A Nice Quiet Apology

I spend a significant amount of time with college kids; many of them professed Christians. They cannot accept that there is such a thing as good and evil in the world for more than one debate at a time, and for no longer than five minutes. They believe God and Heaven are good, and Satan and Hell are evil, but they think every thing and every action actually in the world are only relatively good or evil and even then only predicated on one’s opinion. It is enough to make me want to weep.

The churches, from whom one might want to recruit, are either half-filled with timid Christians, scared and scarred by the undead assault, or (worse) full of the husks of Christians. So I’ve been listening and reading pastors and bloggers in search of encouragement and resistance, but I have not much found it. The advice from the pulpits and keyboards is “More Apologetics!” or “More Revival!” I must assume that these men are not really seeing the sad state of the potentially revived apologists in the pews. Sufficiently inquisitive and bright and passionate men are not in great supply. So the apologetics produced are for niceness, and the revival is for passivity.

WAN Manual Draft Discussion 2

This is a continuation of ideas; not a replacement or second draft. This is brainstorming. I haven’t finished an outline of a first draft! As well, let me point out that the order is not indicative of the importance.  From the first part of the draft:

1. Men going out in groups of two or more, armed both Biblically and physically, to aid other Christian men.
2. Church research database

Short-term, the goal is to provide immediate physical world support for Christian men in crisis. Long-term, I expect those men to return the favor…as they can. Most men don’t have the abilities needed for this work. In fact very few men do; including me. What I do have is a willingness to fight and nothing to lose; not even my family. Don’t misunderstand me: They are all believers in Christ and submit to His lordship. But my family, just like everyone else’s, is under sustained assault from undead God-haters from all the public institutions. Every moment of every day they are desensitizing my beloveds, trivializing the Gospel-based resistance to modern decadence, and attempting to convert them into irrelevant oblivioids.

I also have jobs from which it would be useless to get me fired. If some sodomite vampire gets me fired from pizza delivery–that just frees up my time. That’s not the case for men who are supporting a family on one income. I would not expose them to either the temptation for fear nor the real risk of reprisal.

 

However, some remnants have found each other online. That is something. What we need now is to vet each other, and be able to physically be near for help, and to be anti-fragile in our personal economies. The white collar middle manager probably isn’t useful as a direct agent. He and his family are vulnerable. His contribution would be support; to help pay for a plane ticket, or offer a couch to sleep upon if someone is driving cross-country. So that’s idea number 3.

Idea 4 is that we need specific men for specific and limited goals. For example: We need men who know how to deal with and persuade a Reformed pastor who is ambivalent towards the divorce of a parishioner who has asked for help. A pastor should never be ambivalent about that.

We need a list of specific problems and goals. Suggestions appreciated.

Help Needed: Warning to the Homophobes

I’m looking for the full text of an article titled “Warning to the Homophobes”, by Steve Warren. It was published in 1987 in “The Advocate”, a magazine devoted to sodomite lifestyles. Here is a snippet of the text:

“[W]e are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality.

[…] Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others,” he said, “eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages.”

It is interesting that I cannot find it online, nor anything definitive of its author. For example: Someone named Steve Warren won a GLAAD award in 2013. Here’s a list of the winners. He’s the only winner without a Wikipedia page. One would think someone notable enough to win an award from GLAAD would warrant at least a short entry; especially since every other winner has one.

Your Other Right Mind

The other day I wrote “Revelation is a puzzle”, but that might have been misunderstood depending on what one thinks of when one thinks of puzzles.

Prophecy, in the Bible, is always descriptive, and not instructive. It paints a scene. It does not rationalize. If it is a puzzle then it is a picture puzzle, and neither a scheme nor an equation.

So, for example, if you read Revelation and think that The Whore of Babylon represents Feminism or that Babylon represents Liberalism: Fine. I’ll still be looking for a woman, or a female institution.

The Religious Poachers of Sparta

I said in the previous post that it is theorized that the emergence of the Spartan martial culture was the result of the necessity to maintain control over a huge number of slaves, called Helots. One of the facts supporting this theory is that every year the Ephors (a kind of senate and supreme court rolled into one) officially declared war on the Helots–the slaves living in Spartan lands who outnumbered the Spartans 10 to 1.

Spartans did not actually move troops against their slaves the Helots. Instead, every autumn they sent young graduates of the Agoge (the Spartan training program) into the countryside surrounding Helot villages with nothing but a knife and the command to kill the best of the Helots–without being caught–and to steal for their sustenance. These young Spartans were called Krypteia[1] In this way the Helot population was controlled, and any perceived leaders of the Helots were removed.

