June 2026 — Notes and X Posts: America at 250/America’s Christian Founding, Marriage and Polarity, Propositional Nationhood, Immigration, Fatherhood, Hitler and Nazism, Slavery, the South and Secession, Enoch Powell, Preaching, Columbus, 2 Samuel 8, Mark 11, Assurance, French Revolution, Civil Rights

—

“Not a coincidence that the Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship was divided along gender lines more than political ones. This is why we should not have women on the Supreme Court. Before everyone gets offended or takes this as an insult to women, consider the fact that it is natural for a woman to desire to nurture. It is natural for a man to protect. Whether politically conservative or liberal, a woman is going to opt for empathy and seek to nurture rather than consider the historical context of the relevant documents or seek to protect civilization.”

— Jared Lovell

—

“The history of the United States is that of a battle between the two Johns of Geneva, John Calvin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and it seems that Rousseau is winning.”

— Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddin, 1972

—

The problem with modern sexual ethics:

It is not consent that sanctifies sex. It is covenant that sanctifies sex.

—

It used to be that empires would deracinate people, detaching them from their roots and loyalties, in order to control them. Today, people deracinate themselves on social media.

—

“But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.”

— Ruth 1:16

When Ruth immigrated to Israel, she assimilated completely. This is the only kind of immigration that works.

—

Grok on Hitler’s Marcionism and “Positive Christianity”:

Hitler and the Nazis generally held a negative view of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), primarily because of its Jewish origins, which they saw as incompatible with their racial ideology and “Aryan” vision of Christianity. 
They promoted a heavily edited or “de-Judaized” form of Christianity known as “Positive Christianity,” which rejected much of the Old Testament as “too Jewish,” along with certain New Testament elements (like parts associated with Paul). This aligned with broader efforts to purge Jewish influence from German culture, religion, and society. 
Key Aspects of Hitler’s Views

• Antisemitic reinterpretation and rejection: Hitler and Nazi ideologues viewed the Old Testament as a product of Jewish “materialism,” legalism, and “pettifoggery” (petty or overly legalistic concerns). They mocked concepts like the Jews as the “Chosen People” and used biblical stories (e.g., Cain as the wandering Jew, or money-changers in the Temple) to stereotype Jews as greedy or treacherous. Nazi propaganda and figures like Alfred Rosenberg derided it as containing “stories of pimps and cattle traders.”
• Efforts to remove or rewrite it: There were Nazi initiatives to produce a “dejudaized” Bible or church texts that eliminated or minimized the Old Testament. This included the work of groups like the German Christians (Deutsche Christen) and institutes aimed at eradicating Jewish influence on Christianity. Hitler reportedly outlined plans for a “purification of the Bible” as early as 1919, targeting elements inconsistent with Nazi spirit—widely interpreted as referring to the Old Testament.
• Private and public statements: In Mein Kampf and speeches, Hitler framed his antisemitism in pseudo-religious terms, sometimes invoking a divine mandate against Jews while distancing “true” Christianity from Jewish roots. He portrayed Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” against Jewish corruption (e.g., the Pharisees). In private remarks (e.g., Table Talk), he expressed contempt for much of Christian doctrine tied to Jewish origins, though sources like Table Talk have reliability issues due to editing and translation problems.
• Nuances and pragmatism: Publicly, especially early on, Hitler sometimes spoke positively of Christian values or the Ten Commandments for political reasons, to appeal to Germany’s Christian population. He affirmed elements like moral codes that fit his worldview but consistently subordinated religion to Nazi racial ideology. He was not a traditional Christian and criticized organized churches, though he avoided full public atheism.
  These views were not just theological but served propaganda and policy: they helped justify persecution, book burnings, and the Holocaust by framing Jews as eternal enemies. Nazi actions included renaming Jews with biblical names like “Sara” or “Israel” for identification, ironically drawing on the very texts they despised.
  Historians note that Hitler’s religious views evolved and were opportunistic—rooted in a mix of theism, providence (fate/God as a force behind nature and his destiny), and hostility to “effeminate” Christian ethics that conflicted with Social Darwinism. He saw himself as fighting for a higher “Lord’s work” against Jews, but this was a perversion of Christianity, not orthodox adherence.
  In summary, Hitler rejected the Old Testament as Jewish and sought to replace or excise it to create a racially “pure” German faith aligned with Nazism. This was part of a larger cultural and genocidal project.

Was Hitler a Marcionite of sorts?

Yes, Hitler and Nazi ideology can be described as “Marcionite of sorts,” or more precisely, neo-Marcionite, in their approach to Christianity—though with important differences rooted in racial antisemitism rather than pure theology. 
What Was Marcionism?
Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–160 AD) was an early Christian thinker labeled a heretic. He taught a sharp dualism:

• The wrathful, legalistic God of the Old Testament (a lesser creator or Demiurge) was not the same as the loving, merciful God revealed by Jesus in the New Testament.
• He rejected the entire Old Testament and much of the New (keeping only an edited Luke and Paul’s letters), seeing Judaism and its scriptures as fundamentally opposed to true Christianity.
• Jesus came to overthrow the Old Testament system, not fulfill it.
  This created a Christianity stripped of Jewish roots.
  Nazi “Positive Christianity” as Neo-Marcionism:
  Hitler and the Nazis promoted Positive Christianity (a key plank in the Nazi Party platform), which paralleled Marcionism in key ways:
• Rejection or heavy editing of the Old Testament: They viewed it as “too Jewish,” full of “cattle dealers and pimps,” legalism, and materialism. Nazi-aligned “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen) and institutes (like the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life) worked to remove it or “de-Judaize” the Bible. They produced versions like Die Botschaft Gottes (“The Message of God”), which excised the Old Testament and purged Jewish elements (names, prophecies, genealogies) from the New Testament.
• Reimagining Jesus: Jesus was recast as an Aryan hero and fighter against Judaism (e.g., cleansing the Temple as anti-Jewish action), not a Jew fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. This echoes Marcion’s view of Jesus opposing the Old Testament God/system.
• Anti-Jewish Christianity: The goal was a “pure” Germanic faith freed from Jewish influence, much like Marcion’s separation of Christianity from Judaism. Historians and theologians frequently link the two explicitly, calling Nazi efforts a form of neo-Marcionism or “the actual danger of Marcionism” in extreme form.
  Adolf von Harnack’s earlier 20th-century rehabilitation of Marcion (emphasizing a Christianity unburdened by the Old Testament) influenced some German theological circles that fed into Nazi thinking.
  Key Differences
• Motivation: Marcion’s was primarily theological/Gnostic-dualistic (two Gods, rejection of the material world’s creator). Nazi versions were racial and political—antisemitism as core ideology, with Christianity subordinated to blood, soil, and Führer principles. It wasn’t always strictly dualistic about “Gods” but about purging “Jewishness.”
• Pragmatism: Hitler used Christian rhetoric publicly when useful (e.g., invoking Providence or fighting “for the Lord”) but was privately contemptuous of much traditional Christianity. Positive Christianity was more a tool for control and mobilization than a fully coherent theology. Not all Nazis were on board; some leaned pagan or anti-Christian.
• Scope: Marcion built a rival church with his own canon. Nazis coordinated churches via Gleichschaltung (coordination) but never fully replaced mainstream Christianity everywhere.
  In short, while not identical to classical Marcionism, Nazi religious policy revived and radicalized its core impulse: severing Christianity from its Jewish scriptural and historical roots to serve a new ideology. This “Marcionite of sorts” label captures the parallel well and highlights how antisemitism could hijack Christian forms. Orthodox Christianity has always rejected both as heresies for undermining the unity of Scripture and God’s covenants.

What was Hitler’s “positive Christianity”?

Positive Christianity (Positives Christentum) was a Nazi-co-opted, racially infused version of Christianity promoted within the Third Reich, particularly through the German Christians (Deutsche Christen) movement. It sought to align (or subordinate) Christian faith with Nazi ideology, emphasizing racial purity, nationalism, and anti-Jewish elements while downplaying or rejecting traditional Christian doctrines. 
Origins and the Nazi Party Platform
The term appeared in Point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform:
“The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us…”
This ambiguous phrasing served a strategic purpose: it reassured Germany’s overwhelmingly Christian population (mostly Protestant and Catholic) that the Nazis were not anti-Christian or atheist like the Bolsheviks, while allowing flexibility for racial and völkisch (folkish/national) interpretations. “Positive” often contrasted with “negative” or liberal theology, implying an active, affirmative, deed-oriented faith aligned with German strength rather than “effeminate” pity or Jewish legalism. 
The German Christians Movement
The Deutsche Christen, emerging in the 1920s–1930s within German Protestantism, became the primary vehicle. They were nationalist, antisemitic, and eager to integrate Nazi principles into the church:

• Supported the idea of a unified Reich Church under Nazi influence.
• Advocated applying the Führerprinzip (leader principle) to church structure.
• Pushed for racial purity in the clergy (e.g., excluding those of Jewish descent via the Aryan Paragraph).
  In 1933, they gained significant influence after Hitler’s rise but never achieved full dominance, representing only a minority of pastors (around 3,000 out of 17,000 initially). They faced opposition from the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche), led by figures like Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who resisted state control and upheld orthodox doctrine.
  Core Beliefs and Practices:
  Positive Christianity was never a fully codified theology but varied by proponent. Common elements included:
• Rejection of Jewish influences: Heavy emphasis on removing the Old Testament (seen as Jewish and legalistic) and “de-Judaizing” the New Testament. Jesus was portrayed as an Aryan fighter against Judaism, not a Jew fulfilling Jewish prophecy.
• Racial and völkisch focus: Christianity subordinated to blood, race, and the German Volk. Racial purity was a divine mandate.
• Action over doctrine: Prioritized “positive” deeds, heroism, and national renewal over creeds, miracles, or traditional sacraments. It was supra-confessional (bridging Protestant/Catholic divides) but anti-clerical in practice.
• Anti-materialism and anti-Bolshevism: Framed as a spiritual bulwark against Jewish-influenced threats.
  Key institutional effort: The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life (founded 1939 in Eisenach/Wartburg Castle). Led by figures like Walter Grundmann and Siegfried Leffler, it produced:
• A “dejudaized” New Testament called Die Botschaft Gottes (“The Message of God”).
• Revised hymnals and theological works purging Jewish references.
• Propaganda redefining Christianity as inherently anti-Jewish and Germanic.
  Key Figures:
• Adolf Hitler: Used the term pragmatically; privately skeptical of organized Christianity but invoked it for unity.
• Alfred Rosenberg: Nazi ideologue who saw Positive Christianity as a “bridge faith” to transition people toward full National Socialism.
• Ludwig Müller: Reich Bishop installed by Nazis.
• Walter Grundmann: Prominent theologian at the de-Judaization Institute.
• Cajus Fabricius and others: Wrote defenses blending Christianity with the “New State.”
  Legacy and Historical Assessment
  Positive Christianity largely failed to unify German churches under Nazi control. It faced resistance from both traditional Christians and more radical Nazis (some pagan-leaning). After 1945, it was discredited as a heretical perversion of Christianity that facilitated antisemitism and collaboration with the regime. Historians debate its sincerity—some see it as cynical propaganda, others as a genuine (if distorted) attempt at synthesis.
  It drew on earlier 19th–early 20th-century trends of liberal theology, völkisch nationalism, and antisemitic Christian currents but radicalized them under racial ideology. Comparisons to Marcionism (rejecting the Old Testament) are common due to the shared impulse to purge Jewish roots.
  For primary sources, look into works like Cajus Fabricius’s Positive Christianity in the Third Reich or materials from the Eisenach Institute. Scholarly books such as Susannah Heschel’s The Aryan Jesus provide deep analysis of the de-Judaization efforts.
  This movement illustrates how Christianity could be twisted for political ends, highlighting tensions between faith and nationalism that remain relevant in discussions of religion and ideology today.

—

Ironically, the neo-Nazi crowd on the far right today will accuse the Jews of corrupting the OT text to remove Messianic references. Maybe the Jews did that (I find the claim questionable — the Masoretic text is obviously full of Messianic references). The LXX might be more more Messianic than the Masoretic in a few places (e.g., Psalm 40:6, though I think both versions are messianc), but the reverse is also true.

