Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
There are some historical events wherein one is disallowed to have a contrary view to the received narrative of the WOKE/SJW’s. To have a contrary opinion on any one of these subjects or personages below is to move one to the outside of the Cognoscenti community. I submit that as Biblical Christians our takes on these historical events should be in contradiction to the received narrative as often as possible. In other words, to provide a couple examples, if 99.9% of the population believes that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President ever, or if 99.9% of the population believes that the Crusades were a wicked endeavor that persecuted poor Muslims, then the Christian needs to re-asses his view if they are numbered among the 99.9%.
These events listed below are not intended to be exhaustive but I think they hit some of the major historical events that Biblical Christians should have a contrary understanding of vis-a-vis the accepted narrative.
Part I
1.) French Revolution — See Nesta Webster / Hillaire Belloc
2.) War of Northern Aggression – See Greg Lorend Durand / Ludwell H. Johnson
3.) Abraham Lincoln — See Edgar Lee Masters / Lyon Gardiner Tyler
4.) Oliver Cromwell — See Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné / Buchan
5.) Reconstruction Era — See Dunning School / C. Bowers
6.) Colonialism – See Dr. Bruce Gilley
7.) Crusades — See Thomas Madden / R. Ibrahim
8.) WW I — See Docherty & MacGregor / Hof /Cafferky
9.) Woodrow Wilson — See Jim Powell /
10.) WW II — See Hoover / Irving / D. West / Tansil
11.) FDR — See Shlaes / G. Crocker / B. Folsom
12.) Holocaust (TM) — Ernst Zundel / 1/3 of a Holocaust (Video)
“For the apostle Paul, speaking to the Hebrews, as concerning Christian faith, doth say: ‘These through faith did subdue kingdoms, wrought righteousness, were valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens.’ Now, since our faith is all one, and the very same with theirs, it is lawful for us, as well as for them, in a rightful quarrel by war to defend our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions. They are flatly unnatural to their country and countrymen, and do transgress this fifth commandment, whatsoever do (under the pretense of religion) forsake their country afflicted with war, not endeavoring to deliver it from barbarous soldiers and foreign nations, even by offering their lives to the push and prick of present death for the safeguard thereof.”
Heinrich Bullinger
From collection of sermons preached in Zurich entitled “The Decades”
Consider the implications of this quote from one of the Princes of the Reformation;
1.) Clearly David Van Drunen and Radical Two Kingdom theology would insist that Bullinger was being irresponsible (and probably sinful) as a minister of the Gospel to be enjoining that Christians fight to defend their homeland and religion. The clear implication here is that the country that is being fought for (defended) is a Christian country. For R2K, it is not possible to have a Christian country.
2.) Similarly, R2K would bring Bulllinger up on charges for implying that a people (nation) can be so Christian that the people of that nation are responsible to take up arms to defend it against those who would overthrow their land and their religion.
3.) Notice how Bullinger draws together country, religion, liberty, possessions and people into one net. They are distinct, to be sure, but they also are inter-related. There is no Christian country populated by Christian people without liberty and personal possessions. They imply one another. For a Christian people (nation) to live without liberty and possessions is a giant oxymoron. A Christian nation is defined by the people therein having liberty and possessions.
4.) I am convinced that one implications of this Bullinger quote is that no Christian should be serving in the US Military since to serve in the US Military today would be to take up the cause to defend an alien religion and a people who have foresworn fealty to Jesus Christ. The current US Military is in the service of a god-state with aspirations to completely overthrow Biblical Christianity. It is in league with the New World Order.
5,) I am convinced that one implication of this Bullinger quote is that Christians should be taking up manly resistance against the current NWO State. We are now being forced to defend, in Bullinger’s words, the enslavement of “our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions.” If we do not rise up to resist the current NWO state we will be found to be violators of the 5th commandment, per Bullinger.
“He who is unaware of his ignorance, will only be misled by his knowledge.”
Richard Whately
I would have to say that herein we find the problem with to many in our clergy corps who are bright and educated but are still intellectual scofflaws. They have this vast pool of knowledge about any number of things from 16th century Elizabethan Puritanism, to Textual Criticism of the 18th Century Continentals, to the influence of Mercersburg theology on Philip Schaff as it influenced his Church history and yet the church languishes under their leadership. It is not that the subjects named above are bad. I want people around who know about those subjects. The problem is not with their areas of expertise. The problem is with their amazing ignorance, of which they are completely unfamiliar with, which puts all their grand learning in the service of the most idiotic and harmful of projects. For example how in the world could otherwise intelligent people come up with R2K, Federal Vision, or the New Perspective on Paul unless the quote by Whatley applies? We are a Church led by people who have not yet determined the difference between IQ and discernment, between the kind of mental acuity required for graduate and post-graduate work and the kind of mental acuity needed for the work of everyday living. We have a clergy corps who are long on theory but short on the ability to see the implications of where their theory is going to take us as a people.
