The Celebration of What We Believe

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Happy Easter! God bless you all.

Advertisements

A Good Friday Anthem

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you,

because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
if we endure, we shall also reign with him.

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you,
because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.


~ Good Friday Anthem 2, from The Book of Common Prayer

And Bureaucracy for All

Over at Dalrock’s, in response to a post about the Roman Church’s broad and slick annulment practices, commenter CerrilanAufen wrote:

One thing that hasn’t been discussed here on this blog (that I’ve seen) is that Catholic priests are supposed to personally council couples considering marriage.

(For the sake of discussion I am assuming this is considered to be true. My Roman Catholic readers can correct us in the comments if it’s not.) Regardless, I know this same shirking of responsibility and misapplication of blame is at work in non-RCC churches and really everywhere in America.

For example, my Anglican churches assume every problem can be solved by convening a new committee which will then institute a new program to tackle it. Coincidentally, every problem is considered to be a New Problem even when it is actually an old problem. That way no one has to repent, hold anyone accountable, or have an uncomfortable conversation. No one has to hurt anyone’s feelings, or risk the perception of being Not Nice.

Here’s another example from outside of the ecclesial world. It is assumed by everyone but teachers that the problem with public schools is a failure of teachers to “reach” their pupils. If a student hits another student, it’s a teacher’s failure. Students who refuse to do their schoolwork are assumed to be under the sway of a poor teacher. And so on and so forth.

These are actually problems with parents and their children. We blame priests, pastors, teachers, etc. because we don’t want to accept responsibility. So we construct bureaucracies to allow us to perpetually shuffle the blame around instead of believing that God knew what He was doing when He gave those kids to those parents.

It’s a world ruled like a daycare.

Choose the Battlefield Wisely

The answer–the right warfare against Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Feminists, Democrats–is to put Christ first. The wrong answer is to put anything else first. I said that these groups are against:

  1. Christians
  2. Whites
  3. Men
  4. America (in combination of 1-3)

and that is true. But there are several reasons not to put energy into pro-white movements, or even pro-male movements. The first and most important reason is that Christ is king and lord of all. We are to serve Him in all things we do, and (amazingly, I think) Christ has provided ways for us to serve Him first in all things we do.

The second reason is that we should never let the enemy choose the terrain of the battles; especially when our combatants are so outnumbered. That is when choice of terrain is most vital for victory. So we rightly should counter invasions on whiteness or manhood with counterattacks from Christ; not because we don’t care about whites or men, but because we need to attack from a position of strength. Nothing is stronger than Christ, whose victory is assured. Not only that, but they neither believe nor understand their own motivations and their own spiritual state–or even nature. This makes an attack launched from a Christ-centered force powerful because it is their weak spot.

So what does this look like in practice? That means to put Christians first for Christian reasons. This is something we have taken for granted. The strength of early America wasn’t “Americanism”. The goodness and truth of the founding documents, to the extent that they are good and true,  don’t make appeal to their own goodness, but to the goodness of God and His natural order. The rights of freedom of speech[1], association, etc. are not predicated on either blood or soil, but on the belief that they are God-given.

So, for example: We should counter pagan attacks on Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals, bakers, and florists not on the defensive grounds of freedom of speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion, nor the whiteness of the staff; but on the counter-offensive terms that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are upholding the God-ordained natural order. We don’t “pray those poor people are ok” (though we do pray for them), we make it our business to help them be victorious even at our own cost, and that we offer up those sacrifices for Christ’s glory. We do not offer them for freedom of speech or even religion.

This doesn’t mean we “forget” that we are American, our political traditions, or forget our ethnicity. It means we put them into submission into their rightful place, and by so doing make them worthy. It means we volunteer to suffer in the earthly and unworthy things–whether it is money, glory, status, or even blood–as Christ volunteered to suffer all those things for us so that we could inherit eternal riches and glory, and that we do so for the same reasons.


[1] I do believe these freedoms are real, God-given, and should be protected by a just and wise government. Perhaps I’ll write about that in another post.

Stop Being Distracted

Taken (only slightly edited) from several comments on Dalrock’s post, “First They Came for the Bald Men”.


The movement of which Antifa, commies, Democrats, etc. all belong isn’t anymore essentially Left than its opponents are Nazis. The essence of the movement to which these groups belong–what they have in common–is a hatred of three things:

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

The order of hatred depends on with which faction of the movement one deals, but the three are essential. For example: Feminism hates men first, then Christianity, then whites. Black Lives Matter orders it Whites, Christianity, then men, I think. Sometimes, as in the case of Antifa, more than one plank is of equal weight. Antifa hates America as a whole because it recognizes that America is fundamentally a work of white Christian men.