—

Grok’s summary of the book “Nazi Ecology” by Mark Musser:

“Nazi Ecology: The Oak Sacrifice of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust” (2018, originally published as “Nazi Oaks”) by R. Mark Musser is a ~500-page scholarly work (with extensive footnotes) arguing that Nazi ideology, racism, and the Holocaust were deeply rooted in a pagan, Romantic, and proto-environmentalist worldview that rejected biblical (Judeo-Christian) views of humanity’s dominion over nature. 
Core Thesis
Musser contends that the Holocaust is best understood not merely as industrial genocide or racial pseudoscience in isolation, but as a modernized form of human sacrifice—a “whole burnt offering” (the literal meaning of “Holocaust”)—carried out under ecological/biological camouflage. This drew on ancient pagan sacrificial imagery, particularly the sacred oak trees of Germanic paganism, symbolizing a return to nature worship and the subordination (or elimination) of humans seen as disruptive to the natural order. 
The Nazis absorbed 19th-century German Romanticism, Social Darwinism, and early green/environmental thought, which were often laced with anti-Semitism. Figures like Ernst Haeckel (who blended Darwinism, ecology, and völkisch nationalism) and influences from Goethe, Wagner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger helped shape a pantheistic “religion of nature” that prioritized the Volk (folk/people), blood-and-soil (Blut und Boden), and the German landscape over individual human dignity or biblical anthropology. 
Key Arguments and Structure

• Historical Roots: Traces “green” anti-Semitism back to 19th-century German Romanticism and Social Darwinism, which viewed Jews as rootless, urban, and antithetical to the organic, forested German homeland. This laid ecological foundations for later Nazi environmentalism and biological racism.
• Nazi Environmental Policies and Ideology: Discusses Nazi conservation efforts, sustainable forestry, nature preserves, and figures like Richard Walther Darré (Reich Peasant Leader), but frames them as subordinate to totalitarian, pagan, and racist goals rather than benign “green” initiatives. Hitler’s interests (e.g., wolves as symbols) and broader pantheistic tendencies are highlighted.
• Philosophical Contrast: Opposes this to the Judeo-Christian worldview (Genesis dominion, human exceptionalism, linear history, and moral order), which the Nazis and their intellectual forebears rejected in favor of cyclical pagan nature worship, existentialism, and nihilism. Musser argues this ecologism inherently tends toward totalitarianism and devaluing human life.
• Relevance to Today: Warns that similar anti-Christian, nature-centric ideologies persist in modern environmentalism, linking historical Nazi “green” elements to contemporary movements (e.g., critiques of renewable energy impacts, tree-hugging over human concerns).
  The book is written from a conservative Christian (dispensationalist-leaning) perspective by Musser, a pastor, missionary, and author. It draws on extensive historical sources and positions itself against mainstream narratives that downplay or separate Nazi environmentalism from the regime’s core crimes. Readers describe it as dense, well-researched, and provocative—challenging both secular environmentalists and those who see Nazis primarily through a purely industrial or right-wing capitalist lens.
  Note that this book is distinct from scholarly anthologies like How Green Were the Nazis? (edited by Franz-Josef Brüggemeier et al.), which explore Nazi environmental policies in a more nuanced, less polemical historical context. Musser’s work is more interpretive and theologically driven, emphasizing ideological continuity with pagan ecology.
  For the full picture, reading the book (available via Amazon or similar) or author interviews/podcasts is recommended, as summaries cannot capture its 1,300+ footnotes and detailed analysis.

—

Why does Joshua 21 describe the land promise as being fulfilled when the conquest was not actually complete until David’s day?

Joshua 21 describes what was in principle true in Joshua’s lifetime: the core of the promise was fulfilled and Israel dwelt in the promised land as their own
But if you turn to Judges 1, right after Joshua, you find that the conquest was still incomplete, due to Israel’s failure of faith
Of course, the remaining Canaanites because a test and judgment
We see Jebusites still dwelling in the all the down to 2 Samuel when David finally takes Jerusalem
So Joshua 21 does indicates God was faithful and the conquest successful, but Judges 1 reminds us it was still not complete

Judges 1-2 shifts to the period after Joshua and the faithful elders who outlived him. It catalogs how the tribes failed to fully drive out the remaining inhabitants from their inheritances:

• Judah could not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem. David eventually will.
• Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan all left Canaanites in their territories (sometimes reducing them to forced labor).
• The result: “the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land” (Judg 1:21, 27, etc.).

—

Some on the right are practically celebrating the shift of the Democrats towards more radical socialism, seen in the recent victories of DSA candidates. But this is naive. The further radicalization of the left is a huge problem, and points to much deeper problems in America. Very evil views are getting entrenched in parts of the country. They will be hard to root out, especially if we do not deal with the presence of illegals.

It’s true that the radicalization of the left into socialism/communism might make their candidates easier to defeat the national level, at least for now. But it’s still a huge concern in the long run, especially since much of the support is coming from people with no loyalty to America and a hatred for Western civilization. We also cannot separate this from the Red/Green alliance and from our failure deport millions of people who should not be here.

—

“The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time. It’s easy to be a Communist — All you have to do is say, “TIl give you everything,” but that means you’re taking it away from others that have earned it. Over thousands of years, that Ideology has not worked once. The game is on. Enjoy watching!”

— President DONALD J. TRUMP

I hope he’s serious about this!

—

When Roman Catholics like J D Vance and Marco Rubio (rightly) claim America has a Christian founding, they are implicitly admitting that Protestants are real Christians. I do not know how the square that with their Roman Catholicism, but they are certainly correct.

—

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

— John Jay

—

“The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger—The General hopes and trusts, that every officer, and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”

— George Washington’s orders to his troops, July 9, 1776

Washington required attendance at divine services (yes, that’s the name he used for corporate worship), respect for chaplains, and banned profanity, drunkenness, and gambling. He viewed godly living as essential for heavenly favor and army cohesion—especially in “public distress and danger.”

—

“…every officer and man will endeavor so as to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country…To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

— George Washington’s orders to his troops in 1775

In addition to requiring attendance at the divine service, Washington also banned swearing, cursing, and gambling.

—

“There is no sane feminism.”

— Janet Fiamengo

—

“You say, as a clergyman nothing can excuse my conduct. I am a clergyman it is true, but I am a member of society as well as the poorest layman, and my liberty is as dear to me as to any man. Shall I then sit still and enjoy myself at home when the best blood of the continent is spilling? Heaven forbid it! … I am called by my country in its defense—the cause is just and noble … and so far I am from thinking that I act wrong, I am convinced it is my duty so to do—and duty I owe to God and my Country…
Do you think if America should be conquered, I should be safe? Far from it. And would you not sooner fight like a man than die like a dog?”

— John Peter Muhlenburg, the “Fighting Parson”

The backstory:

John heard that General George Washington was calling for a militia in his part of Virginia. He rode home knowing he would need to go to war. He famously delivered his “farewell sermon” in Woodstock, Virginia (January 21, 1776), based on Ecclesiastes 3, tevealing the call for a local militia. He then shed his clerical robes to reveal a Continental Army uniform. That day, several hundred men signed up for the militia, following his example. John served in the 8th Virginia Regiment.

John’s brother Frederick was a pastor in New York. Initially, Frederick had criticized John’s decision to join the American army. The letter excerpt above is part of John’s response. After the British burned his church, Frederick changed his views and became a Patriot. He ended up moving to Pennsylvania for safety and becoming a state legislator. He eventually presided over Pennsylvania’s convention to adopt the Constitution in 1787.

After the war both John and Frederick were elected to the first Congress out of Pennsylvania. Frederick became Speaker of the House and, along with VP John Adams, signed the Bill of Rights.

Further note: their father, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, was the founder of the Lutheran Church in America.

—

The “stolen land” thesis is pretty ridiculous. Most of the land that became America was purchased. Some of it was purchased multiple times from different tribes that were claiming it because they were fighting over it (eg, William Penn and Pennsylvania). The Northwestern Ordinance said “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress…”

The whole thing is very arbitrary. Pick a random year, whoever lived on it at that time is for no reason at all considered the “owner” even though the land had been conquered and re-conquered many times.

—

Most anti-Semites are Marcionites.
I’m not saying Tucker Carlson is a Marcionite or an anti-Semite, but he definitely seems confused about the OT. He says he is not an anti-Semite and I have every reason to believe him. But his confusion about the OT does tend on a Marcionite direction, and Marcionism usually goes hand in glove with some form of anti-Semitism.
The ironic thing is that pitting OT vs. NT, as Tucker tends to do, is the origin of dispensationalism!

—

Joseph was sold by his brothers to slave traders headed to Egypt, which means slavery has existed in Africa since at least Genesis 37:28. Of course, Abraham held slaves earlier than that, and slavery was widespread in the ancient world. Virtually no nation did without slavery of some sort in the millennia before Christ. Up to 30% of the Roman world was enslaved in the time of Jesus. Most who were enslaved were war captives, debtors, or born to an enslaved mother. Given how foundational slavery was to the Roman economy, it is not surprising the Apostle Paul regulated it rather than attempting to abolish it all at once. It’s been rightly said the gospel placed a ticking time bomb next to the institution – the leaven of the gospel would eventually eradicate it – but to do so all once at that time would have been economically disastrous for everyone.

One of the least interesting features of American history is the fact of slavery, precisely because slavery was a fact of life everywhere at the time. In 1750, slavery existed in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East. In 1750, no major power (e.g., Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Ottoman Empire, China, Russia, most African kingdoms, or American colonies) had abolished slavery as an institution.

Christianization gradually ended Roman slavery starting in the 5th century but it was gradually replaced by a system of feudalism/serfdom, not the kind of freedom that the modern West eventually established. Slavery was revived in the 16th century in the West when the Roman Catholic powers, the Portuguese and Spanish, began importing slaves from Africa to supply labor for their expanding empires. Of course, most of the Africans sold to Europeans were already enslaved on their native continent. And Islamic areas continued to have slaves; there was never really any kind of abolition movement is Islam, except in those cases when Western, Christian powers forced it to happen. Islam has had slavery for 1300 years, mostly sub-Saharan Africans and Central/Eastern Europeans.

England banned the slave trade in 1807 and completely ended it in its Empire by the 1830s. American ended the slave trade in 1808, but did not eradicate it until the war that ended in 1865.

The Jamestown colony did not allow slavery initially. It did allow indentured service. The slaves brought there in 1619 were indentured slaves who eventually got their freedom. The first true slave owner in America was a black man – Anthony Johnson, who had been an indentured servant, became a landowning freeman, and purchased a black slave in 1654 in Virginia.

Columbus did not intend to enslave the natives he encountered. He did enslave those he conquered, but the only available alternative for the conquered would have been death.

To say America was “built” on slavery is simply a lie. That was certainly not the case in New England where slavery was minimal. The Southern economy did eventually come to rely on slavery to provide labor on cotton plantations. About 25% of Southern households owned slaves at the time of the War Between the Stares, but most had very few slaves. Less then 1% owned more than 50 slaves. The majority of Southerners did not own slaves. Slaves made up about 30% of the total Southern population.

It’s sad that many Americans know nothing about our history except that we used to have black slaves. They are ignorant of the fact that most other nations did too – so they think America is “uniquely evil” when really it was no different than other nations. This is like knowing nothing about King David except that he committed murder and adultery.

Many of America’s founding fathers did not own slaves. Many who did were very uneasy about the institution.

—

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism-by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

— Ayn Rand

—

“From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.”

— John Quincy Adams, on July 4, 1821, while serving as Secretary of State, in his “Monsters to Destroy” speech

—

On March 16, 1776, the Second Continental Congress passed a resolution calling for a national day of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” to be observed on Friday, May 17, 1776. The text included these words (note how explicitly Christian it was):

“In times of impending calamity and distress; when the Liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive Administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy Colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity…
The Congress therefore… Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said Colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies…”

—

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

— John Jay,The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Vol. 4, Feb. 28, 1797 letter to Rev. Jedidiah Morse

—

“I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way . . . but as it is, we have a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

— Thomas Jefferson

—

“Nearly all the historical work worth doing at the present moment in the English language is the work of shovelling off heaps of rubbish inherited from the immediate past.”

— Hillaire Belloc

—

“Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.”

— Henry Cabot Lodge

—

“The time given to athletic contests and the injuries incurred on the playing field are part of the price which the English-speaking race has paid for being world conquerors.”

— Henry Cabot Lodge

—

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”

— Charlie Kirk

—

“Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

— John Adams

—

“The Federal Reserve Act as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency.”

— Henry Cabot Lodge

—

“I would rather see the United States respected than loved by other nations…
I have loved but one flag and I can not share that devotion and give affection to the mongrel banner invented for the League of Nations.”

— Henry Cabot Lodge

—

“Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.”

— Henry Cabot Lodge

—

“That phrase [Judeo-Christian] should be anathema to any conservative Christian, because “Judeo-Christian heritage” involves a contradiction in terms. The Judaic heritage is Phariseeism. And this we have no part of!”

