Mike Pence & The Definition of COWARD

When Governor of Indiana, Pence signed into law Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened. A good bill.

Naturally the pro-sodomites were angered.

Pence lacked the courage of his convictions.

Pence, predictably caved.

Pence then signed a bill intended to provide protections for LGBT customers, employees, and tenants. This was followed by legislation specifying that Indiana Senate Bill 101 does not authorize discrimination against the LBGTQ community. This foul legislation amended Indiana Senate Bill 101 in several ways:

Section 1 of Indiana Senate Bill 50 stated that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not an authorization for a “provider” to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to an individual on the bases of certain characteristics, including, but not limited to, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. This section also stated that Indiana’s RFRA is not a defense in a civil action or criminal prosecution for such refusal by a “provider” on the basis of certain characteristics, including, but not limited to, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The LBGTQ+ community emerged from this debacle as a protected class.

Thank you Governor Mike “Judas” Pence.

Repressive Tolerance

“Marcuse believed that we live in imminent danger of Fascism unless his socialist liberation movement could save the world. As such, Critical Theory was created, in part, to forward the Cultural Marxist new way of ordering the world. Thus, their solution to this problem of too much freedom and too little justice (which they believed existed in dialectical tension) was to restrict freedom, but not in the way they consider fascistic. Rather, freedom should be restricted in a lopsided and self-serving way that favors neo-Marxists and other Leftists advances while suppressing, censoring, and bringing violence to everything Cultural Marxism perceives as ‘to its right.’ This sound extreme but is literally the thesis of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance.”

James Lindsay

Race Marxism — p. 116-117

” People who believe in moral absolutes from the Bible should be politically destroyed, utterly rendered helpless to the cause of pluralism and democracy … the world is not theirs. They have no right to impose their bulls**t on others. They can either change, or shut the hell up, or practice their special brand of crazy in their homes…or go away.”

Tim Wise
Keynote address
Harvard’s Decade of Dialogue ‘diversity conference’
Invoking the Marcse’s principle of “Repressive Tolerance”

Now, this reality of Repressive Tolerance advocated by the Cultural Marxists and Critical Theorists among us explains why its perfectly fine for Julius Malema in South Africa to leads tens of thousands of blacks in a rousing rendition of “Kill the Boer,” as was demonstrated by the New York Times as the “Paper of Record” editorialized that Malema and the Marxist blacks were  “not really serious,” while at the same time Jason Aldean’s Country Western song “Try That In A Small Town” must be shut down and canceled because of its “racist overtones.” That contrast between South African Malema leading tens of thousands of Black Marxists in singing “Kill the Boer,” as being perfectly acceptable, while Aldean merely croons about a small town not putting up with violence being seen as incendiary and outrageous is a perfect example of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance.”

Another example of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” that was on display a year or so ago was when the State of Wisconsin went after Kyle Rittenhouse for Homicide as well as other equally serious charges. Contrast that with all the mayhem from the Black Lives Matter riots and the miniscule prosecution of those reprobates.

Another example of Repressive Tolerance is when Statewide and local news media slanders and libels a Pastor seeking to shut him down and get him fired while defending in print other Pastors who are advocating the most perverted behavior.

Richard M. Weaver, in his Southern Essays, gets at this “Repressive Tolerance” in his description of what he referred to as a Faustian man;

“… a man who is unhappy unless he feels he is making the world over. He may talk much of tolerance, but for him tolerance is an exponent of power … For different opinions and ways of life he has not respect, but hostility or contemptuous indifference, until the day when they can be brought around to conform with his own.”

Marcuse’s repressive tolerance is pursued to the end of creating new social imaginaries by forbidding previous old social imaginaries. Repressive tolerance is invoked in order to suck the oxygen out of the room so that the previous plausibility structures by which a people lived by dies. Repressive tolerance is an attempt to clear away previous widely held worldview commitments and narratives in favor of a new cultural Marxist worldview and narrative.