Just to be clear: The Spartans ritually declared war on their own slave population; who were the people who fed the Spartans. Recall that Spartans were forbid to do any work aside from war and training. And remember that in ancient times the season of war began in spring and running through the summer. The reason for declaring war was so that any Spartan could kill any Helot without staining himself with the sin of murder; a necessary legalism because killing Helots for political purposes was a foregone conclusion of the Spartans.

One might think that a lifestyle of perpetual, off-season, secret, murder campaign–under the cover of law and tradition, and against the people who feed and clothe Spartans and who cannot defend themselves–would be off-putting to their observers. Yet Spartans are esteemed as a highly regimented and religious people. Plato’s Republic[2] proposes a society very like Sparta, and the Romans held them in high regard. More than shades of Spartan ethics will survive into Medieval Europe; particularly in the southern countries.

---

[1] Krypteia is a cognate of <i>cryptic</i>, and means <i>secret</i> or <i>hidden</i> just as it does now in English.

[2] Almost 20 years ago I first read The Republic, and that was the end of my indoctrinated estimation of the Plato/Socrates. Who proposes state-sponsored orphanages as a primary means of child-rearing?

This Week’s Learning: Ancient Sparta

I’m currently listening to A History of Ancient Sparta by Timothy Shutt. Some thoughts, so I keep posting:

• I thought gay marriage was a new thing, but the Spartan’s practiced a form of contractual gay relationships. Twelve-year old boys were paired with twenty-year old men, and these pairings lasted until the younger’s training was completed, when he turned twenty. Then he’d be picked for another gay contract. Of course neither the modern practice nor the ancient Spartan are marriage, but they do exist under official and overt contracts.
• Spartans were a feared, but small force. There were never very many Spartan men; usually less than 10,000. The land they controlled was worked by their slaves, the Helots, who outnumbered Spartans 10-1. There were also a class of craftsmen, the perioikoi, who were free, but not citizens of Sparta. Shutt theorizes that Sparta developed into a military state because they needed every man in the professional army to control such an overwhelming number of slaves.
• Spartan women were known to be beautiful, athletic, naked, (too) outspoken, and “free with their sexuality” in comparison to the other Greek city-states, and even other peoples. Older Spartan men often shared their younger wives with other men. Spartan wives, it is said, liked this arrangement. A wife would preside over two homes and no Spartan–male or female–was allowed to do work. Keeping house meant telling Helot slaves what to do.
• The crimson cloaks of Sparta–the official and mandatory uniforms–were dyed with the same Phoenician/Canaanite/Tyrian purple dye which the Romans used for their garments, and which is mentioned in Revelations. I may never buy another red or purple shirt.

One thought I had concerning the reasons that Spartan men became so individually imposing is because there were so few of them, and there had to be a lot of Spartan women. The men often died in battle, right? So what do you get when the men are constantly going off to either train for war, or go to war? You get women who can’t be bridled. You get women who expect every man to be better than the one who came before, and men who want to live up to that; if not exceed it. You get an elite group of men who can’t individually “service” the population of beautiful, nude, mouthy women.

As I was listening, I wondered if America isn’t working itself, unreflectively, towards a Spartan model. The author mentions, and I have heard myself directly, that many Europeans consider American women to be beautiful, (too) outspoken, and “free with their sexuality”. I certainly think there is a case to be made that we are developing–again, without thought–a marked separation between peoples which is turning America into a society of:

• Spartans (Athletes/politicians/entertainers/bankers/etc. In a word: Alphas)
• Perioikoi (Technicians/programmers/lawyers/accountants/middle management/Master Tradesmen/etc. In a word: Betas)
• Helots (Mexicans/Blacks/Poor Whites/etc. In a word: Chumps)

A Draft of a Manual to War Against the Necropolis

I wrote earlier that I would write some thoughts on how one goes about living and moving in Babylon, the Necropolis. Here is the first draft of what I hope to become a fully-realized manual, or even possibly an organization.

1. Men going into problem churches, or church-related problems, in elite teams of two or more. These men are armed with scripture and resources provided by other members. They should also travel with arms against physical foes. Jesus said:

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

When Jesus had first sent out the disciples he sent them out in twos:

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.2 And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.

“But now…” Jesus said, and has the state of things from that time–that now–changed? I don’t believe it has. I believe He meant from that moment going forward. I want to be clear that weapons are for defense on the way to the mission; not to accomplish the mission. The battle is not against flesh and blood, but we have to survive highwaymen and murderers to arrive at the spiritual battles to fight them. I would go so far as to say that any man who is not physically armed had better have an excellent reason.