— R.J. Rushdoony

—

Grok on Hitler and Islam:

Hitler viewed Islam pragmatically and with selective admiration as a “warrior religion,” contrasting it favorably with Christianity, but he held racial contempt for most Arabs and Muslims as inferiors, using alliances opportunistically for wartime goals. 
Hitler’s Private Views on Islam as a Religion
In private conversations (notably recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944), Hitler praised Islam’s martial spirit, discipline, and practicality. He saw it as better suited to a “Germanic temperament” than Christianity, which he criticized as promoting “meekness and flabbiness.” 
Key themes from these remarks (with the usual caveats about the reliability of Table Talk transcripts, which were edited and sometimes distorted post-war):

• He regretted the Battle of Tours/Poitiers (732 AD), where Charles Martel halted Muslim expansion into Europe: “Had Charles Martel not been victorious… we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.”
• He contrasted Islamic paradise (for bold warriors, with earthly pleasures) favorably against what he called the “insipid paradise of the Christians.”
• He admired Muhammad as a great leader, soldier, and statesman who built a powerful empire quickly.
• He praised Islamic practices (hygiene, fasting, exercise, anti-alcohol rules) as sensible and saw the faith as promoting courage and manliness.
  These views aligned with his broader hostility to organized Christianity (which he saw as weak, universalist, and Jewish-influenced) while he remained skeptical of atheism and used religious language opportunistically.
  Important qualification: Many quotes come from Table Talk or second-hand accounts (e.g., Albert Speer), which have been debated for accuracy due to editing by Martin Bormann and others with anti-Christian agendas. Some pro-Arab statements attributed to Hitler are from forgeries.
  Racial Attitudes and Mein Kampf
  Hitler’s core ideology was racial, not religious. In Mein Kampf, he showed little interest in Arabs or Islam specifically (Arabs are barely mentioned; Islam once neutrally). He viewed non-Europeans, including Arabs, as racially inferior “lacquered half-apes” or “oppressed nations” whose destiny he wouldn’t link to Germany’s.
  Nazi racial theory placed Arabs below “Aryans,” leading to practical discrimination (e.g., some Arabs in Germany faced harassment, internment, or sterilization as “half-breeds”). Collaborators like the Grand Mufti were sometimes granted “honorary Aryan” status for convenience.
  Interactions and Alliances During WWII
  Nazi engagement with the Muslim world was largely pragmatic and opportunistic, driven by shared enemies (British Empire, Jews, later Soviets) and the need for allies in North Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East.
• Propaganda: Nazis broadcast Arabic radio, published materials, and portrayed Germany as an anti-colonial liberator (despite alliances with colonial powers like Italy). They recruited Muslim units, e.g., Bosnian Muslim Waffen-SS divisions (Handschar), and courted leaders in occupied territories.
• Key Figure: Haj Amin al-Husseini (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem): A prominent Arab nationalist and antisemite who fled to Berlin, met Hitler in November 1941, and collaborated extensively. He broadcast propaganda, recruited for the SS, and opposed Jewish immigration to Palestine. Hitler expressed some personal regard for him (noting his appearance and intelligence) but refused firm public commitments to Arab independence to avoid clashing with Italy/Vichy France. Their meeting focused on anti-Jewish goals.
• Other contacts: Limited support in Iraq (e.g., during the 1941 Anglo-Iraqi War), meetings with envoys, and efforts in the Caucasus/Crimea. Results were mixed; many Muslims fought against the Axis (e.g., in Allied armies).
  Hitler reportedly told al-Husseini that Germany’s goal included destroying Jews in the Arab sphere, but he prioritized European objectives and viewed Arabs instrumentally.
  Overall Assessment
  Hitler’s “admiration” for Islam was instrumental: he liked its perceived warrior ethos as a tool against Christianity and for motivating fighters, but subordinated it to Nazi racism and geopolitics. There was no deep ideological fusion or conversion—Nazism remained pagan-tinged, völkisch, and materialist. Alliances were tactical, and Nazi policies included persecution of Muslims when they didn’t fit racial or strategic needs.
  This history is often oversimplified in modern debates; primary sources show a mix of ideological rhetoric, racial hierarchy, and wartime expediency rather than a genuine “Nazi-Islam alliance.” For deeper reading, consult historians like David Motadel (Islam and Nazi Germany’s War) or works on al-Husseini.

—

I was asked to recommend books on preaching. It was a struggle, but this is what I came up with:

Honestly I have not read many books on preaching I really like but here are a few thoughts:

I definitely do not like Bryan Chapells book on preaching
Terrible theology (Kelkerish) and too formulaic

Stott’s books on preaching are generally good, such Preacher’s Portrait and especially Between Two Worlds
That’s where I would start

I tend to think what young preachers need is not instruction on rhetoric or technique so much as a theology of preaching that will undergird what they are seeking to do

Along these lines, Ronald Wallace’s book Calvin on Word and Sacrament is good

I develop my own thoughts on this a few places, especially a sermon I preached on preaching as part of my Reformation 500 series

I’d also recommend (with some qualifications) William Willimon’s book Pastor, which isn’t just about preaching but the total call of what it means to be a pastor
Willimon is not fully orthodox but he does do a good job laying out what the pastor’s work is all about, over against certain evangelical misunderstandings

The same could be said of Eugene Petersen’s books on pastoral ministry
Petersen’s understanding of the pastorate is far more leisurely than anything I’ve ever experienced, but I do think he says some helpful things

I haven’t finished Sinclair Ferguson’s Some Pastors and Teachers, but parts of it have been good

The best thing in any preaching practicum is to listen to lots of preaching and figure out what works and what doesn’t

Young preachers in particular need models to Imitate as they find their own preaching voice

—

Paradoxically, freedom only works when people obey God. There can be no liberty without virtue.

—

Summary of Enoch Powell’s views and importance:

Enoch Powell’s most famous (and infamous) contribution was his April 20, 1968, speech “Rivers of Blood” in Birmingham, UK opposing mass Commonwealth immigration from the West Indies, India, Pakistan, and Africa. He warned of social tensions, strained public services (housing, hospitals, schools), cultural incompatibility, and future conflict, famously quoting Virgil: “Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” He advocated halting further inflow, encouraging voluntary repatriation, and equal treatment under the law for those already present, while criticizing the Race Relations Bill. The speech led to his dismissal from the Shadow Cabinet, widespread condemnation as racist by elites and media, but strong public support (polls showed majority agreement with his concerns).
Powell framed this as statesmanship against “preventable evils,” rooted in a belief that national homogeneity was essential for democracy and social cohesion. He rejected accusations of racial superiority but emphasized awareness of national and racial differences.
An early advocate of free-market policies (sometimes called Britain’s first neoliberal), Powell opposed state planning, high public spending, and socialism. He resigned from the Treasury in 1958 over spending disagreements, promoted monetarism (controlling inflation via money supply), tax cuts, privatization, and market forces over government intervention. His 1968 “Morecambe Budget” outlined radical tax reductions. These ideas influenced later Thatcherism.
Enoch Powell significantly influenced Margaret Thatcher’s policies and the broader “New Right” in Britain, particularly in economics, but the two diverged on key issues like immigration, Europe, and the role of the nation-state. Thatcher herself acknowledged Powell (along with Keith Joseph) as a major influence, describing him as one of the “very great men” who shaped her thinking.  Powell has been called the “John the Baptist” to Thatcherism for pioneering ideas in the 1950s–1960s that Thatcher later implemented in the 1980s.
Powell’s 1968 “Morecambe Budget” proposed radical tax reductions. Thatcher adopted and enacted many of these (e.g., monetarism in the early 1980s, privatization, union reforms, and tax cuts), moving the Conservative Party away from the postwar consensus.
Both Powell and Thatcher linked economic freedom to political freedom, criticizing state overreach. Powell influenced the intellectual groundwork for Thatcherism’s emphasis on individual responsibility, enterprise, and rolling back the state.

—

Grok on Enoch Powell’s theology:

Enoch Powell was a Christian—specifically a devout (though theologically heterodox) Anglican for much of his adult life—but his faith had a complicated trajectory. 
Early Life and Atheism

• Powell was baptized in the Church of England as an infant and showed early religious interest (e.g., conducting evensong and preaching sermons to his parents as a child).
• In his youth (sixth form and university years), he became an atheist, influenced by textual criticism of the Bible, James Frazer’s The Golden Bough, German philosophy (including Nietzsche’s “God is dead”), and his mother’s loss of faith. He described himself at one point as an “Anglican atheist” who valued the established Church culturally but rejected its doctrines.
  Conversion and Mature Faith
• In 1949, Powell underwent a profound spiritual experience (often described as an “Augustinian conversion”). While walking in Wolverhampton, he felt compelled by church bells and recommitted to Christianity. On Easter Sunday 1950, he took communion and remained a believer thereafter.
• He became a regular churchgoer, served as a churchwarden, and integrated his faith deeply into his private life. His belief in Christ and the Resurrection as central to salvation was sincere and enduring.
  Theological Views
  Powell was a High Church Anglican with some unconventional ideas. In his later years, he published scholarly works on the Gospels (e.g., The Evolution of the Gospel, 1994), arguing:
• Jesus was stoned to death for blasphemy by Jewish authorities (not crucified by Romans).
• Certain Gospel elements (like the Sermon on the Mount) were not literal historical events but evolved or allegorical.
• He applied rigorous historical and textual analysis, sometimes diverging from traditional orthodoxy.
  These views were heterodox but rooted in his classical scholarship and commitment to truth-seeking within a Christian framework. He emphasized human fallenness, sacrificial atonement, and the Church’s role in society.
  Public and Political Context
• Powell’s faith informed his sense of duty, nationhood, and moral seriousness. He saw the nation in quasi-religious terms tied to Anglican tradition.
• His Christianity coexisted with his controversial views on immigration and other issues, creating paradoxes noted by observers (a devout believer who held strong nationalist positions).
  In summary, while Powell was an atheist in his youth, he converted in 1949 and lived as a committed, if intellectually independent, Christian for the rest of his life. His faith was personal, scholarly, and culturally Anglican rather than evangelical or strictly orthodox in every detail.

—

I asked Grok to compare Enoch Powell to Pat Buchanan – I think this is a pretty good summary (I prefer Powell on economics, but Buchanan was better on social issues like sodomy):

Enoch Powell (1912–1998) and Pat Buchanan (born 1938) are frequently compared as pioneering nationalist conservatives or “prophets” who warned against mass immigration, cultural change, and elite-driven globalization. Buchanan has referenced Powell positively, viewing him as a prescient figure sidelined for speaking uncomfortable truths.  Both are icons of the dissident right/paleoconservative tradition, often labeled “racist” by critics and visionary by supporters. 
Similarities

• Immigration and National Identity: This is their strongest parallel. Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech warned of social conflict, “ghettos,” and loss of cohesion from Commonwealth immigration, advocating sharp restrictions and voluntary repatriation. Buchanan has long decried an “invasion” of non-European immigrants, arguing it threatens Western (especially American) culture, demographics, and social trust. Both emphasized that nations are cultural and ethnic inheritances, not mere “proposition” entities, and that rapid demographic change leads to division.
• Nationalism and Sovereignty: Powell was a staunch British nationalist opposed to EEC/EU integration as a surrender of sovereignty. Buchanan championed “America First” — economic nationalism, trade protectionism (opposing NAFTA, WTO, etc.), and skepticism of supranational bodies. Both prioritized the nation-state over globalism.
• Cultural and Moral Conservatism: They critiqued multiculturalism, liberal elites, and the erosion of traditional (Christian-influenced) Western society. Powell was a devout (if heterodox) Anglican; Buchanan is a traditional Catholic who stresses moral order, Christianity, and opposition to secularism/abortion.
• Anti-Establishment and “Prophet” Status: Both were insiders who became outsiders — Powell (classicist, WWII veteran, Conservative minister) after his speech; Buchanan (Nixon/Reagan aide, pundit) through his presidential runs (1992, 1996, 2000). They faced accusations of racism/xenophobia but gained populist support and influenced later movements (e.g., Brexit echoes of Powell; Trumpism echoes of Buchanan).
• Paleoconservative Outlook: Buchanan is a key figure in American paleoconservatism (tradition, limited government in domestic affairs but strong borders/national interest). Powell’s views align closely with this strand of thought.
  Differences
• Background and Style: Powell was a brilliant, reserved British intellectual and orator with a classical education — more High Tory in demeanor. Buchanan is an American populist communicator, TV pundit, and campaigner with a combative, rhetorical style suited to U.S. primaries.
• Economics: Powell was an early neoliberal/monetarist who influenced Thatcher (tax cuts, privatization, free markets internally). Buchanan is more protectionist and skeptical of unrestricted free trade, prioritizing workers and national industry over global markets.
• Foreign Policy: Powell was a realist focused on British interests, with some skepticism of over-reliance on nuclear weapons or adventurism. Buchanan is a strong non-interventionist/isolationist (“America First”), opposing wars like Iraq. Powell’s career included Ulster Unionism later on.
• Political Impact: Powell never led his party or won high executive office after 1968 (though he influenced policy debates). Buchanan ran for president but lost nominations; he shaped the paleoconservative critique and is seen as a forerunner to Trump-era populism.
• Scope and Context: Powell focused on Britain’s post-imperial transition and Commonwealth immigration. Buchanan addressed America’s broader “suicide” via immigration, declining birthrates, de-Christianization, and multiculturalism on a continental scale.
  Overall Assessment
  Powell and Buchanan are transatlantic counterparts: intellectual nationalists who challenged postwar liberal consensus on race, culture, and borders decades before it became mainstream again. Powell was more the prophetic voice in a single dramatic moment; Buchanan was the persistent campaigner and author (The Death of the West, State of Emergency, etc.). Both were marginalized by mainstream conservatives (Powell by Heath/Thatcher circles on rhetoric; Buchanan by neocons) but are credited with foreseeing tensions around identity and migration that dominate politics today. Supporters see them as truth-tellers on “preventable evils”; critics as divisive fearmongers. Their parallels highlight enduring debates in Anglosphere conservatism.

—

“Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as ‘controversial, ‘extremist’, ‘explosive’, ‘disgraceful’, and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.

— Enoch Powell

—

“It depends on how you define the word “racialist.” If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically “No”.”

— Enoch Powell

—

“The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one…
We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

— Enoch Powell

—

“I hope those who shouted “Fascist” and “Nazi” are aware that before they were born I was fighting against Fascism and Nazism.”

— Enoch Powell

—

“Eventually, reality breaks through.”

