior and/or inferior to another.

Now, because of the West’s revolutionary egalitarianism we don’t like saying or observing these truths that used to be accepted as a matter of fact. In America the civil rights legislation of the 1960s prohibited us from thinking the obvious. But the denial of the obvious doesn’t make the obvious go away. Peoples are different and different peoples build different cultures. Beliefs are different and different belief systems build different cultures. Different peoples with the same belief system will build different cultures. People who are the same with different belief systems will build different cultures.

This really isn’t that difficult… unless you’re an egalitarian.