I also note that the scheme of sending them out in groups has not changed. Jesus doesn’t send out individual heroes. I am strongly against the idea of “bootstrapping” a correction of a church.

We need an elite group of men who both drink the living waters, and who keep sharp eyes on their surroundings.

2. We need a resource for men searching for a church home. It is no longer enough to look at a church sign and determine what they practice. Churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, say as a matter of faith and doctrine that they believe in families and churches led by men. In practice though, they vary. You will find among them Sunday School classes, and worship services, and Bible studies led by women.

As another example: Many believe that there are no churches which teach head-coverings by example. That’s not true. You can find some Anglicans who do (Even in America!), as well as some Pentecostals, and I believe some Lutheran as well. I’m sure I’m missing some.

Another example: The Biblical instruction for choosing elders/priests/bishops and deacons is the husband of one wife, and a father of children who are well-behaved believers. Is this true of the First Baptist Church of Podunk? Does he have a whore-mongering son? Does the pastor of Grace-filled Calvary Chapel have children in another state whom he does not see?

The point of this…database…would be to provide a catalog of churches which shows who they really are, and thus hold them accountable to the Scriptures, and force them to make a defense of themselves–to show themselves approved.

Feel free to criticize, suggest, or otherwise improve upon this barest of beginnings.

 

Do Church Doors Erase Bibles?

Moose Norseman has a post in response to a bit of writing by John C. Wright.

In effect, the Lutheran claim is a claim of the right to rebel against the teaching authority of the Church, on the grounds that the Church is apostate. Unfortunately, the sole witness for the apostasy of the Church is an alleged disagreement between Church teachings and the scriptures on which the Church relies for those teachings.

But the sole witness for the validity, canonicity, historicity, and divinity those selfsame scriptures is the authority of the Church whose members wrote them, gathered, sanctified, protected, promulgated and canonized them.

This is false. It is an opinion woefully uninformed about the history of The Church of Rome, the Orthodox Church, and the Reformation which came out of the Church of Rome. It’s also very common among all those who call themselves Christian. Here is a very truncated version; particularly concerning Martin Luther and those who heard him.[1]

~30-33AD: Pentecost happens in Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts. Then you can continue reading Acts, and then Romans, and then the rest of the NT. It contains (some of) the history of the spread of Christianity by the Apostles and their helpers; which occurred in a generally westward direction. The Gospel is established in Asia Minor and Greece prior to Rome; though it is all under the Roman Empire. Among the important churches are Jerusalem and Antioch. However; in Revelation we get addresses to seven churches none of which have I mentioned yet: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These are all in Asia Minor; what is now called Turkey.

330AD: Constantine, emperor of Rome moves the Roman Empire’s capitol to Byzantium, and renames it after himself: Constantinople. This is the seat of power.

1053AD: The Great Schism happens. The Church in Rome and the Church in Constantinople separate. From then until 1543, there is dispute between the two churches/empires and a good deal of bloodshed back-n-forth. You can read about the Massacre of the Latins and the Siege of Constantinople on your own.

1299AD: The Ottoman Empire is founded in Anatolia; a province of Asia Minor. Muslim in religion, they proceed to move westward, and conquer for the next 200 years. During this time, theologians, historians, and other academics in the Constantine Empire flee westward to escape the Ottomans. They bring with them texts and documents which had been either forgot, or ignored, in the west. As these documents are translated and disseminated in the sphere of the Church of Rome, many theologians began to study them. It was a reunion of scholarship. The teachings of the Early Church fathers (so many of whom were in Asia Minor) reveal a gulf between the teachings of that Early Church, and the teachings of the Roman Church. Among other things: The official translation of the Bible of the Church of Rome is found to have many discrepancies and errors when compared to the treasure-trove of documents the eastern scholars brought west.

They also brought with them Greek ideas about art and architecture and all sorts of things. Western buildings from the Middle Ages fell out of fashion, and deemed Gothic; which meant Germanic as in the Visigothic and Ostrogothic kings who had crushed the Western Roman Empire and divied it up amongst themselves. In other words: They called them barbarians. Well, western Europeans got bad feelings about this and so they started a Renaissance to be cooler than the Greeks. In this milieu is born a movement among the Roman academics called Humanism. They are seeing the discrepancies between what the actual Early Church Fathers said in these exiled documents, and what the Roman Church does. Questions are asked. New translations of the Bible are written; this time cross-referenced with the thousands of translations brought out of the Eastern Roman Empire to check for accuracy in word and meaning.