— Enoch Powell

—

Grok comparing Buchanan and Powell on sodomy:

Enoch Powell and Pat Buchanan held notably different public stances on homosexuality, reflecting their eras, personal temperaments, and political contexts.
Enoch Powell’s Views
Powell took a classically liberal (for his time) position on private consensual behavior:

• He voted in favor of decriminalizing male homosexuality in the UK in 1967 (Sexual Offences Act), one of only a handful of Conservative MPs to do so (alongside figures like Margaret Thatcher). He also supported extending reforms to Scotland.
• Later, as an Ulster Unionist MP, he showed some hesitation or inconsistency on extending reforms to Northern Ireland (where male homosexuality remained criminal longer), citing devolution and Unionist politics, but he did not become a vocal opponent of gay rights overall.
• Powell generally supported individual liberty in private moral matters, consistent with his broader skepticism of excessive state interference in personal lives (though he was socially conservative on other issues like immigration and national cohesion). There are unconfirmed rumors and biographical notes about his own youthful same-sex experiences or attractions, but these did not define his public record.
  In short, Powell was relatively tolerant on decriminalization and viewed homosexuality largely as a private matter not requiring state persecution.
  Pat Buchanan’s Views
  Buchanan has been consistently and vocally traditionalist, framing homosexuality as a moral and cultural threat:
• He has repeatedly called homosexuality “unnatural,” “immoral,” a “disorder,” and a “death style” (linking it to AIDS in the 1980s–1990s). He argued society should discourage it rather than normalize it.
• As a culture warrior, he opposed gay rights agendas, same-sex marriage, and “militant” gay activism. In his 1992 Republican National Convention speech, he declared a “religious war” against cultural liberalism, including pro-gay elements in the Democratic platform.
• He ruled out gay individuals or advocates from his hypothetical Cabinet or ticket, emphasizing traditional family values and opposition to what he saw as the erosion of Christian moral order.
• Buchanan tied homosexuality to broader critiques of the sexual revolution, multiculturalism, and Western decline.
  Comparison
• Core Difference: Powell supported legal reform to decriminalize private consensual acts between adults, aligning with a libertarian-leaning conservatism on personal freedom. Buchanan has opposed not just legal expansions (e.g., marriage, military service) but the cultural normalization and public acceptance of homosexuality, viewing it through a moral/religious lens as harmful to society.
• Context: Powell operated in 1960s–1970s Britain during initial decriminalization debates; his vote reflected a post-Wolfenden Report tolerance for privacy. Buchanan rose in late 20th-century U.S. culture wars, where gay rights became a flashpoint for social conservatives against the sexual revolution and “political correctness.”
• Broader Philosophy: Powell’s stance fit his emphasis on limited state intrusion into private life (while fiercely defending national/cultural boundaries publicly). Buchanan’s integrated opposition to homosexuality into a comprehensive defense of Christian civilization, traditional family, and resistance to moral relativism.
• Evolution/Consistency: Powell’s record was more permissive on this issue than many contemporaries expected. Buchanan remained a steadfast opponent throughout his career, with little softening.
  Overall, Powell was more “live and let live” on private homosexuality (at least legally), while Buchanan saw it as a frontline battle in a cultural and spiritual conflict. This highlights how even figures on the nationalist right can diverge on social issues.

—

“War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.”

— Mark Twain

—

One interesting feature of the American War for independence is how many times providential weather events helped the colonists, eg, the Battle of Long Island, the Battle of Trenton, the Battle of Saratoga. Consider also the fortuitous way American soldiers discovered Benedict Arnold’s treason, which Washington attributed to a remarkable providence.

—

After Conwallis’ surrender, one of the first things Washington and his men did was go to the local Lutheran church for the divine service (worship).

—

“Glorious indeed has been our Contest: glorious, if we consider the Prize for which we have contended, and glorious in its Issue; but in the midst of our Joys, I hope we shall not forget that, to divine Providence is to be ascribed the Glory and the Praise.”

— George Washington, letter to Rev. John Rodgers, June 11, 1783

—

“All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint.
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.
It may do for other countries, and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”

— Robert Winthrop

—

Benjamin Franklin’s prayer speech at the Constitutional Convention:

“In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without [H]is notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without [H]is aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without [H]is concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

Note that it is chock full of biblical references.

—

The Constitution governs the governors. And the founders set it up that way because the governors cannot be trusted any more than the governed.

—

The Constitution has a number of biblical principles including:
— Sunday as a day of rest
— the president must be native born
— it speaks of the “blessings” of liberty
— its system of checks and balances presupposes human depravity
— the bill of rights is rooted in common law, which generally derives from Torah
— the general welfare clause echoes Romans 13
— it’s dated in the year of our Lord

—

“The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion – the being, and attributes, and Providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues – these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civlized society can well exist without them.”

— Joseph Story

Obviously, whatever the founders meant by the first amendment or the “separation of church and state” was not intended to secularize the public square.

—

It is often overlooked that America outlawed the slave trade in 1808, during Jefferson’s presidency. The law was passed in 1807, the same year as Britain. Men like Jefferson and owned slaves but favored some way of abolishing it. The Constitution gave Congress the power to end the slave trade in 1808, and it happened at that date.

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Some smuggling of slaves continued, but the trade itself was illegal after 1808.

—

“The Bible is the best of books, and I wish it were in the hands of every one. It is indispensable to the safety and permanence of our institutions. It is the best school book in the world. I would that all our people were brought up under the influence of that holy book…
It was for the love of the truths of this great Book that our fathers abandoned their native shores for the wilderness. Animated by its lofty principles they toiled and suffered till the desert blossomed as a rose. The same truths sustained them in their resolutions to become a free nation; and guided by the wisdom of this Book they founded a government.”

— President Zachary Taylor

—

“It is necessary for the welfare of the nation that men’s lives be based on the principles of the Bible. No man, educated or uneducated, can afford to be ignorant of the Bible.”

“No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible, and no uneducated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible.”

“Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes what a very large number of people tend to forget—that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally—I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally—impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards toward which we, with more or less of resolution, strive to raise ourselves. Almost every man who has by his lifework added to the sum of human achievement of which the race is proud, has based his lifework largely upon the teachings of the Bible… Among the greatest men a disproportionately large number have been diligent and close students of the Bible at first hand.”

— Teddy Roosevelt

—

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.
Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies — a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.
The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible’s teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
For centuries the Bible’s emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.
Many of our greatest national leaders — among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson — have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country’s development. The plainspoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than “the rock on which our Republic rests.””

— Ronald Reagan

—

Washington’s inaugural address was practically a sermon. He recognized God’s grace and providential agency in the formation of the nation. He opened and closed with prayer. He went to “divine service” at St. Paul’s Chapel after the ceremony.

—

Congress paid to have Bibles imported or printed in 1777 and 1782.

—

“It is easy to prove that since the church’s beginning in Eden and still today the primary instrument of her growth has been that of covenant succession.”

— Robert Rayburn

If you listen to church growth “experts,” they will list all kinds of ways to grow the church — but usually leave this one out.

WCF 24.2 says one of the purposes of marriage is “the increase… of the Church with an holy seed” and cites Malachi 2:15 as proof.

Note that in the Baptist revisions to the WCF, this was taken out. Baptists do not believe in the covenant and so do not believe in covenant children or godly seed as a purpose of marriage — which goes to show that you can’t “change just one thing.” By altering the theology of baptism, the Baptists have also changed the purpose of marriage. It’s quite odd, really.

—

“I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous presence. No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. He lacks nothing that it is in the power of men to give Him. O what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express to Him their most devoted gratitude.
I spent seven years in the royal court…and in the end they concluded that it was all foolishness, so they gave it up. But since things generally came to pass that were predicted by our Savior Jesus Christ, we should also believe that this particular prophecy will come to pass. In support of this, I offer the gospel text, Matthew 24:25, in which Jesus said that all things would pass away, but not his marvelous Word. He also affirmed that it was necessary that all things be fulfilled that were prophesied by himself and by the prophets.
I said that I would state my reasons: I hold alone to the sacred and Holy Scriptures, and to the interpretations of prophecy given by certain devout persons.
The Holy Scripture testifies in the Old Testament by the prophets and in the New Testament by our Redeemer Jesus Christ, that this world must come to an end. The signs of when this must happen are given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The prophets also predicted many things about it.
Our Redeemer Jesus Christ said that before the end of the world, all things must come to pass that had been written by the prophets. Isaiah goes into great detail in describing future events and in calling all people to our holy catholic faith…. For the execution of the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah prophesied…. These are great and wonderful things for the earth, and the signs are that the Lord is hastening the end. The fact that the gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time – this is what convinces me.”

— Christopher Columbus

—

In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.” Benjamin Franklin encouraged him to change it to the more rationalistic and secular language, “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” That was a fateful change.

To give more context, here is what Jefferson had written:

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness…”

It was changed to this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This earlier version had a stronger theological thrust — “sacred” implies divine revelation/Scripture, while “undeniable” asserts moral certainty rooted in natural law and God’s order, accessed by reason.

The final draft is not un-Christian but not as explicitly Christian as the original version. The original relied more on revelation, the final more on reason.

Both versions hold together reason and faith. Neither version is secular. Both versions ground our rights in our Creator. But the original was better. I wish Franklin had left it alone.

—

“We are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”

— Chief Justice James Kent, The People v. Ruggles, 1811, Supreme Court of New York

Ruggles was accused of blasphemy. He was fined $500 and jailed for 3 months for saying Jesus was a bastard and his mother a whore.

—

Matt Walsh on Robert E. Lee and Southern secession:

“Robert E. Lee witnessed the 1860 election results from a US
Army post in San Antonio, Texas. As the fervor over secession began to boil
over, Lee wrote his father-in-law, quote, “If the Union is dissolved,
which God in his mercy forbid, I shall return to you.” According to
historian Allen Guelzo, as the states of the deep south left the Union, Lee
complained that the behavior of the cotton states was wholly beyond any
justification and he was worried that their selfish and dictatorial bearing
would make life for Virginia miserable should she determine to coalesce with
them. In a letter to one of his cousins, he wrote, “Secession is
revolution.” He wrote that, “Our people will destroy a government
inaugurated by the blood and wisdom of our patriot fathers that has given us
peace and prosperity at home, power and security abroad, and under which we have acquired a colossal strength unequaled in the history of mankind.”
According to Guelzo, Lee wished to live under no other government and to have no other flag than the Star Spangled Banner. But if that government was now going to disappear and the only alternative was to go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native land.

Like so many Americans from this period, Lee was a patriotic
American and a war hero. But he saw himself first and foremost as a Virginian.
On February 6th, 1861, David Twiggs, the commander of the US Army’s Department of Texas, surrendered his entire command to the Confederates and ordered all federal troops to abandon their posts. Lee refused to leave Fort Mason and pledged to defend his post at all hazards. This is because the legality of secession mattered to him and because his native Virginia hadn’t seceded yet.
As he left Texas, Lee declared he was returning to Virginia to resign and go to
planting corn. And though he would never bear arms against the US, he might
carry a musket in defense of my native state, Virginia.
Lee’s attitude tells us a lot about why not one single Confederate leader was ever convicted of treason because it was commonly understood at the time that it was not treason. The legal case for secession goes back to before the constitution when 13 US colonies decided to secede from the British crown. After winning their war for independence, those colonies then formed the Articles of Confederation which required that any changes to the Union be adopted by the Congress and all the states. But that never happened and most states just seceded.
The background led historian Charles Francis Adams Jr., who served as a colonel in the Union Army, to say, “If Robert E. Lee was a traitor, so also indisputably were George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and William of Orange.” Adams goes on, George Washington furnishes a precedent at every point. A Virginian like Lee, he was also a British subject. He had fought under the British flag as Lee had fought under that of the United States. When in 1776, Virginia seceded from the British Empire,
he went with his state just as Lee went with it 85 years later. Subsequently,
Washington commanded armies in the field designated by those opposed to them as rebels and whose descendants now glorify them as the rebels of ’76, much as Lee later commanded and at last surrendered, much larger armies also designated rebels by those they confronted. Except in their outcome the cases were therefore precisely alike and logic is logic. So the only difference is that Washington won his war and Lee lost his.
The courts basically agreed with that analysis. After the Civil War, many northern newspapers, including the Boston Daily Advertiser and
the New York Times, published materials encouraging the government to put
Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, on trial for treason. And
for their part, the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that a trial would quote,
“Render traitors infamous and have it judicially settled that secession is
illegal.” We would have learned a lot about the country if they would have
done it.
According to University of Virginia law professor Cynthia Nicoletti, no one knew for sure whether secession was legal and that any treason prosecution would rise and fall on that question. Indeed, she quotes George Washington Woodward, Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
who wrote in a letter to a lawyer representing a Confederate senator, quote,
“The doctrine of state rights will have a severe test and may find a
strange vindication in that trial. Secession has yet to be defined. Hitherto,
it has been a toy of politicians, and they have dodged everything like a
definition. But is secession treason? That’s a grand question. If it is not,
war in support of it cannot be. If the right to withdraw existed, it must have
included the right of defense. So that levying war to defend a confederacy
founded in secession could not be levying war against the government of the US.
But this is on the assumption that secession is something less than treason,
which I neither aver nor deny.”
Many northern politicians were certain the government would lose. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, who is most famous for getting
caned on the Senate floor, said the trial of Jefferson Davis would be the ne
plus ultra of folly. The Supreme Court’s chief justice said, “If you bring
these Confederate leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the
Constitution, secession is not rebellion.” Nicoletti writes that even
Lincoln himself was concerned about the possibility that a trial might
backfire. Quote, “Before his untimely death, President Lincoln had
remarked that Davis’s flight from Richmond in April was a good thing because it forestalled the political and legal difficulties that might attend a
high-profile treason prosecution.” “I’m bound to oppose the escape of
Jeff Davis,” Lincoln had reportedly told General William T. Sherman.
“But if you could manage to have him slip out unbeknownst to me, I guess
it wouldn’t hurt me much.”
At a cabinet meeting at the White House on July 18th, there was no consensus at the White House as to how to proceed. President Andrew
Johnson, who assumed office after Lincoln’s assassination, pressed for a clear answer, but he didn’t get one. The Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, stated that there was quote a great diversity of opinion in the matter as to whether Davis should be tried first for the crime of high treason. Ultimately, Andrew Johnson opted to proceed tentatively with a treason prosecution.
For his part, Davis was eager for trial because he believed
secession was legal and he wanted vindication in court. Davis, in fact, hoped
that he would be arrested in 1861 after his home state of Mississippi seceded
so he could demonstrate the legality of secession. But no one arrested him and he instead was chosen to be president of the new Confederate States of America.
That’s why Davis, unlike Robert E. Lee, never requested a presidential pardon.
He genuinely thought that he’d be vindicated in court. Jefferson Davis was charged with treason and held for two years at Fort Monroe in Virginia, but never got his day in court. Over time, popular support for prosecution waned, and the Johnson administration was far from certain that a Virginia jury would convict Davis, or even that the Supreme Court would definitively rule that secession was illegal. Davis took the surrender as an unequivocal win. “A sovereign state cannot commit treason.” He wrote, “The government early discovered that if this issue came before the Supreme Court, it would lose its case, and I should be acquitted, so none of the indictments were ever tried.”
Shortly after Davis’s case was dropped in April of 1869, the
Supreme Court ruled in a separate unrelated case, Texas v. White, that
secession is indeed unconstitutional. As the court put it, “The
Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed
of indestructible states.” But it was a throwaway line in a case about
bonds. There wasn’t any significant discussion of secession during oral
arguments or briefing. And the ruling attracted virtually no media attention
because by that point it seemed like a dead issue. In short, the Supreme Court snuck in a ruling about the unconstitutionality of secession years after the lengthy public debate over Davis’s trial made clear that in fact there was no consensus on that point in the country. And there still isn’t.
By the way, the America of the 17th and 18th centuries was
very different from the United States we know today. At the time, even many
northerners would have conceded that at the minimum, the constitutionality of secession was a close call and that it would be a gross oversimplification, if
not an outright falsehood, to call these men traitors.”