Repressive tolerance is warfare and we Christians are now on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Now having said all that, I quite agree with Marcuse about “Repressive Tolerance.” Understand that Marcuse was seeking to advance a new religion and he understood that in order for his new religion to take root the old religion which was contrary to his religion must be rooted out, leaf, twig, and branch.  So, in order to achieve this Marcuse created the doctrine of Repressive Tolerance. At this point Marcuse is merely saying that his religion should have the hegemony and no other religions should be allowed to challenge it and so should be repressed.

I quite agree, and because I agree I too believe that “Repressive Tolerance” should be practiced by Christians. Christians should have no tolerance for wickedness such as what Marcuse advocates in his religion. Just as Marcuse is seeking to wipe out Christianity (a faith Marcuse and the Left sees as wicked) via his Repressive Tolerance so sane Christians should likewise champion their own Biblically guided version of Repressive Tolerance. Christians should not tolerate religions which seek to overthrow Christianity.

I am saying that if we want to rebuild Christian civilization that all of this principled pluralism that we currently have in our social order with its corresponding tolerance that has now morphed into Repressive Tolerance of Marcuse and the Left has to go. We have to return to a Christ honoring social order that does not allow for a confessional pluralism which yields to a tolerance that seeks to buy time so it can replace Christ as King with other false gods in the name of Cultural Marxist “repressive tolerance” which is naught but anti-tolerance tolerance.

In the words of the great R. J. Rushdoony;

“There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance… Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system and to alien religious foundations or else it commits suicide.”

Cultural Marxism is another religion and Christians must not tolerate it. If you are a minister of Christ you should be saying what is found in this article from your pulpit. If you’re not saying these kinds of things you are a unfaithful shepherd.

AJ Drexson vs. McAtee on the Bible and Christian Nations / Nationalism

AJ Derxson writes;

Romans 11 has precisely /nothing/ to do with how believers should legislate and govern if they are in positions of power – which is the normal subject matter of “Christian nationalism.”

BLMc Responds,

Remember, AJ, in all that follows, you started this by calling me a “Cultist.”

I am now all confounded AJ because the great theologian Gerharrdus Vos said that Romans 11 was about Christian Nationalism. Now I have to decide if I am supposed to believe you or believe Vos. Here is what Vos had to say on the relation of Romans 11 to Christian Nationalism;

“Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

Now, AJ, I know this might be difficult for you but let’s connect the dots here. If God is electing nations that means those nations are Christian and if those elect nations are Christian then it seems past obvious that those Christian nations are going to be ruled in a Christian manner and the only way to rule in a Christian manner is to have an eye on God’s gracious legislative Law-Word however that might express itself in those various and sundry elect Christian nations.

I do apologize though AJ. I just assumed that a normally rational person could connect those dots without me holding their hand and tracing out the connection. It was stupid of me to assume that.

AJ Drexson wrote

Secondly, separate nations (including Israel) exist because of what happened at the Tower of Babel. It doesn’t follow that the current arrangement is God’s ideal or is permanent. Indeed, God’s intent in the Babel separation “is that they should seek after God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him” (Acts 17:27).

BLMc responds,

It may be the case that the separate nations arose because of Babel but we see in Acts 2 that God sanctifies Babel on the day of Pentecost as each nation heard the Gospel in their own tongue.

Second, God’s mystery long hidden was that the nations in their nations would come into the Kingdom (Eph. 3:6).

Third, we see in Revelation 21-22 that the Nations as Nations come into the new Jerusalem thus teaching that Nations even exist in the new Heavens and Earth.

Fourth, we have the OT teaching (Isaiah 2 and Micah 4) that the nations in their nations will come unto the Mountain of the Lord to be taught God’s Law.

Fifth, we have not only Vos’s take on Christian Nationalism, but another Theologian, Martin Wyngaarden, taught that the Nations would never disappear, contrary to your dumbass assertion;

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

And when it comes to Acts 17, you might consider also reading vs. 26 AJ;

26 And He has made from one [j]blood EVERY NATION of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings

Did you catch that AJ? God is the one who appointed the existence of Nations and NOTHING in Scripture suggests that they will eventually all bleed into one. In order for that idea to be accepted one has to go to U2’s Bono.

AJ Derxsen writes;

Which presupposes that ultimately, in a fully restored universe, there will no longer be nation-states. Because everyone in the New Cosmos will have “found” God – and thus the purpose of the Babel separation will have been fulfilled.