And because of this, matters are going to get progressively worse in the Church.
“We are a good people, the only nation in the world built on an idea.
That all of us, every one of us, is created equal in the image of God.”
Joe ‘Bite-Me’ Biden
2023 SOTU Address
1.) The Scripture teaches that there is none who are righteous. Christianity has always taught the idea of man’s sin nature and the truth of original sin. Biden’s speech stands in direct contradiction to Christianity 101. We are not a good people. We are a people who have a fallen sin nature who must be redeemed before we can even begin to pursue goodness.
2.) Note the pushing of the idea that the USA is a propositional nations. America, as founded, was never intended to be a nation built on an idea. That idea that we are a nation built on an idea came with the rule of the tyrant Abraham Lincoln who famously, but errantly said that this nation was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This idea of a propositional nation was when Lincoln seared it into America’s consciousness in 1863 with the Gettysburg address and it is still a lie when Joe Bite-Me repeats it in 2023. America, as the Constitution states formed a nation for white Europeans and their descendants. America was originally formed as a White Christian Nation.
3.) It is true that we are all created in the image of God. It is decidedly not true that we are all created equal in the image of God. It is clear and obvious that all men do not have the same abilities, capacities, giftedness, and talents. Men have never been created equal in the image of God. Men have been and continue to be created diverse in the image of God. So, from the Christian understanding all men are equal inasmuch as they are made of the same dirt, all men are equal inasmuch as they are all equally responsible before God’s law, all men are equal inasmuch as they are all equally dead in their sins and trespasses but all men are not equal inasmuch as they are all the same or will all realize the same potential if they are all given equal opportunity. This idea is nothing but long established and now accepted Liberal gobbledygook.
The goal in this piece is to begin to explain to people what “Alienism is,” both in theory and in practice. Most Alienists don’t think about their Alienism just as in 1830 America most Americans didn’t think about their Kinism. In both cases, there is no need to think about it anymore than a fish is required to think about the water he swims in. It is just the natural environment of the fish. Why should he even have to think about it? It would only be if the fish became challenged on the morality of his environment that he might have to think about it for the first time – if fish were concerned about morality.
So, both Alienism and Kinism posit the normalcy of unstated but assumed environment. Throughout history most have been especially attached to their homes, their place, their traditions and habits, and their kith and kin. However, there likewise has always been a percentage of people who never managed to fit in. And so there have always been crusaders who have not been able to look beyond the excesses that normal affections can sometimes bring – barriers that, with harshness and malice, block entry for the outcast. As a result the Alienist begins to look at the normal affections for home and kith and kin as well as this affection sometime gone awry and makes no distinctions between natural godly affections as proper and natural affections that are absent. The Alienist has no understanding for the properly outcast violator of taboos properly placed. The Alienist sees the hardship of the outcast without considering the reason why the outcast is cast out. And perhaps quite without realizing it resolves to bring the outcast back in even at the cost of tearing down the taboos that protect traditions, habits, kith and kin, and home and place.
The Alienist has the best of intentions here. He wants to relieve the heartache of the outcast but he does not consider the heartache he will create by eliminating the taboo that is eliminated when the outcast is normalized absent the surrender of that which made him outcast to begin with. Good intentions make people feel better but they really are quite irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what is being done. However, the Alienist seldom is concerned with the morality of their actions as long as the effect is that it makes them feel better about themselves, or stated alternately, the Alienist measures morality by the pursuit of their good intentions as arrived at by their feelings. Ivan Ilyin’s book, “On resistance to evil by force,” deals with what I am trying to get at here . In chapters 11 and 12 he touches on the same subject. He states, speaking of the sentimental (or hedonistic) moralist;
“The moral brotherhood embraces all people without distinction of race and nationality, and all the more so regardless of their nationality: everyone deserves fraternal compassion, and nobody deserves violence; it is necessary to feel sorry for him that he does not have his own, and invite him to relocate and live among us in love and brotherhood. For man has nothing on earth that is worth defending with his life or death, nothing for which it is worth killing or dying.”
A few pages later Ilyin gets to the heart of the matter. He states, again speaking of the sentimental moralist;
“His religious doctrine is the product of a self-satisfied mind trying to exact Divine revelation from pointlessly affectionate compassion……..this means that he does not perceive man through God, but instead comprehends God through man.”
As such with a deep prejudice bordering on contempt of their own people they seek to be the soldiers doing the long march through the institutions to the end of eradicating the taboos established by Kinists so that kinism might be overthrown in favor of Alienism. Purposefully or not the Alienist sees the barriers taboos bring and the consequences of taboos broken and concludes not that people need to quit violating taboos but rather that taboos must be eliminated because they lead to people being ostracized.