—

The Declaration of Independence is a theological document. God the Creator, the God of nature, is the foundation on which it rests. Secularize it by taking God out and the entire document collapses on itself. Rights evaporate, and with them, the case for American independence.

—

“Quite a few conservatives have adopted the notion that America was a “propositional nation,” to the exclusion of being a regular, old-fashioned nation. An example of this would be Paul Ryan, who once said, “America is the only nation founded on an idea —not an identity.” But the problem with the propositional nation guys is not that they remember the value of certain propositions in the founding of our country. Certainly, “all men are created equal” is one of them. So is “we the people,” and granted. But another proposition that was very important at the founding of America was this one: “Jesus rose from the dead.”
John Jay said that we were “one united people,” all committed to the “same principles of government.” He also declared that we were bound together by more than propositions. He said we were “descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion.” To this, we find we have to reply to the sneer “and who was John Jay anyhow?” This is an ignorance that helps us identify the source of the problem. Jay said this in Federalist 2. And George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said that we were bound together by shared “political principles,” not to mention “the same religion, manners, [and] habits.””

— Doug Wilson on the problems with propositional nationhood

—

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This quote is often attributed to Patrick Henry, but it was said about him, not by him, in a 1956 article in The Virginian.

—

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion.
To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”

— George Washington, 1778

—

“I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection… that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

— George Washington, in his letter to the states at the conclusion of the war

—

“The United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion … and being satisfied … of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”

— US Congress in 1782

—

“…It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants…”

— U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 1854, against removing chaplains from the military

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_a031cfe0-6a23-4f15-87aa-f7f3a0c14fc4

—

“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.”

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President, 1935

—

“The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The quote comes from the U.S. House of Representatives in 1854 (during the 33rd Congress), in the context of debates and reports affirming the Christian foundations of American institutions and morality. 
It appears in historical compilations of congressional statements on Christianity’s role in the republic, often linked to discussions around the House Judiciary Committee’s report on chaplains or related resolutions emphasizing religion’s importance to governance and public virtue.

—

In its March 27, 1854, report (House Report No. 124), the House Judiciary Committee—chaired by Rep. James Meacham—strongly affirmed Christianity’s foundational role in American society, law, and institutions while rejecting petitions to abolish government chaplains (in Congress, the military, etc.) as unconstitutional. 
The committee investigated memorials from citizens seeking to end chaplain positions, arguing they violated the Constitution’s no-religious-test clause and the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” It concluded that chaplains did not constitute an establishment (which it defined as requiring a creed, rites, ministers with specific qualifications, tests, and penalties) and that the practice predated and continued after the Constitution’s adoption, consistent with the framers’ intent. 
Key Statements on Christianity
The report emphasized Christianity’s importance as the moral and cultural bedrock of the republic:

• On the Revolution and suspicion of anti-Christian efforts: “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.”
• On encouragement of Christianity (not a specific sect): “At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged—not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion, would have been viewed with universal indignation.”
• Christianity as foundational: “It [Christianity/religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
• The “great, vital and conservative element”: “The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
  The committee also noted historical practices, such as Congress importing Bibles during the Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin’s call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention, and the appointment of chaplains by the Continental Congress and early U.S. Congress (with involvement from figures like Madison). It argued there was no danger of church-state union due to denominational diversity and the voluntary system of religion in the states.
  Context and Recommendation
  This report responded to petitions (similar to some Senate discussions) claiming chaplaincies violated separation of church and state. The committee recommended discharging the matter without abolishing the positions, affirming that government could support religious expression without establishing a national church.
  The full report (available via GovInfo as Serial Set 743) is a detailed historical and constitutional defense of the practices. These excerpts are widely cited in discussions of America’s religious heritage.
  As a pastor with deep interest in Reformed theology, church history, and America’s founding principles, you may find this aligns with covenantal views of providence and the role of Christian morality in sustaining liberty.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that recognition of the Supreme Being (i.e., belief in God) is the most basic expression of Americanism. Note this excludes Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. that do not hold to a singular supreme being.
In a 1955 filmed message (broadcast around the time of related actions like adding “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and making “In God We Trust” the national motto in 1956), he said:
“Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.”
This reflects Eisenhower’s broader view that America’s political and moral foundations are rooted in theistic belief, echoing the Declaration of Independence’s appeal to “Nature’s God” and “Creator.” It aligns with his support for public expressions of faith during the Cold War era as a contrast to atheistic communism. 

—

FDR on Flag Day in 1942, acknowledging the role of Christian faith in our nation (note FDR was an Epicopalian, not an evangelical):

“Today on Flag Day we celebrate the declaration of the United Nations—that great alliance dedicated to the defeat of our foes and to the establishment of a true peace based on the freedom of man. Today the Republic of Mexico and the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands join us. We welcome these valiant peoples to the company of those who fight for freedom.
The four freedoms of common humanity are as much elements of man’s needs as air and sunlight, bread and salt. Deprive him of all these freedoms and he dies—deprive him of a part of them and a part of him withers. Give them to him in full and abundant measure and he will cross the threshold of a new age, the greatest age of man…
The belief in the four freedoms of common humanity—the belief in man, created free, in the image of God—is the crucial difference between ourselves and the enemies we face today. In it lies the absolute unity of our alliance, opposed to the oneness of the evil we hate. Here is our strength, the source and promise of victory.
We of the United Nations know that our faith cannot be broken by any man or any force. And we know that there are other millions who in their silent captivity share our belief.
We ask the German people, still dominated by their Nazi whipmasters, whether they would rather have the mechanized hell of Hitler’s “New” Order or—in place of that, freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and from fear.
We ask the Japanese people, trampled by their savage lords of slaughter, whether they would rather continue slavery and blood or—in place of them, freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and from fear.
We ask the brave, unconquered people of the Nations the Axis invaders have dishonored and despoiled whether they would rather yield to conquerors or—have freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and from fear.
We know the answer. They know the answer. We know that man, born to freedom in the image of God, will not forever suffer the oppressors’ sword. The peoples of the United Nations are taking that sword from the oppressors’ hands. With it they will destroy those tyrants. The brazen tyrannies pass. Man marches forward toward the light.
I am going to close by reading you a prayer that has been written for the United Nations on this Day:
God of the free, we pledge our hearts and lives today to the cause of all free mankind.
Grant us victory over the tyrants who would enslave all free men and Nations. Grant us faith and understanding to cherish all those who fight for freedom as if they were our brothers. Grant us brotherhood in hope and union, not only for the space of this bitter war, but for the days to come which shall and must unite all the children of earth.
Our earth is but a small star in the great universe. Yet of it we can make, if we choose, a planet unvexed by war, untroubled by hunger or fear, undivided by senseless distinctions of race, color, or theory. Grant us that courage and foreseeing to begin this task today that our children and our children’s children may be proud of the name of man.
The spirit of man has awakened and the soul of man has gone forth. Grant us the wisdom and the vision to comprehend the greatness of man’s spirit, that suffers and endures so hugely for a goal beyond his own brief span. Grant us honor for our dead who died in the faith, honor for our living who work and strive for the faith, redemption and security for all captive lands and peoples. Grant us patience with the deluded and pity for the betrayed. And grant us the skill and the valor that shall cleanse the world of oppression and the old base doctrine that the strong must eat the weak because they are strong.
Yet most of all grant us brotherhood, not only for this day but for all our years—a brotherhood not of words but of acts and deeds. We are all of us children of earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace—that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march, toward the clean world our hands can make. Amen.”

—

FDR provided (or endorsed the distribution of) pocket Gideon Bibles to U.S. troops during World War II, including a personal message from him as Commander-in-Chief. 
These were typically small New Testaments with Psalms (often produced in collaboration with organizations like the Gideons International or the American Bible Society), issued to soldiers and sailors. Millions were distributed. 
FDR’s Printed Message (dated around 1941):

“To the Armed Forces:
As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt” 

Obviously this is civic religion, not personal faith in Jesus. No Christian can be satisfied with it. But it’s worth noting that in the 1940s, America was still sufficiently Christian that giving New Testaments to our soldiers seemed like an obvious and non-controversial thing to do.

—

A much better case can be made that FDR was a Christian Prince than Hitler. Neither actually was, but if they are compared, FDR comes out on top.

—

President Warren G. Harding delivered his address on the Oregon Trail at Meacham, Oregon, on July 3, 1923, during a dedication event commemorating the pioneers. 
In the speech, he highlighted the role of missionaries (such as Marcus Whitman) in opening the way for American settlement, framing it as Christianity paving the path for civilization and national expansion. The key passage is:
“Never in the history of the world has there been a finer example of civilization following Christianity. The missionaries led under the banner of the cross, and the settlers moved close behind under the star-spangled symbol of the nation. Among all the records of evangelizing effort as the forerunner of human advancement, there is none so impressive as this of the early Oregon mission and its marvelous consequences.” 
Harding recounted how missionaries like Whitman carried the gospel to Native peoples and advocated for U.S. claims to the Oregon Territory, leading to wagon trains of settlers. He portrayed this as a heroic, providential story of faith-driven exploration that secured the Northwest for the United States, emphasizing self-reliant pioneers building the nation. 
This reflects the era’s common view of Manifest Destiny intertwined with Protestant Christianity.

—

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.”

— George Washington

—

John Quincy Adams on July 4th:

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…
Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

—

John Adams on celebrating the 4th of July (he mentions the 2nd of July since that is when the vote for independence was take; the Declaration was not adopted until the 4th):

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

—

Notes on “the Fighting Parson”:

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg (1746–1807), often called the “Fighting Parson,” was a Lutheran/Anglican clergyman who became a prominent Continental Army officer during the American Revolutionary War. He is best known for dramatically transitioning from pulpit to battlefield, embodying the era’s blend of faith and patriotism. 
Key Role and Famous Sermon
In early 1776, while serving as pastor of a German Lutheran congregation in Woodstock, Virginia (Shenandoah Valley), Muhlenberg actively supported the Patriot cause. He had previously served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and on the Committee of Safety. 
On January 21, 1776, during a farewell sermon to his congregation (drawing from Ecclesiastes 3: “a time for every purpose under heaven”), he declared that the time for prayer and preaching had passed and the time to fight had come. He reportedly removed his clerical robe to reveal a colonel’s uniform underneath and called for recruits. This dramatic act reportedly inspired hundreds of men (accounts vary, often around 162–300) from the German-speaking communities in the area to enlist. 
He was authorized to raise and command the 8th Virginia Regiment (also known as the “German Regiment”), composed largely of men from the Shenandoah Valley. 
Military Service (1776–1783)
Muhlenberg served throughout the entire war, rising through the ranks:

• Colonel: Commanded the 8th Virginia Regiment.
• Brigadier General (commissioned 1777).
• Brevet Major General (1783; one of only about 19 officers to reach this rank, below only George Washington).
  Major campaigns and battles he participated in include:
• Defense of Charleston (1776).
• Battle of Brandywine (1777).
• Battle of Germantown (1777).
• Winter at Valley Forge.
• Battle of Monmouth (1778).
• Battle of Stony Point (1779).
• Defense of Virginia against British invasion (1781).
• Siege of Yorktown (1781), where he served as second-in-command to Baron von Steuben in a key role during the decisive victory.
  He was a capable and dedicated officer who led troops effectively in both northern and southern theaters.
  Background and Post-War Life
  Muhlenberg was born in Pennsylvania to a prominent Lutheran family (son of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg). He had some prior military experience in Germany as a young man. After the war, he returned to Pennsylvania, where he held political offices including U.S. Representative, Senator, and roles in the Jefferson administration. He died in 1807.
  His story remains a powerful symbol of clergy supporting the American cause for independence, often invoked in discussions of faith, liberty, and just war. A statue of him stands in the U.S. Capitol rotunda (representing Pennsylvania).
  Note: While the robe-shedding anecdote is widely recounted and likely based on real events, some details may be romanticized in popular retellings. His military contributions are well-documented in historical records.