It’s not autonomous vs. totalitarian, nor is it globalists vs. nationalists, nor is it politically correct speech vs. free speech. They are not FOR anything in particular. They exist to be AGAINST things. Specifically, they are against

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

Some are fine–and even for–capitalism in China, India, wherever–as long as the benefits are not for Christian white men. They love to welcome Muslim mid-easterners, but the Christian mid-easterners are served right to be killed and exiled. There is no rhyme or reason to these affiliated groups except what they are against. Leftism has nothing to do with this movement.

They don’t know or care what Left means.
They don’t know or care what Nazi means.
They don’t know or care what Globalism means.
They don’t know or care what Right means.
They don’t know or care what Fascist means.
They don’t know or care what Nationalism means.
They don’t know or care what Communist means.

The words, to them, contain no meaning whatsoever. Those things are just words that dead white oppressors made up to separate the real people of color from each other and their belongings. They appropriate and use these terms as various forms of subversive weaponry: dog whistles, cloaks, and diversions.

Most people, people who describe themselves as Conservative, or even merely “normal” just don’t accept what they actually see. And the self-styled Conservative press are trained to look for ideological underpinnings and try to perceive the “end game”. There aren’t any. It’s just envy and hatred. The average American refuses to believe that and so they theorize imaginary ideologies and end games for BLM, Antifa, Feminists, and so forth.

Envy and hate aren’t ideological points. They are of the spiritual realm. It’s a spiritual war; not an ideological war, nor an ethnic war.

A Churlish Defense

I originally posted this as a comment under Scott’s post “The Christo-Rational-Consensus Approach” at his recently revived blog, American Dad Web.  I think it’s coherent enough to stand as a post on its own; though I’m often my own worst critic.


Because we are mostly the sociological descendants of Anglo-Saxons, here’s something to think about:

Before the Norman Conquest of England, the accepted premise was that the land was owned by the people; more specifically by the person who was on it; whether male or female. A king rules over the people, but he doesn’t rule their lands directly. With William the Conqueror comes the French idea that the land belongs to the king, and that the people belong to the land. That is very different. So, for example, peasants couldn’t just up and move to another lord’s land because they belong to a defined space. But a king (as ruler of the land) could give peasants to another land, or his peasants could be another king’s by that second’s conquer of the land. Really, a peasant wasn’t of the king. He was of the land. Kings though are not tied to a land. They are something else; something above. Hence: Rigid class structures. That’s a problem because it fundamentally divides the people from its leader.

Nation states are an attempt to correct that. It says that the people and the nobility (the leaders, regardless of nomenclature) both belong to the land. That’s why Marx saw nation states as an obstruction to class struggle; because it gave an excuse to unite the leaders and the people. Marx saw that the actions of the nobility often belie their true allegiance: Like everyone they are prone to be allegiant to themselves first and to make common cause with other wealthy and privileged people from other nations, rather than with their own native peoples. Technology matters too: Marx lived in the time when the ship and the train raised the ability of the commoner to move across borders just like the nobles did.

Like Marx, I think nation states are a less-than-stable idea. Unlike Marx, I think that the problem is more fundamental than that of classes. I believe “class warfare” is a symptom of the sickness which places people under land instead of over it; of saying that people belong to a land instead of to a family and by extension to a nation of people–and that land belongs to them each, individually.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this. For example: In pre-feudal England, each free man (which were the great majority, only slaves weren’t free men) was required to own a spear and was subject to be summoned for war; usually on a rotation. Which makes sense: It’s your land, you defend it. Feudalism led directly to professional mercenary armies that worked anywhere and everywhere for the highest bidder while the inhabitants of the lands in contest got burned, pillaged, and raped–because it wasn’t the peasants place to fight.

Again, there are a lot of things to look at. Feudalism is like a softer Sparta where the 10% of Spartans ruled (brutally) over 90% Helots. Anglo-Saxon England was analogous to Athens. Early America was also in the vein of Athens (e.g. 2nd Amendment of weapons and militias), but we are rapidly moving towards a more feudal and Spartan model (e.g., civilians thanking warriors for their service of invading countries to the sole benefit of the leaders) instead of actually picking up a weapon and defending what they own.

Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.

WAN Manual Discussion 4: Defining the Spheres of Conflict

In the years of our Lord, Who rules and Who we obey, there are two institutions which most concern the Christian man, according to His word: The family, and the church. Everything else is secondary at best. This hasn’t been stated clearly enough on my blog, but it informs every post. That doesn’t mean we ignore politics and business and other things. It means we order them accordingly, and we understand that those secondary things must be in service to the family and the church. Anyone who wishes to work for a healthy nation must follow the Lord’s way, and His way goes through the family and the church.

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?

Whore Mother May I

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. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”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?