Sundry Observations on the French Revolution

I.)”By the time I got through with my research and I was ready to write this book I felt anyone who understands the French Revolution will understand all left-wing revolutions. And anyone who doesn’t understand the French Revolution will… is going to be doomed to be victimized by a left-wing revolution.”

 

Otto Scott

Lecture — French Revolution and Its Influences

Pocket College

This quote teaches us that Clergy who are unfamiliar with the French Revolution should get out of the pulpit until they familiarize themselves with the French Revolution because what is happening in the West is that Christianity is being reinterpreted through the grid of the French Revolution and the ignorant Clergy is complicit because they don’t know better, and in not knowing better they don’t understand the urgency of the times to bring God’s Word to bear. God’s Word teaches that revolution begins in the desire to revolt against God’s authority. Because of this Scripture is anti-Revolutionary.

II.) Robespierre was the head of the “Committee of Public Safety.” This is a perfect example of Statist euphemisms. “The Committee of Public Safety?”

LOL — This Committee of Public safety was that Statist agency that was responsible for the flow of public blood in the streets compliments of Madame La Guillotine.

This is the way humanist Government always works. Whatever title they put on something you can be damn sure that something will be doing just the exact opposite of whatever title they stick on it.

Obama Healthcare anyone?

III.) “What Marx was to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Rousseau was to the French Revolution of the 1790’s. Like Marx, he was a parasite who never worked an honest day in his life. He was an expert at leeching off his aristocratic buddies, and wrote a series of treatises which blamed the evils of property and civilisation for the corruption of man. He wrote these while living in the lap of luxury with the aristocratic women he seduced.”

Moses Apostaticus

 

IV.) The cry of the French Revolution was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

It was all a lie.

As long as Equality is pursued neither Liberty nor Fraternity is possible. Equality negates Liberty because Liberty creates unequal stations, accentuates different abilities, and creates classes as some men use Liberty to excel while other men use Liberty to stagnate. Equality negates Fraternity because Equality breeds envy against those who have used Liberty to excel and envy always destroys Fraternity.

You can have Equality or you can have Liberty and Fraternity but you can not have all three together and the choosing of equality is the choosing of a mechanism, usually the state, as the means my which equality will be monitored and forced.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part II

Over here;

We find a Mid-America sponsored podcast featuring Dr. Alan Strange inveighing against Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s vision of Christian Nationalism. This is the second podcast wherein Dr. Strange deals with this subject and so subsequently my second blog post interrogating Dr. Strange.

Dr. Alan Strange in his podcast against Christian Nationalism marches out the old canard that “Pentecost was the reversal of Babel,” when in point of fact Pentecost was the sanctification of Babel. If Pentecost had been the reversal of Babel then all the peoples from various nations would have heard the Gospel in Esperanto. Instead each peoples heard the Gospel in their own tongue, thus sanctioning nations and by extension Nationalism.

Strange also insists that the time period in Reformed that Stephen Wolfe appeals to on church and state matters is no longer the consensus by Reformed churches. The response to that is “so what?” If Wolfe (rightly) understands that the WCF as it was accepted by Americans and the TFU as accepted by the 20th century Reformed church with its deleterious changes by Abraham Kuyper were gross aberrations why should it matter what modern Reformed denominations currently think? Modern Reformed denominations have so altered the original intent of the original confessional documents on church and state so as to make Christian Nationalism almost impossible. That was not the case in the original autographs. If Wolfe wants to presuppose the original autographs who is Strange to wave a red flag on that issue?

Dr. Strange perhaps doesn’t realize how those changes changed the whole Reformed faith and made it less Reformed. Wolfe is reaching back to a earlier time when Reformed theology on Church and state explicitly taught Nationalism.

Dr. Alan Strange in his podcast analyzing Christian Nationalism also faults Dr. S. Wolfe for saying that Christianity has not come into its own (into its full flower) unless it is instantiated in every Institutional expression of any given set culture. Strange seems to think that by saying this Wolfe is diminishing both the necessity for regeneration and the preaching that leads to that and so the Church’s role in placarding Christ.

Wolfe, contra Strange does not negate the importance of the church’s proper jurisdictional role. Indeed, I have no doubt that Dr. Wolfe would agree that the Church needs to be about properly handling the keys of the Kingdom. Dr. Wolfe’s point remains though. If a social-order doesn’t embrace Christianity… if the Magistrates are not nursing fathers for the Church — then Christianity most certainly will not have the far reaching impact that it otherwise would and so indeed has not come to its fullest expression.

Thirdly, in his podcast against Christian Nationalism Dr. Alan Strange clearly inveighs against any kind of use of force in order to re-establish a Christian ethos to this nation. Strange even cites both Rushdoony and Bahnsen as being against the use of force to establish a Christian National Reformation.

I think Strange, Rushdoony, and Bahnsen clearly wrong here. Returning to Christian nationalism might quite possibly require force just as Charlemagne used force to establish Christianity among the Franks. Just as Alfred the Great had to use force. Just as Charles Martel used force to maintain Christianity against the Muslims. So also, the period of the Reformation was characterized by conflict. The Crusades established Christianity by force in the Holy Land for a period of time. The Dutch only achieved freedom from Catholic Spain by use of force. Cromwell established a particular kind of Christianity by force. Even our American war for Independence was an example of the Protestant Dissenters with their Reformed Christianity going to war against British Episcopalians. It’s just silly to think that any kind of major worldview shift cannot use force to establish its presence.