—

Notes on “the Swamp Fox”:

Francis Marion (c. 1732 – February 27, 1795), known as the “Swamp Fox,” was a South Carolina planter, politician, and militia officer who became one of the most effective guerrilla leaders in the American Revolutionary War, particularly in the southern theater. 
Early Life and Pre-War Service
Born on a plantation in Berkeley County, South Carolina, Marion came from a Huguenot (French Protestant) family. He had limited formal education and worked as a planter. During the French and Indian War, he served in the militia, gaining early military experience, including in conflicts against the Cherokee. 
Revolutionary War Role: The Swamp Fox
After the British captured Charleston in 1780 and overran much of South Carolina, Marion emerged as a key Patriot partisan leader. He commanded a small, mobile force of militia (“Marion’s Men”) that operated from the swamps and backcountry of South Carolina and North Carolina. 
His tactics emphasized:

• Hit-and-run raids
• Ambushes
• Sabotage of British supply lines and Loyalist forces
• Rapid mobility and knowledge of the terrain to evade larger conventional armies
  These guerrilla operations disrupted British control, prevented them from consolidating power, harassed foraging parties, and boosted Patriot morale in the South when the Continental Army was struggling.
  Notable actions include battles/skirmishes at Black Mingo, Tearcoat Swamp, Georgetown, Fort Watson, Fort Motte, and participation in the Battle of Eutaw Springs (1781) under General Nathanael Greene.
  The nickname “Swamp Fox” originated from British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton, who was sent to capture him. After a frustrating chase through the swamps (over 26 miles), Tarleton reportedly said something like, “as for this damned old fox, the Devil himself could not catch him.” The name stuck and was embraced by Patriots.
  Marion was promoted to Brigadier General in the South Carolina militia. His efforts helped keep the southern resistance alive until larger Continental forces could turn the tide.
  Later Life
  After the war, Marion served in the South Carolina Senate and continued as a planter. He married late in life and died at his plantation in 1795. He is buried in Berkeley County, South Carolina.
  Legacy
  Marion is remembered as a master of unconventional warfare whose methods influenced later guerrilla fighters. He inspired legends, books (like The Life of General Francis Marion), and cultural depictions, including a composite influence on the character Benjamin Martin in the film The Patriot (2000). Statues and sites in South Carolina honor him.
  His story highlights how determined local leaders using terrain and mobility could complement formal armies in asymmetric conflicts.

—

“The Founders said it plainly. God made men. He made them with dignity. He gave them rights that no government created and no government can legitimately take away. Government’s job is to recognize that fact and protect it. That is the reason America was founded. It is the reason the experiment has lasted 250 years. It is the reason enemies rebuilt into allies prospered under our protection. It is the reason the world’s most powerful military has not, in the end, chosen empire.
You cannot remove transcendence from a human soul and replace it with politics without consequence. When you take away God, the nation, the family, and the inherited story, and leave in their place only grievance and identity and the correct opinions, you have not liberated anyone. You have produced a person with nothing stable to stand on and nothing worth defending, who feels everything and knows very little, and who is primed to cut off her grandmother at Thanksgiving because she voted wrong.
The solution is not a better curriculum, though better curricula would help. It is not a different political party in power, though policy matters. The solution is the one the culture most mocks and least wants to hear. Repentance. Return. A turning back toward the things that actually produced the civilization worth celebrating, ordered liberty rooted in the recognition that our rights come from God and that no man, no government, and no academic journal gave them to us or can take them away…
America is worth celebrating. The long arc of 250 years, with all its failures and all its glory, bends toward a simple truth that was written down at the beginning and has never been improved upon:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That sentence did not come from a television writer. It came from men who were willing to die for it.
It is still worth dying for.
It is truth that informs a life worth living.
The One who made you planned for you to live in this moment in history, where you can know Him, and where you can make Him known.
His great love purchased at great cost all those who believe in Him, and he gave you a mind capable of reason and a heart capable of loving and protecting and providing for your family, your neighbors and your nations.
Happy 250th, America.
May God bless us and bring a return to the Truth.”

— Clayton Wood

—

“It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seems as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk through the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”

— Ben Franklin, on the changes wrought by George Whitefield’s preaching and the Great Awakening

—

Liberalism, crafted in the context of Christian culture, aimed at protecting religious liberty, has no answer for Islam. Liberalism, being naive about “religion,” cannot explain why Sharia cannot be tolerated in the West, or why Islam is incompatible with Western values. Liberalism cannot protect itself against the Islamic invasion.

—

“On September 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives approved what would become the First Amendment, an amendment that includes these important words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Those who oppose religion in public life often point to this amendment as evidence that the founders wanted to build a wall of separation between church and state. But consider this. The day after the House approved the First Amendment, Elias Boudinot, who later became president of the American Bible Society, proposed that Congress ask President Washington to recommend a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.
In response to objections by Aedanus Burke and Thomas Tucker that such a practice mimicked European customs or should be done by the states, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman justified the practice of Thanksgiving on any single event not only as laudable in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in holy writ. For instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon. The House agreed with Boudinot and Sherman, as did the Senate. Congress requested that President Washington issue a Thanksgiving Day proclamation. He didn’t have to, but he did….
President Washington encouraged prayer, but he did not attempt to compel it. America’s founders saw nothing wrong with civic leaders endorsing religious practices like prayer. But they had also come to a consensus that there must be no compulsion in matters of faith. In the late 18th century, 98% of Americans of European descent were Protestant, 2% were Roman Catholic, and there were about 2,000 Jews in four American cities. Although it is often claimed that many of the founders were deists, that label may be applied to only a handful of individuals.”

— Mark David Hall

—

I asked Grok if Samuel Adams knew his cousin John was a Unitarian:

It’s unlikely Samuel Adams had detailed knowledge of (or focused much on) any Unitarian leanings in his cousin John Adams, and there’s no strong historical evidence that he did. 
Samuel Adams (1722–1803) and John Adams (1735–1826) were second cousins who collaborated closely on revolutionary politics—Samuel as a key agitator and organizer in Boston, John as a lawyer, diplomat, and thinker. They shared a deep commitment to liberty, virtue, republicanism, and resistance to British overreach, often corresponding and working together (e.g., in the Continental Congress). John praised Samuel’s piety, zeal, and understanding of liberty. 
Religious Contexts

• Samuel Adams was a devout, orthodox Congregationalist with strong Puritan/Calvinist roots. He emphasized biblical virtue, God’s providence, moral reform, and traditional Christian doctrines (including the Trinity). He attended church regularly, drew heavily on Puritan heritage, and viewed religion as central to personal and public life. Historians describe him as a “strict Calvinist” or “the Calvin of his day.”
• John Adams was raised in a similar Congregationalist environment but evolved toward liberal (Arminian-leaning) views that aligned with emerging Unitarianism. He rejected the Trinity and Christ’s full divinity, favored rational/moral interpretations of Christianity, and later explicitly identified as a Unitarian (“We Unitarians… for more than sixty years”). His church in Quincy became Unitarian. However, he remained deeply religious, attended services, valued Christian ethics, and saw himself as a Christian (just not in the orthodox sense).
  The liberal shift in New England Congregationalism (toward what became Unitarianism) was gradual and became more formalized in the early 19th century with controversies and schisms. John’s more explicit private statements on these matters often appear in later letters (e.g., to Jefferson or family), many post-dating Samuel’s death in 1803.
  Limited Evidence of Theological Discussion
  Their surviving correspondence and records focus overwhelmingly on politics, strategy, governance, and the revolutionary cause rather than personal theology or doctrinal disputes. There are no well-documented letters or accounts where Samuel directly addresses or shows awareness of John’s specific heterodox views on the Trinity or Christ’s nature.
  Both men prioritized practical unity against tyranny and shared a broad Christian moral framework (providence, virtue, liberty as God-given). Samuel tolerated some religious diversity in the patriot cause and worked with people of varying beliefs. Subtle differences in their personal piety likely existed but do not appear to have strained their relationship or become a point of contention.
  In short: Samuel probably knew John attended liberal-leaning churches and held rationalist/Enlightenment-influenced views common among educated elites, but the full extent of John’s Unitarianism (as later articulated) was not a public or heavily discussed matter during Samuel’s lifetime. Their bond was political and familial, not a theological debate club. This fits the broader Founding era pattern where private religious nuances often took a backseat to shared public principles.

—

The reason the Treaty of Tripoli declares we were not founded as a Christian (“the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”) is because the American writers of that treaty were being tactical. The Muslims used the fact that we were “infidels” as a basis for attacking us. We did not want a religious war with them. So we tried to defuse the situation and remain politically neutral. We wanted Muslims (who had no concept out of church/state distinction) to know we would not be aggressive towards them on religious grounds.

Our 1783 treaty with Paris began “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” This same language was used in treaties with Britain and Ireland after the Treaty of Tripoli in 1822.

—

“[Our faith] tells us to go forth and preach the gospel to the world as a witness unto all nations unto the ends of the Earth. From that command, came America. Our nation, more than any other in history, was shaped by this Christian idea. Our nation more than any other in history was shaped by this Christian idea.”

— Marco Rubio

Note Rubio sees America’s founding as the outcome of the Great Commission. The original explorers (like Columbus) and settlers came here to spread the gospel and further Christian civilization.

—

Every married couple has to decide what kind of story they’re living in.

The great romantic stories like Ruth and Boaz always have the same features – a strong man and a submissive woman. It’s the only male/female script that can end in “happily ever after.”

You can choose to live in a different story, but when you’re miserable you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.

To respect a man means to view him as your hero, the greatest man you’ve ever known, your knight in shining armor, completely surrendered to him. When he gets home from work kiss like he just came back from the war. Make sure he knows he is needed, that he has a role, that he can solve your problems. Let him save the day. Thank him for what he does.

To be the head of his wife means he must protect, provide, preside, cherish, delight in her, be enraptured with her, flirt with her, pursue her. When he husband leads and loves, his wife relaxes into her femininity. She is softer, more nurturing, and less anxious. Praise her for who she is.

This is how you bring out the best in each other. He treats her like a queen. She treats him like a king. Act like you need each other — because you do.

Wife, bring out your husband’s manliness, give him confidence.

Husband, care for your wife, surround her with love, make her feel like she’s the only woman in the world.

Men need to feel needed. Women want to be wanted.

This is what many women don’t get: A man will try to lay the whole world at the feet of a woman who is sweet and submissive.
This is what many men don’t get: she actually wants you to be strong and to lead, to stand up to her when needed, to lead in wisdom, to not be passive or abdicate, to take charge, to make decisions, to stay on mission.

—

Looks like the PCA had a good General Assembly:

Adopting Danvers was an interesting move. It seems to me it’s a kind of virtue signaling about where the PCA wants to end up on a gender question – with a pretty moderate complementarianism.

Glad to see Revoice/Side B “gay Christianity” shot down.

Each of these actions can be considered a strong step away from Kellerism, which is what I have hoped the PCA would do.

I still think there is an FFO (functional female officer) problem in the PCA. The real question is whether or not the PCA will have the fortitude to deal with it, because that where it will get messy.

I still haven’t read the preliminary Christian Nationalism report but I think Everhard is correct – this can’t be reduced to just another swipe at Kinism. The denomination needs to deal substantively with the biblical and confessional material on civil government. Will the PCA keep accommodating itself to political liberalism or will it restore the tradition’s distinctively biblical politics?

Glad to hear they acknowledged America’s 250th.

—

“There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763…The Constitutional Convention and the written Constitution were the children of the pulpit.”

— Alice Baldwin

—

John Adams knew that America owed its liberty and independence to the pulpit. He said the “pulpits thundered” and noted that, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianits…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”

John Adams most certainly believed America had a Christian founding, and it owed a great deal to the colonial pastors.

—

“That book [referring to the Bible], sir, is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

— Andrew Jackson

—

Who said the US operated on the principle the Bible was “fountain of its laws” and the “supreme rule” of the nation?

The National Reform Association (NRA, founded in the early 1860s, active especially in the 1870s), through its official statements, platform, and convention proceedings. 
This post-Civil War organization (with ties to Reformed/Presbyterian circles) pushed for a “religious amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal was to explicitly acknowledge:

• Almighty God as the author of the nation’s existence and source of its authority,
• Jesus Christ as its ruler,
• and the Bible as the fountain of its laws and the supreme rule of its conduct.
  This exact (or near-exact) phrasing appears repeatedly in their documents, such as the call for their 1874 Pittsburgh convention and related proceedings. For example: “Jesus Christ as its ruler, and of the Bible as the fountain of its laws and the supreme rule of its conduct.”
  It described their vision of the U.S. as a “Christian nation” and aimed to embed this in the Constitution’s preamble to give Christian laws and institutions a firmer legal basis. The group included figures like David McAllister and others from the Reformed Presbyterian Church tradition, but the quote itself reflects the organization’s collective platform rather than one individual’s original words.
  This was not a statement from the Founding Fathers or the original Constitution (which is secular in form, with no explicit mention of God, Christ, or the Bible). The NRA saw the existing Constitution as deficient on this point and sought to “fix” it amid concerns over secularism, Sabbath laws, Bible in schools, etc. Their efforts ultimately did not succeed in amending the Constitution.
  In context, this fits 19th-century Christian nationalist or theonomic-leaning efforts to formalize America’s informal Protestant cultural heritage into law—distinct from the more general Founding-era acknowledgments of providence or natural law influenced by biblical ethics. As a pastor with interests in Reformed theology, church history, and Christian engagement with law/government, you might find their proceedings or related histories (e.g., from Log College Press) worth exploring further.