BLMc responds,

Do you read the Bible much AJ?

The Glory of the New Jerusalem

Revelation 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the NATIONS of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the KINGS of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they (the KINGS of the various NATIONS ) shall bring the glory and the honor of the NATIONS to it.

22 And he showed me a [r]pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the NATIONS.

AJ Derxson tells us that with the eschaton there will be no more nation-states. God’s Word tells us that there will be Nations-States and even Kings in the eschaton.

Now, who should we believe?

Infant Baptism Hymn

To the Tune of ” Beneath the Cross”

Beneath the blood stained lintel I with my children stand
A messenger of evil is passing through the land
There is no other refuge from the destroyer’s face
Beneath the blood stained lintel shall be our hiding place.

The Lamb of God has suffered our sins and griefs He bore
By faith the blood is sprinkled above our dwelling’s door
The foe who seeks to enter doth fear that sacred sign
Tonight the blood stained lintel shall shelter me and mine.

My Savior, for my dear ones, I claim thy promise true.
The lamb was for the household the children’s savior too.
On earth the little children Once felt they touch divine.
Beneath the blood stained lintel thy blessing give to thine

O Thou who gave them, guard them, Those wayward little feet:
The wilderness before them, the ill of life to meet.
My parent love is helpless, I trust them to thy care.
Beneath the blood stained lintel, O keep them ever there.

The trust I place upon Thee, Thou wilt not disappoint.
With wisdom, Lord to train them. My shrinking heart anoint.
Without my children, Father, I cannot bear thy face,
I plead the blood stained lintel, Thy covenant of grace.

O Wonderful Redeemer, who suffered for my sake,
When o’er the guilty nations, they judgment storm shall break,
With joy from that safe shelter, May we then see Thine eye,
Beneath the blood stained lintel, My children, Lord, and I.

Lord, keep me from that error, that holds my child outside
And steals from them your promise, that for them you have died
We bless thee Holy Father, Our children you have claimed
Beneath that blood stained lintel, and wearing now your name

The generations gather, in one unfallen line
To jointly lift our voices, to praise your name sublime
You’ve gathered sainted Fathers, You’ve given us our seed
Beneath that blood stained lintel, we have all that we need

Vs. 1-6 — H. A. Ironside
Vs. 7-8 — B. L. McAtee

Scruton on the Relation Between the Living & the Dead; McAtee on Scruton

“The dead and the unborn are as much members of society as the living. To dishonor the dead is to reject the relation of obligation between generations.”

Roger Scruton
On Rousseau

Let us proceed to tease out some implications here;

1.) Of course this is nothing but the cream that rises to the surface from the doctrine called “Kinism,” which is itself merely Christianity as applied to social order functioning. There is not only a relation between kin who are living but also a relation between kin living, kin who have gone before and kin who are yet unborn. Without a honored continuity across the generations man becomes hyper-individualized with no sense of belonging to something greater than himself.

2.) Those who deny this truism are violators of the fifth commandment as Scruton’s second sentence clearly communicates. One simply can not deny Kinism and claim Christ.

3.) The only place left to go if one denies Scruton’s channeling of Edmund Burke is some form of cosmopolitanism. The eschew this wisdom is to embrace the life of the rootless nomad, and the wandering Jew.

4.) Without this principle what evolves is an ugly generational selfishness embraced by each succeeding generation. Without this principle living is only about me, myself, and I. Again, the sense of belonging is almost impossible to re-create.

5.) The only time we have authority to walk away from our forebears our walk away from our children is when our forebears were unfaithful to Christ in their traditions or when our children are unfaithful to Christ and His gracious Law-Word. To have to walk away from either of them for the sake of the King would be gladly done but done as with great tears and heaviness of heart. We would weep over their loss and our loss while rejoicing in gaining the Kingdom.

6.) In order to make this concrete keep in mind that all those “Christians” out there who are decrying Christian Nationalism, or Kinism, or even often-times “Racism” are in point of fact functionally denying the essence of this proverb. Those who deny this have to be considered at the very least “alienists” and at the worse, Enlightenment Liberals or Communists.