Now, naturally enough, we would all love to have “velvet counter-Revolutions,” but it is not realistic that every cultural worldview shift can be achieved by a velvet Revolution. As such, to suggest, as Strange does, that the use of force is just abhorrent to Christians is just utter nonsense.  Throughout history Christians have repeatedly used force against paganism to establish or defend Christian Nationalism.

It is true that both Rushdoony and Bahnsen spoke against the use of force but we are living in quite different times from when RJR and Bahnsen lived. Maybe they would still insist that force is not an option. If they were still alive and did insist that, I would counter with the conviction that they were in error.

We might as well just belly up to the bar and admit all this. We can advise to go slowly on the usage of force. We can say “only in the last resort,” we can warn against being lured into using force when not yet ready but taking force completely off the table in order to establish Christian Nationalism is just not well thought out.

Obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.

Contra Dreher on Isker and “The Boniface Option”

“I can’t emphasize this enough: The Boniface Option is a book for angry young men who enjoy being angry, young, and male.”

Rod Dreher
Dreher Column Reviewing Isker’s “Boniface Option”

On the other hand you can buy Dreher’s estrogen dripping books and find your male friends and give group hugs.

” if Prudence is the Queen of the Virtues, then Andrew Isker is a mouth-frothing Jacobin.”

Rod Dreher

Moaning about Rev. Andrew Isker‘s book “Boniface Option.”

Yeah… I’m sure that is the same exact thing they said about Jesus the evening after He kicked Banker tush in the Temple.

” To be bluntly personal, I once believed that divorce could not happen to people like my wife and me, both devout conservative Christians. Yet it did, and not because either of us were unfaithful to our vows. “

Rod Dreher
Dreher Column Reviewing Isker’s “Boniface Option”

I’m speechless.

Clue to Rod… the fact that you’re divorced means that at least one of you were unfaithful to your vows.

Maybe you need to go back and re-read your vows Dude?

Yet it is striking how over and over, Isker exhorts his readers to cultivate hate. Literally, he does this. “The need of the hour is to teach especially Christians to hate the fake and gay globohomo cinematic universe,” he writes. Of the “fake and gay world,” Isker says, “in order for Christendom to return, it is a world you must learn to hate.” And: “You must teach your children to love the things you love and hate the things you hate. You must overcome your aversion to hate.””

Rod Dreher

Complaining about Rev. Andrew Isker‘s “Boniface Option.”

It is amazing to me how dumb Evangelicals are. This is another example. When we call people to hate as clergy it is always with the understanding that that hate is born of love for the opposite of whatever it is we are hating. Love and hate are not isolated realities. I hate the opposite of what I love and I love the opposite of what I hate. Apparently, Dreher is too stupid to get this simple and obvious concept and so he faults Isker for calling the men of the Reformed world to “hate what is evil and to cling to that which is good.”

By all that is holy, our platformed leadership have cow patties for brains.

McAtee Interacts with Old Toby & His “Having No Legs” Blog — Part II

“… What it sounds like you’re saying is that since the color of your skin is from God, you must preserve it. But would you say the same about the color of your hair? The shape of your nose or ears? The color of your eyes? And I suppose the come-back would be, well, what if they were trying to exterminate your color of eyes or color of hair? But that’s where I refer you back to my previous point: despite some generalizations along those lines, it turns out that isn’t really what they are trying to exterminate. What they are really trying to exterminate is Christianity, and in America, a whole bunch of Christians have had lighter color skin. But there’s nothing inherently white about Christianity, as is likely to continue becoming obvious in the coming decades.”

Old Toby Sumpter
Having No Legs Blog

1.) This repeats the Gnostic error that race is only about the melanin level that a person has, as if race isn’t about every aspect of a person. It is a ignorant statement.

2.) Yes, we get that ultimately the Cultural Marxist crowd are not going after whites but rather are trying to roll Jesus Christ off his throne. Still, Old Tobe we have to ask, “why would they go after white people as proxies for going after Jesus Christ and His dominion?” And the answer to that is that the Cultural Marxist crowd understands something that you are absolutely clueless about (and it is cluelessness that finds you fighting on their side for all practical purposes) and that something is the fact that white people have been, by God’s providence and grace alone, the civilizational carriers of Christianity. Get rid of white people and the goal of rolling Jesus Christ off the throne is now merely a mopping up exercise.

So, to be sure, there is “inherently white about Christianity,” but there is something providentially white about Christianity and the Cultural Marxist gets that while you are busy making “No Duh”  arguments.

3.) The way you are arguing reminds me of a hypothetical situation in the frontier West. The Indians are galloping around a fort that is about to fall. However, in that band of Indians there are also a couple of white Braves who were captured in their youth and are now part of the Indian tribe about to scalp and rape the inhabitants of the Fort. People in the fort are lamenting and crying about the fact that the Indians are about to savage them. But not to fear… Captain Old Tobe is going around correcting those on the cusp of dying, “Hey, you shouldn’t be talking about those Indians out there because I saw a few white Braves out there also.”