1440: The printing press is invented by Gutenberg. Literature becomes cheap, literacy becomes easy, and the Roman clergy’s stranglehold over theological education is broken. Even some priests learned to read! That’s right, a good number of them could not. It was too expensive. This is the world and maelstrom into which Martin Luther is born.

1453AD: The Fall of Constantinople occurs at the hands of Mehmad the Conqueror and his Ottoman Empire. The second Roman Empire never rises again. Christian scholasticism is shifted permanently west.

1517AD: Roman Catholic theologian, monk, and priest Martin Luther writes his 95 Theses and posts it for debate; as was the habit of Roman Catholic academics. He had been influenced by the writings of Erasmus and others of the Humanist movement, and was incensed by the practice of the sale of Indulgences; particularly as done by Johann Tetzel. The printing press spreads Luther’s ideas.

Obviously this is far from complete. What I want to demonstrate is that the criticism of the Church in Rome came from explicitly Christian sources–as recognized by the Church of Rome itself.

John C. Wright cannot say “Unfortunately, the sole witness for the apostasy of the Church is an alleged disagreement between Church teachings and the scriptures on which the Church relies for those teachings.

But the sole witness for the validity, canonicity, historicity, and divinity those selfsame scriptures is the authority of the Church whose members wrote them, gathered, sanctified, protected, promulgated and canonized them.”

That’s a gross falsehood which darkens the mind of any who believe it. You cannot say–with integrity and knowledge–that the Church in the Eastern Roman Empire was not a legitimate Church. The Orthodox Church bore witness before the Romans. It was there first.

Nor did Martin Luther begin his criticism of the Roman Church from the outside, but from within. They trained him! In modern speech we would call him a whistleblower, and he sought out justice from the hierarchic structure of the Roman Church. But the Church in Rome was threatened because ignorance, corruption, and abuse were rampant in that structure.

Wright might as well say that he can’t be sure his Bible contains the same words on one side of the church door as it does the other.

---

[1]  (The story of Henry VIII is the story of a Roman Catholic and superstitious opportunist; which church Reformers under him both used, and from whom they suffered.)

Whore Mother May I

4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.

But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.

What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.

Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.

What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.

Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.

Where Does One Find Romanism in America?

Colin Kaepernick is not the only one who has trouble honoring the symbols of the United States. For years now I have observed and taught my children that during the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance we stand at attention, but we do not pledge, and we do not place our hands over our hearts. We are pledged to Christ. If America were dedicated to Christ in spirit and in prose then there would be no division for us. From its deistic founding by overt Christians and an unfortunate critical mass of deists, the US has rambled from a state of spiritual allegiance to Christ in the hearts of the people (who labored under an overtly indifferent-to-Christ system of government) to an empire which has set it’s face against Christ.

The NRx crowd says, all day every day, that this is the spoilage of Protestantism; particularly of the Puritan sort, though they also say that Puritanism is the only really logical end of a fully-realized Protestantism. Somehow, Puritans get linked to Jews because after some Puritans fell into deism (taking Harvard and Yale with it) Jews immigrated in much larger numbers to the US. What can be counted against many Puritans (though not nearly all) is that they fell and fattened into deism. Because deism is like a negative of Roman pantheism. Instead of believing as the Romans did that any god is a god worth worshipping–it is the belief that every god is really just some aspect of one amorphous god who, or what, somewhere, did something. There’s some Babylonian Whoredom, for sure, but where is the connection of Puritan descendants and Jews?

All this gets blamed on Puritanism/Protestantism for the integration and ascension of Jews into American society; particularly in the spheres of education, government, entertainment, and journalism, but why? Whatever sins or corruptions the Jews have committed in journalism and entertainment I think is squarely on them. The one real exception to that is that someone (Who very well could have been Puritan. I have no idea.) let them into this country with its free press. The US also let in a lot–a whole lot–of RomanCatholics.

Starting in 1820, the US let in wave after wave of immigrants from Ireland (mostly Roman Catholic) Italy (Roman Catholic) Poland (Roman Catholic) Germany (predominantly from the Roman Catholic portions) Hungary (Roman Catholic). At the same time people are immigrating from Mexico (Roman Catholic) and Everything South of Mexico (Roman Catholic). Coming with them–especially from Germany and the Eastern European countries–were Jews.

By the 1900s, socialism is a force in American politics. Animating socialism–it’s thinkers and organizers–are Jews and a lot of Catholics who have brought liberalism over from the Continent and deposited in the streets of American cities. It is fair to say that it had already crept into Harvard, Yale, and the upper classes. That’s a far different thing than socialism in factories and schools and churches.