Examples abound for what I am talking about. The crusader/do-gooder sees the heartache of those who have embraced the sodomite lifestyle. They ingest the propaganda put out by the sodomite community. They find examples where sodomites were excessively dealt with as outside God’s law parameters. They absorb the “studies” done by “experts” that show that sodomy is normal (Kinsey Report, Magnus Hirschfeld studies) and eventually even the conservative Church, which has for centuries heretofore denounced sodomy, begins to talk about how it can be “normal to be gay,” or how they have many members who are Gay, or how “side-B sodomy is legitimate.” At this point they have become Alienists. Now, their Alienism may not be to the same degree as other Alienism that can be found but it is Alienism all the same.
Another, less egregious example then that of sodomy is the issue of inter-racial marriage. The acceptance of this as being normative became the widespread gateway drug that allowed for the acceptance of sodomy, and now transgenderism. Despite the fact that people of all races were opposed to inter-racial marriage;
“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”
Dr. John E. Richards
Founding Father Presbyterian Church in America
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.
St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28
The Alienist, having lost all sense of belonging to a people, is angered by any suggestion that marriage ought to have boundaries. Though this may be changing, to date, Alienists are opposed to marital relations that are too close (incest) but have no problem with marital relations that are too far away (excest) and so some of their most fervid contretemps are poured upon the Kinist who argues that opening the door to inter-racial marriage (excest) opened the door to same-sex marriage and who argues now that both inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage are the door opening wider and wider to Transgenerism, pedophilia, and other sexually perverse excesses.
Instead of opposing these societal innovations that had been opposed for millennium by Christian people, modernity, where we find the ascendancy of “open-mindedness,” as bequeathed by the Enlightenment, has, in a full-throated manner, overthrown the wisdom of our Christian Fathers. This era of Alienism, instead of opposing societal innovations has given us a plethora of terms that castigate and censor the convictions of their Christian fathers. What was once the standard Christianity of our Fathers just 2-3 generations ago is now labeled by well placed “Christian” Alienists “leaders” as “skinism,” “skincest,” “racism,” “bigotry,” “xenophobia,” “prejudice,” “homophobia,” and “sexism.” This is not your Father’s Christianity.
When is the last time you heard some kind of pejorative moving in the other direction? When was the last time a word was coined for the hostility of minorities for majorities, the hostility of Alienists for Kinists, the hostility of deviants for normal people, the hostility of the Cultural Marxist for Biblical Christians. This is probably accounted for by the reality that the only way that social change can come about is by the need to turn into villains what is normative. As such the Alienists has an interest in turning normalcy into the abnormal by a usage of language to abominate the normal. And so, married people who have more than two children are contemptuously referred to as “breeders,” and normal people who like the opposite sex are now “cis-gendered,” implying that such a disposition is just one of a variety of possibilities. This is what is to be expected for those (Alienists) who have an interest in overthrowing what is normative for what is Alien. Societal change in any direction can not come without abominating the opposition who was previously the long accepted norm. If Christians want to survive this onslaught seeking to overthrow what little remains of our Christian social order then they better begin to get creative in thinking of ways to abominate Cultural Marxism.
So, Alienism, is committed to expanding the boundaries for who can be contributing citizens to the social order. Whereas the Kinist would have insisted that the boundaries are drawn in such a way as to forbid the involvement of the sexually perverse as well as delimiting, in some ways, the role of the stranger and the alien with the purpose of protecting the health and well-being of the core community. However, because of the amazing success of the Alienist it is now the case that the core community has become defined by the Alienists and they are now the ones protecting that core community from Kinists. If one embraces the beliefs of the Christian Church for millennium one now is increasingly locked out from being qualified to be a contributing citizen to the current Alienist social order.
This brings us to the observation that in many respects Alienism is just a form of Kinism turned inside out. The Alienists is just as intent as protecting his people as any Kinist. It’s just that for the Alienist his people are the sexually perverted, the feminists, the Academician, and the Cultural Marxist minority member and like the Kinists with his people who are Christian, straight, Nationalist, patriarch, and usually white, the Alienists will, in a very Kinist fashion, go the extra mile to protect “his people” from the evil Kinists – who in the Alienist world are the Alienists.
So, in the end there are two alternatives for basic attitudes towards social reality. The first of these we call Kinism. It is the disposition that love of place, home, people, family, patriarchy, God’s law, and the Christian faith that births honorable traditions, customs, and habits that society is built upon. At its best it is clearly God’s intent for His people. At its worse, when it loses its biblical moorings, it can become an unseemly Fascism or Aryanism. The other alternative for social reality construction is Alienism which favors the person who, for whatever reason, is opposed to kinism. This Alienism esteems the alien and stranger, the sexual pervert, the feminist, the person who has marginalized or dispossessed themselves because of decisions touching personal behavior. This Alienism attempts to overthrow the kinist social order by overthrowing what is accepted as normative in a Kinist world and life view. As we shall see in another essay, Alienism reaches its apex in expression in the context of one form of Communism or another. At its best Alienism can remind us of the necessity to be compassionate, without being affirming, to those who have purposefully outcast themselves because of their desire for eccentricity of one form or another.