SCOTUS Associate Justice William Strong (1808–1895, served 1870–1880) was a key supporter and leader (president) of the National Reform Association (NRA). 
He endorsed and promoted the organization’s platform calling for a “Christian amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. This included explicitly acknowledging:

• Almighty God as the author of the nation’s existence and source of its authority,
• Jesus Christ as its ruler,
• and the Bible as the fountain of its laws and the supreme rule of its conduct.
  This language appears in NRA documents, such as the 1872 “Call for a National Convention” (which Strong signed as president) and related proceedings. While the phrasing reflects the group’s collective position, Strong actively championed it as a Presbyterian ruling elder and jurist.
  Additional Notable Statements
  In 1873, Strong warned that the Constitution must either be made “explicitly Christian” or else Christianity would be “obliterated” from every U.S. institution.
  He also authored works like Two Lectures Upon the Relations of Civil Law to Church Polity, Discipline, and Property (1875), exploring connections between civil law, Christianity, and moral principles.
  Strong’s involvement highlights 19th-century efforts by some Reformed/Presbyterian figures to formalize America’s Protestant cultural heritage into the Constitution amid concerns over secularism, Sabbath observance, Bible in schools, and moral decline. These amendment efforts failed, but they reflect broader post-Civil War debates on religion and government.
  This aligns with the context from our prior discussion on the NRA’s vision of America as a Christian nation under biblical principles. If you’re looking for full texts (e.g., the convention proceedings or his lectures), Log College Press or archive sources often have them.

In the context of the National Reform Association’s (NRA) efforts, specifically tied to their 1873 proceedings/convention materials (e.g., New York convention in February 1873). 
The warning—that the Constitution must be made “explicitly Christian” or else Christianity would be “obliterated” from every U.S. institution—appears in discussions and addresses connected to the NRA’s push for the religious amendment. Strong, as president of the Association, was a central figure promoting this view in their published proceedings. 
Primary sources like Proceedings of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (various editions from the early 1870s, including 1873) contain related statements from Strong and the group. These documents frame the amendment as essential to align the Constitution with the nation’s Christian character and prevent the erosion of biblical/moral foundations in law and society. 
This fits the broader NRA campaign Strong led, building on earlier calls (e.g., 1872 Cincinnati convention). The exact phrasing is often cited in historical analyses of the movement, drawing directly from these convention records.

—

The American founders could set up a system of self-government because Americans at that time were self-governed. And they were self-governed because of their deep Christian faith. National self-government worked because the people were self-governed at the individual and family levels.

—

The “punch right, coddle left” paradigm that dominates a lot of the PCA and other NAPARC churches and much of evangelicalism essentially attacks masculine-leaning sins and coddles feminine-coded sins. It tells young men they need to check their masculinity at the door when they come into the church but it does nothing to hold women accountable for their typical sins.

https://twitter.com/AmericanPresby/status/2070306533490262203/video/1?s=46

—

Interesting discussion of ethnonationalism, obviously related to the whole Christian nationalism and kinism discussions:

I keep seeing denominational groups put out statements condemning what they call “racial ideologies,” including ethnonationalism, but they don’t do the work of actually defining the things they are condemning.

If you Google “ethnonationalism,” you’ll find a definition something…

— Joseph Spurgeon (@Joseph_Spurgeon) June 25, 2026

—

“Allying with Muslims who hate you against Zionism is dumb
Allying with neocons who hate you against Islam is dumb
You don’t have to choose between people who hate you”

— Auron MacIntyre

—

“Christian pastors are going to have to think deeper than “welcome the stranger” and “love the immigrant among you” for their thoughts on immigration policy in the coming years with huge swaths of Islamic socialists actively seeking to gain political power and fundamentally reshape significant parts of America….

The mission of the church = (in part) to be the “salt of the earth” (not just the church, the EARTH)
This means resisting evil and decay wherever we find it.
Yes, Christians should resist ideologies of demons that send people to eternal hell if believed, destroy societies, result in poverty, and historically result in the persecution of Christians.
It might be put this way: “Love your neighbor; oppose Islamic Socialism.””

— Josh Howerton

—

An X post on Tim Keller from 5/30/25:

Keller definitely embraced critical theory – though he used it to argue for things like reparations. But the embrace of critical theory would give him a point of commonality with the Wolfite version of Christian nationalism. Keller seemed to think Marx was pretty good on social analysis, just not the remedy.

Keller was not a natural law guy nor a theonomist. In general, his approach to politics was subordinated to pragmatic missional/evangelistic concerns.

Keller believed white people need to recognize they have a culture – that the white way of doing things is not normative or universal. I guess this makes him a race realist? But he was also pretty multicultural, especially in that he would emphasize that every culture has points of contact with the gospel and points of conflict with the gospel. His philosophy of ministry was based on finding those points of contact and tying them into the Christian story.

Keller was something of a statist who really did not care much for markets – definitely something many postliberals would go along with.

Keller was pro-immigration because it’s good for evangelism.

Politically, Keller was an old school Democrat/progressive/liberal – he was not outspoken about abortion (he believed it was morally wrong, but was probably fine with a “safe, legal, rare” approach politically), he believed homosexuality was sinful but did not oppose same-sex legal unions, etc. He wanted Christians engaged in the culture but did not want Christians to ever impose their own views on others (which is why Kellerites get dragged continually to the left – they accept the Overton window and winsomeness as the rules of engagement).

Keller was on the feminist end of the complementarian spectrum. The husband is a servant-leader whose authority is reduced to breaking ties. A woman can do anything an unordained man can do. The rule that only men can be pastors is not rooted in nature or design.

Keller was a globalist rather than a nationalist. He said at one point he did not personally know a single Trump supporter (and he probably didn’t know anyone who owned a gun or drove a pickup truck either). His sensibilities about the world were entirely shaped by northeastern urban elitism. He did not have much real exposure to huge swaths of American culture.

—

Andrew Walker on the third-way:

“Third-wayism among many evangelical elites told us that Christianity “stands above” American polarization only to provide theological justification for ceding the cultural ground to progressives. Or much of mainstream evangelicalism shows discomfort with creation order realities, fearing that loving the nation violates the transnational Kingdom of God or that celebrating masculinity offends the quiet expectation that we all become functional eunuchs within the church. In too many cases, evangelical political theology lacks a doctrine of creation. Evangelicalism often appears as all grace, no nature.
For all its strengths—its evangelistic zeal, its emphasis on grace, its defense of biblical authority—evangelicalism has long suffered from a theology that skips straight from the Fall to the Cross to the Resurrection with little consideration of what original created nature was for. It has little capacity to speak about the created world as good in itself (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4). Nature, order, design, morality, hierarchy, limits—these are not simply remnants of a fallen system to be transcended. They are goods to be received, stewarded, and fought for. But when a theological tradition has no place for creation in its moral and political imagination, the re-emergence of natural goods—like male and female distinction, the good of loving and prioritizing one’s family, or the basic moral instincts of conscience—feels foreign, even threatening. The over-valuation of grace into platonic detachment has left us unable to participate in politics without guilt about immediate compromise. While politics after the Fall is about restraining the evildoer, we overlook why we have the retributive justice of the state—to protect pre-Fall goods.
So when the culture, weary of chaos, begins to grope back toward its outer-boundary natural law violations, evangelicalism will fumble unless we relearn the value of nature. We must be able to affirm the goodness of maleness and femaleness, the goodness of hierarchy and authority, the goodness of limits, the good of the family, the good of conscience and moral law.
This is why many evangelicals find themselves uncomfortable with the language of authority, duty, or rootedness. These are not primarily red-state values—they are creational ones. But if your theology has no robust doctrine of creation, you will inevitably treat them as cultural preferences or, worse, as impediments to “authentic gospel witness” rather than moral goods.”

This issue of grace eating up nature in some versions of evangelical theology is one I’ve written about quite a bit over the years. Many evangelicals start their theology with the fall, rather than creation, then stop at the crucifixion without giving proper attention to the resurrection and the renewal of all things. I address this in my book Measures of the Mission and briefly on this article I wrote on Obergefell back in 2015:

pastor.trinity-pres.net/essays/obergef…

—

An X post from 2/13/26:

God always intended special revelation and natural revelation to form a single system of revelation. Special revelation predates the fall and natural revelation continues to be operative after the fall. Special and natural revelation have worked in tandem from the beginning.

For us today, that means the Bible and nature continue to work together. We need both, and never one without the other. Special revelation is a fact of human experience every bit as much as natural revelation. The Bible presupposes natural revelation and natural revelation must be interpreted through the lens of Scripture (“the spectacles of Scripture,” as Calvin said). Nature points us to the God who has revealed himself in the Bible, and the Bible often points us back to nature as the revelation of the Creator’s design and a source of wisdom.

Natural law and biblical law cohere and are perfectly consistent. While natural revelation does not contain the gospel in itself, it certainly includes built-in illustrations of the gospel (eg, John 12:24). And Scripture speaks not only to the way of redemption; it addresses man’s personal and social life in this age as well. If grace restores nature, this is exactly what we should expect. The Bible does not only address heavenly, eternal, or salvific matters; it addresses every area of life and culture because the Savior Scripture reveals is Lord over everything.

Western civilization was built by utilizing truths drawn from both Scripture and natural revelation. Some say we should rely only on arguments from nature in the public square today since we live in a diverse, pluralistic society. But that is non-sense. The modern progressive does not believe in nature/creational design any more than he believes in Scripture as divine revelation. Pointing to nature is just as futile as quoting from Leviticus in a society like ours. Appeals to nature are not neutral; they are just as “religious” as appeals to Scripture. Christians should use all the tools at our disposal, drawing from Scripture and nature, to make our case for our vision of society. Jesus is the Lord of all creation; his lordship cannot be confined to a narrow ecclesiastical or redemptive realm. The same God who authored natural revelation authored special revelation, and fallen man is just as adept at suppressing incontrovertible arguments from nature as he is at suppressing the truths revealed in the self-authenticating Scriptures.

John Frame is one of the best on this.

—

Good threads on the results of Obergefell/SSM:

10 years ago, the Supreme Court illegitimately took the question of what marriage means out of the hands of the American people. They unilaterally imposed a novel view, veritably untested throughout all of history, and imposed it on our society.

What have the results been? Well… https://t.co/z5ToPaUx2i

— Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 26, 2026

🧵Did Obergefell produce the benefits that advocates predicted?

In 2015, Americans were told redefining marriage would provide greater stability for same-sex couples, encourage marriage over cohabitation, and improve the well-being of sexual minorities.

Eleven years later, we…

— Ruth Institute (@RuthInstitute) June 25, 2026

The impact of legalizing same-sex marriage:

To legalize same-sex marriage in Obergefell (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the biological component of marriage is irrelevant.

In Pavan (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the biological relationship in the parent-child… https://t.co/sKDd9A36Ao

— Nancy Pearcey (@NancyRPearcey) June 26, 2026

—

Doug Wilson American exceptionalism:

“The Founders established a form of government built on the rock solid constitutional footing of a profound distrust of Americans. This is because Americanism is no different from all the other forms of mendacity, and the Founders knew we were no different. That kind of humility really is exceptional. Checks and balances, separation of powers, a doctrine of enumerated powers, were not established because they were anticipating a Klingon invasion. Above all else, the Founders sought to defend America from Americans. And looking at the band of miscreants running this goon show of ours now — most of whom were born within these borders, and educated far past their intelligence with your tax dollars — one is hard pressed to say the Founders were unduly suspicious…
America is a nation, and no, it is not a nation built upon an idea. That notion is part and parcel of the wrong kind of American exceptionalism. That’s the kind of thing that turns citizenship into an ideology, and we need more nationalist ideology like a hole in the head.
Ideas factor into it, of course, but actual nations are made up of shared heritage, language, laws, customs, geography, history . . . and religious faith.
If America is an idea, then that idea is either right or wrong. If it is right, then everybody needs to buy into it. If it is wrong, then we should sell our stock. If America is an idea, then we are on a necessary collision course with those who may have other ideas.
But if America is a nation, blessed by God in a number of ways, but still simply a nation for all that, then there is no necessary reason for conflict with others. You love and honor your country for the same reason you love and honor your mom. She is yours. You don’t need reasons.
Nationalism is the result when you try to make your natural affection for your people into a god. It is a terrible, devouring god. If a couple of men got into a fist fight in the greeting card section of a store because one of them saw that the other guy was going to buy a “best mom in the world” card, when he did not in fact have the best mom in the world, because the fellow punching him had the best mom, what would we say? One would begin to suspect, would one not, that they were both missing the point?
But there is a mistake in the opposite direction. I have noticed an unsettling tendency among some young Christians, who know that they are not supposed to be nationalists, therefore thinking that they can or should zero out their Americanness. When the project of eradication is complete, we will have “just a Christian.” No, we will have nothing of the kind. We will have a translucent, shimmery thing that will look and act like a wisp of morning mist. Real Christianity lands. Real Christianity disciples nations.
Patriotism, rightly developed, is a duty that falls under the fifth commandment. I am to honor my father and mother, and this extends beyond them in such a way as to include my people, my tribe. Ordinary and ordered patriotism is not just okay; it is a duty, one that needs to be cultivated.
Special notice to other readers of my blog. Whites are not a tribe. Blacks are not a tribe. Americans are a tribe — and that, incidentally, is what currently is under assault…
America is a tribe, a nation, and, as such, the Church is commanded to disciple her. The end point we should have in view should be an obedient nation, not an erased nation.
When France is fully discipled, it will be more French, not less so. When China is fully discipled, it will be more Chinese, not less so. And when America is fully discipled, the same thing is true. The one who loses his life for Christ’s sake will find it again.”