In 50 years the populations of the powerful, mostly east-coast–US cities are transformed from mostly Protestant to mostly Catholic, because these Roman Catholic immigrant tended not to disperse into the country and remained in the cities. It is this constant supply of fresh blood that allows to Union army to absorb massive casualties and still field more immigrants against their America brothers.

As American politics developed, Roman Catholics–regardless of ethnicity–were soundly in the camp of the Democrats; as were the Jews. The leaders of Marxist-inspired movements in schools and factories and city councils were: Atheist, Roman Catholic, or Jewish. Not Protestant.

It turns out that Roman Catholics in power want more Roman Catholics, and that Jews are glad to help them do it. At the American Revolution .6% of Americans were Roman Catholic. By 1960 it was 30% and the Protestant United States elected its first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. In the years between Roman Catholics came to dominate the Democratic party, and the Democratic party injected its policies with Marxist ideas from Roman Catholics and their long-time neighbors: Jews.

Around the same time, out of Latin/South American Roman Catholics would come Liberation Theology; a Marxist interpretation of Christianity which interprets Christian history, Traditions, and the Bible according to “class struggle”. Liberation Theology came with the Roman Catholic hordes flowing over the US’ southern borders. This will be important later.

In 1965 the Immigration and Nationality Act is passed, and limits on immigration are wildly reduced–especially in that it no longer restricted immigration from Asia, Africa, and Southern and Eastern Europe. That is: Roman Catholic countries. The act was proposed by Emanuel Cellar (descended from Jews and German Roman Catholics), co-sponsored Philip Hart (an Irish Roman Catholic), and promoted by Ted Kennedy (Irish Roman Catholic and brother of the then-dead John F. Kennedy.)

Basically: The 60s happened, and it happened at the hands of the Democrats which the Roman Catholics and the Jews built, and the United States never recovered.

By then radicalism began to scare some Roman Catholics and Jews alike, and a political split occurs. But it doesn’t split in the sense of Jews going one way and Roman Catholics another. Those who went, went together and those who stayed, stayed together. At this time we get the rise of the Neo-Conservatives and the Republican party starts absorbing the fellow-travelling Roman Catholics and Jews who had split from their radical brothers.

The tailspin of America has only accelerated, and it is accelerating at a quadratic rate. Whatever our ethnicities or religions, we now have two groups of people in America: Those who think men who dress as women should disrobe with little girls, and those who think they should disrobe with little boys. (There is no debate about the wrongness of trans-sexualism. There is no concern for the boys.) How did we come to this? Who has been presiding?

I’m going to finish this post with a descending-order list of powerful politicians which I think illustrates how profoundly wrong the NRx theory of Judeo-Puritan conspiracy is, how poorly political parties in the US fail at what they say they will do when infiltrated by Roman Catholics and Jews, and how much spiritual nationality matters.

• President Obama – Raised Muslim/Atheist, converted to “Protestant” Christianity. Actually mentored and taught by Jeremiah Wright; who preaches Liberation Theology
• Joe Biden – Roman Catholic
• Paul Ryan – Roman Catholic
• John Boehner – Roman Catholic
• Eric Cantnor – Judaism
• Marco Rubio – Roman Catholic
• Jeb Bush – Roman Catholic
• Rick Santorum – Roman Catholic
• Newt Gingrich – Roman Catholic
• Nancy Pelosi – Roman Catholic
• Barbara Boxer – Judaism
• Dianne Feinstein – Atheist Jew
• William F. Buckley – Roman Catholic
• Jonah Goldberg – Judaism
• Irving Kristol – Non-practicing Jew
• etc.

But here is the list that I think is really eye-opening. The most powerful branch of the US government is the Supreme Court:

• John Roberts – Roman Catholic
• Anthony Kennedy – Roman Catholic
• Clarence Thomas – Roman Catholic
• Ruth Ginsberg – Judaism
• Stephen Breyer – Judaism
• Sam Alito – Roman Catholic
• Sonia Sotomayor – Roman Catholic
• Elena Kagan – Judaism
• Antonin Scalia (deceased) – Roman Catholic

Before Scalia died there were six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court. Before them, there had only been seven total. American Roman Catholics repeatedly leave the problems of America at the feet of Protestantism and say, “Tsk! Tsk! What a mess you’ve made. If only you knew the Mother Church in Rome you wouldn’t have these problems.”

What I, the NRx, and the Alt-Right agree upon is that America’s direction is no longer in the hands of the people. And I tell you that Mother Church in Rome already knows the decision-makers in America. So what are we going to do about it?