Old Tobe Sumpter writes,

“But I’m also grateful for King Alfred and John Knox and George Washington. But the amount of pigment in their skin, the color of our hair, and shape of our noses had nothing to do with that heritage.”

Bret responds,

More Gnosticism. More reducing whom God has made us racially/ethnically to being about merely physical features as if race/ethnicity is dis-connected with the reality of who we are. Understand that Old Tobe here is arguing that genetics has nothing to do with our heritage. Understand also that the genetics that all of us have, regardless of our race/ethnicity is about God’s favor and providence. And while genetics can never save us, it doesn’t therefore mean that genetics have nothing to do with our heritage. If Old Tobe denies this he is denying that whole idea of “Christian families,” and covenant theology. Grace does tend to run in familiar lines and while that grace is not connected to regeneration it is connected to being baptized into the family of God.


McAtee Interacts with Old Toby & His “Having No Legs” Blog — Part I

What they (CRT) are really trying to exterminate is Christianity, and in America, a whole bunch of Christians have had lighter color skin. But there’s nothing inherently white about Christianity, as is likely to continue becoming obvious in the coming decades.

Rev. Old Toby Sumpter
Having No Legs BlogBret responds,

While it is true that there is nothing inherently white about Christianity to say what Old Toby says above is to reveal a tone-deafness on how God, by His grace and providence alone, has chosen to use White people to be the civilizational carrier of Christianity, generally speaking.

Old Toby writes,

“One friend replied in defense of Torba arguing that no one is arguing that ethnicities are totally fixed or hermetically sealed. But as I said in my reply, a whole bunch of his followers aren’t getting the memo.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

Implicitly this is the charge that many of the followers of Torba and Christian Nationalism are Nazis. Old Toby is saying here that many followers of Torba are hankering for the rise of the super Aryan race again.

And while there may be a miniscule number out there like that I call piffle on Old Toby’s putative point. Old Toby needs this point in order to justify his rabid opposition to Christian Nationalism and the necessity of preserving our ethnic boundaries and so Old Toby makes a mural out of this accusation that many of Torba’s followers secret Himmler fans.

Here’s a memo for Old Toby and his CREC comrades. How about finding some hard evidence that Torba’s fan base are strewn with Nazis before you begin insinuating that is the case?

“And my basic objection is that to allow “whiteness” and “Christian West” to be reduced to the same thing is to allow the categories of critical race theory to win.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

More utter tripe from Old Toby.

Do we need to remind Old Toby again that things can be generally true without being universally true? Do we have to, every time we talk about something say, “this is generally true” so that people like Old Toby won’t hear as saying “this is universally true.”

It is simply the case that it is generally true, exceptions notwithstanding (are you satisfied Tobe) that “whiteness” and the “Christian West” can be reduced to the same thing. Furthermore, acknowledging that reality does not, despite your lamebrained accusation, mean that the categories of Critical Race theory have won. It merely means that the categories of the white Christian West have won.

I’m telling you folks, the clergy corps of the CREC is not our friend in the battle royale to save the West and to save the people who made the West the West. With chaps like Wilson, Foster, Brito, Sumpter, and Hemmke it is clear that the CREC clergy is on the side of the devil in all this. They should be manfully resisted.

Old Toby writes,

“For example, Larry Elder is the new black face of “white supremacy,” according to the LA Times, and Rep. Ayanna Pressley isn’t interested in any “brown faces” that don’t want to be “brown voices.” Related would be the Supreme Court decision striking down at least some Affirmative Action legislation this last summer, and the full court conservative press against DEI policies in corporate America.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

So, when we look at the demographic voting patterns for Democratic candidates we see that the black vote is somewhere in the 90 plus percentile. So obviously there is a small minority of blacks, like Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Candace Owen, @Keon Garraway, etc. of whom we can say, “see it is not universally the case that whites are alone in this struggle against Cultural Marxism in the West.” So raise a Bronx cheer for Old Toby who has gone all Captain Obvious on us here. But again, none of these example disprove what is generally true and that is as it pertains to the West Christianity and white people while not exact synonyms are more involved than even kissing cousins.

And Old Tobey and the CREC knows this.

Old Tobey writes,

I would also like to point out that a majority of our anti-white elites are, well, whiter than leprous wonder bread. For all of their talk of deferring and empowering and uplifting “people of color”, the leprous whites are still in office, still in power. It’s more complicated than just skin color and ethnicity, and it’s foolish to merely accept some of their superficial claims.

Bret responds,

1.) Since this country is still somewhere around 67% white this observation is not shocking.

2.) Still, it would interesting to look at all these whites Old Tobe is telling us are “whiter than wonder bread” and ask, “how many of these wonder bread whites belong to the 2% of our population who like to pass off as wonder bread white people? I bet that number would shock old Toby.

3.) Still, I’m glad to agree that we have many Judas-goats among us. More than a few of them are in the CREC arguing the way Old Toby is arguing here.