—

“In America, religion is the road to knowledge and the observance of the divine law leads men to civil freedom.”

— Tocqueville

—

“”Men who have assurance that they are to inherit heaven, have a way of presently taking possession of the earth.” This courage and confidence enabled them to fight, with economic, political or military weapons, to create a new world worthy of the God who had so signally blessed them… Previous theologians had explained the world: for the Puritans the point was to change it”

— Christopher Hill, quoting Haller, pointing to the role of Calvinism is the colonial/founding era

—

Don’t confuse being educated with being intelligent. Don’t confuse degrees with wisdom.

—

“May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the Father of all mercy scatter light and not darkness in our paths and make us all in our several vocations useful here and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.”

— George Washington

If Jews are the root of all evil, as some claim, maybe George Washington is really to blame for America’s downfall. But actually Washington was acted consistently with the Anglo-Protestant worldview, e.g., Cromwell invited the Jews back into England.

—

Reality always wins in the end. Reality always reasserts itself.

—

Raise your sons to pursue glory. Raise you daughters to be glory.

—

The whole creation mandate belongs to the whole human race. But there is a sexual division of labor within the creation mandate.

In terms of the pattern of creation, men form and women fill. Men build and women glorify.

In terms of Genesis 1:26ff, men rule and subdue, women multiply and fill.

It takes men and women to fulfill the creation mandate, but they do not have identical callings within the mandate.

—

Are Roman Catholics doing more harm to America and the West than Jews?

Dennis Prager never said mass migration is “a Jewish project” he actually said the opposite. Prager is a religious Jew who co-wrote a whole book, Why the Jews?, dedicated to refuting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, and he publicly rebutted Candace Owens point-by-point when she… https://t.co/aHc0ht1bce

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) June 25, 2026

—

The culture war is the incarnation and manifestation of the deeper spiritual war.

The word “culture” derives from “cultus” which refers to worship. The culture war, therefore is a battle over which G/god will be worshipped in the public square.

—

Marxism and progressivism are false and anti-human religions dressed up as political philosophies. Islam is a political philosophy of terror and tyranny disguised as a religion.

—

In 1778, John Quincy Adams was 11 years old and about to accompany his father, John Adams, to France on a diplomatic mission. Knowing how depraved the culture of Paris could be, this was the counsel his mother Abigail gave to her son in a letter as he departed:

“Adhere to those religious sentiments and principles which were early instilled into your mind and remember that you are accountable to your Maker for all your words and actions….
[D]ear as you are to me, I would much rather you should have found your grave in the ocean you have crossed, or that any untimely death crop you in your infant years, than see you [become] an immoral, profligate, or graceless child….”

She would have rather have had her son die in infancy than grow up to be a covenant breaker. She would rather have had his boat sink and him drown in the sea, than her son be allowed live if it meant he was going to break covenant with God. That’s the kind of hardcore Puritanism that founded America.

ADDENDUM: It is most certainly true that John and Abigail were not doctrinally orthodox, though my understanding is the church they attended was at least formally/objectively orthodox (it likely used the Savoy Declaration). I don’t know anyone who would claim they were personally orthodox (though that was probably not widely known at the time, and I would add that the usual characterization of “deist” misses the mark too).

If I had to categorize John and Abigail Adams, I’d say they were “cultural Christians” or “cultural Puritans” — heavily influenced by Christian faith while not being personally Christian. Thus, Adams, despite his heresies, retained a good bit of Christian doctrine in his worldview. For example, he wrote to Abigail about the Continental Congress, “We have appointed a continental Fast. Millions will be upon their Knees at once before their great Creator, imploring his Forgiveness and Blessing, his Smiles on American Councils and Arms.” John Q says his mother taught him from an early age to pray the Lord’s Prayer daily before rising from bed. So the Adams retained some Christian doctrines and practices while rejecting others. The structure of their thought was largely Christian, even though they denied basic Christian doctrine.

What impresses me about both John and Abigail is their character and integrity — and I’d attribute that to their Puritan heritage. They still had a strong sense of Puritan covenantalism and divine providence, despite their heterodoxy. They believed in a Creator who answers prayers and forgives sins. John even expressed great appreciation for the Reformers and Reformation. Their ethos and culture was still quite Puritan, even though their theology was not. I take the Adams to be a great example of how Christian culture has value and encourages virtue even when personal faith is lacking. They were cultural Puritans.

Interestingly, John Q seems to have pretty orthodox for a time and argued with his dad about it iirc, before later turning towards Unitarianism (along with most of New England about that time).

Thankfully, John’s cousin Samuel seems to have been a solid evangelical Christian. John called Sam “the Calvin of his day” and meant it as a compliment. Sam’s will stated “I recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it… relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.”

ADDENDUM: “The kind that would have been better off dying early rather than grow up to become Unitarian apostates?”

Kind of ironic, isn’t it? As my follow up post shows, the Adams were “cultural Christians” (not deists) and the structure of much of their thought remained biblical, even as they denied core Christian doctrines. One reason modern Americans have a hard time understanding and categorizing many of the founders is because we don’t know non-Christians like Adams – that is, non-Christians still thoroughly immersed in a Christian, covenantal culture. Late 18th century American Unitarians were far more steeped in Scriptural categories and patterns of thought than many modern American evangelicals who would affirm the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, sola gratia, etc. If we want to understand the American founding, we have to understand this about the heterodox founders. They were public Christians even if private apostates/heretics. They thought and acted like Christians in their public lives.

It’s worth noting John Adams and his children were all baptized in the Triune name, using the standard formula, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” They were objectively Christian even if eventually apostate in their private views.

The reason there are so many debates about whether or not men like Adams, Washington, and Jefferson were Christians is because these men belong to a category that no longer really exists. The case of Washington is a bit more ambiguous, but in the case of Adams and Jefferson, we have to admit they were not personally orthodox. But it is not adequate to simply say they were non-Christians or Unitarians, because their thought and practice remained deeply rooted in Christian categories. Again, that’s why I say the best category to put these men into is “cultural Christian” or “worldview Christian.” These men had a view of the world, of morality and civil order, of providence, of covenant, that grew out of the soil of the Reformation. They inherited a colonial system of government that had already evolved out of Calvinistic covenantalism – and all the basic features of what would eventually become America’s constitutional order were already in place in the colonies 100 years before the Declaration. When America was finally formed as an independent nation, all the ingredients for the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution were already present. The American founders did not start from scratch; they built upon and refined what they inherited.

ADDENDUM: Again, “Unitarian” is not really an adequate description for the Adams family. If we simply label them or dismiss them as non-Christians or Unitarians or deists, we will not understand them. John and Abigail Adams were privately Unitarian, to be sure, but they were publicly Christian. Adams attributed the entire Revolution to Christian faith. He was a cultural Christian, a cultural Puritan, to be more specific, and more deeply rooted in covenantal categories than most evangelicals are today. We have a hard time understanding founders like the Adams, or Jefferson, because we don’t see any non-Christians like them today. They were doctrinally heterodox in their private views, yet completely formed in their views of government, morality, etc. by the Christian culture in which they lived and moved and had their being. One of the great blessings of living in a Christian culture, like the one that existed at the time of America’s founding, is that you get non-Christians like John and Abigail.

ADDENDUM: Again, it’s not quite the whole truth to simply categories them as “Unitarian.” John Adams and his children were baptized in the Triune name. The Congregational church which they attended regularly did go Unitarian but it did not happen all at once. They were not like modern mainline “Christians.” They were immersed and saturated in a culture that can only be described as “American Christendom.” I do not think we will see them in heaven but if you want to understand what they did while they lived on earth, you have take a deeper look at why they thought and acted the way they did.

—

“Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness, the other rests on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by a despotism. The history of government on this earth has been almost entirely a history of the rule of force held in the hands of a few. Under our constitution, America committed itself to the practical application of the rule of reason, with the power held in the hands of the people.”

— Calvin Coolidge, 1924

—

“Coleridge once commented that Calvinism is a sheep in wolf’s skin—that is, “cruel in the phrases… but full of consolation for the individual,” while the more apparently humanistic Arminianism is a wolf in sheep’s skin, cruel beneath its civilized surface honoring reason and free will.”

Taken from https://friendsofcoleridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/11-mcveigh-daniel-rev-neville-religious-thought.pdf.

—

Did Hitler attend church? Grok answers:

No, Adolf Hitler did not regularly attend church as an adult. He was raised Catholic but drifted away from religious practice in his youth and showed little to no personal devotion through church attendance during his political career. 
Background and Early Life

• Hitler was baptized Catholic, raised by a devout Catholic mother, attended Catholic school, served as a choirboy, and was confirmed in 1904 at Linz Cathedral.
• Witnesses from his time in a Vienna men’s hostel (after leaving home around age 18) reported he never attended Mass or received the sacraments again. He appears to have lost interest or become skeptical/repelled by formal religion during his teens.
  As an Adult and Leader
• There are no credible accounts of Hitler regularly attending public church services, Masses, or Protestant worship during his time in power (1933–1945). He did not participate in routine Christian rituals or show personal piety through churchgoing.
• Rare official appearances in churches were for state or diplomatic reasons (e.g., a 1935 commemoration service in Berlin for Polish President Piłsudski), not personal worship.
• Privately, Hitler expressed contempt for much of organized Christianity (especially its institutions and “meekness”), while publicly invoking “Providence,” God, or a vague Positive Christianity for political purposes. His Table Talk and other private remarks reveal deep skepticism or hostility toward traditional Christian doctrines and clergy.
  Hitler remained nominally a member of the Catholic Church (paying church taxes) and never formally apostatized, but this was pragmatic—avoiding scandal in a Christian nation—rather than reflective of active faith. His regime controlled and persecuted churches when they opposed Nazi policies, while co-opting Christian rhetoric when useful. In short, Hitler was not a practicing churchgoer.

—

“I love and revere the memories of Huss, Wickliff, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancton, and all the other Reformers, how muchsoever I may differ from them all in many theological metaphysical & philosophical points. As you justly observe, without their great exertions & severe sufferings, the USA had never existed.”

— John Adams

—

“The Presbyterian meetinghouses are schools of treason, where every sermon is a call to arms and every psalm a war-cry against the King.”

— New York Gazette, a loyalist newspaper, 1776

—

The fact that Hitler emphasized family and flag does not make him a conservative, much less a Christian Prince. Beneath his pseudo-moralism was a desire for raw power – and Hitler was willing to lie if it enhanced his power.

—

“Let it then be distinctly stated and fearlessly maintained IN THE FIRST PLACE, that every member of this Christian nation, from the highest to the lowest, ought to serve the Lord with fear, and yield his sincere homage to the Son of God. Every ruler should be an avowed and a sincere friend of Christianity. He should know and believe the doctrines of our holy religion, and act in conformity with its precepts. This he ought to do; because as a man he is required to serve the Lord; and as a public ruler he is called upon by divine authority to ‘kiss the Son.’”

— Presbyterian pastor Ezra Stiles Ely from his July 4, 1827 sermon “The Duty of Christian Freemen to Elect Christian Rulers”

—

“As a foreigner, most of us only pay attention to America because of her greatness, and most only seek to exploit her, especially the swarms of immigrants and foreign powers sucking on her military teats. But the moment she trips, none of us will care for her.
Yet for Christians everywhere, what we must appreciate and love about America is its Puritan and Protestant Founding, the noble aspiration that all of civic life should be formed, shaped and informed by the Word of God directly. Even if recently that has declined dramatically and sharply, and we cannot deny that that aspiration is to be loved, cherished and appreciated, and it was that that made her great.
And even if America does decline in its geatness, because they no longer love the Word which made her great, we Christians every must continue to love and aspire to that example, and pray and hope for that restoration, no matter how difficult and arduous that road maybe, and even if that road may take a Jeremiah concession to the Babylonians and a humbling of America to call her to repentance, we must keep that aspiration firmly in our hearts. For it was a City on a Hill, and by God’s grace, it shall be again.”

— Fu Ronghan

—

“It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

— John Jay

—

What did Thomas Jefferson mean by, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep for ever”?

Thomas Jefferson wrote this in Notes on the State of Virginia (written 1781–1785, published 1785), specifically in Query XVIII, which discusses the “particular customs and manners” of Virginia.
Full Context
Jefferson is reflecting on the corrupting effects of slavery on both enslavers and the enslaved, and on American society as a whole. He argues that the institution of slavery degrades the morals of the people, undermines industry, and threatens the nation’s liberties.
Key preceding passage (leading directly into the quote):
“…With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”
Then comes the famous line:
“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever…”
He continues:
“…that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.”
Jefferson warns that divine justice will not tolerate the injustice of slavery indefinitely. He fears a potential violent reversal (“revolution of the wheel of fortune”) where the enslaved might rise up, possibly with God’s intervention, and the masters would have no divine favor on their side in such a conflict. He hopes instead for a peaceful, gradual emancipation with the consent of the masters.
What Jefferson Meant
Moral and theological warning: Jefferson believed liberty is a gift from God, rooted in natural rights and divine order. Slavery violates this, corrupting the nation and inviting God’s judgment. His “trembling” expresses dread at the hypocrisy of a nation founded on liberty while practicing chattel slavery.
Fear of divine retribution: God’s justice is active and inevitable. Slavery is not just a political or economic evil but a profound moral one that could bring calamity on the country (he alludes to possible slave revolts or upheaval, referencing numbers and “nature” — i.e., the growing enslaved population).
This fits Jefferson’s broader Enlightenment-influenced views: he saw slavery as economically inefficient, morally destructive (teaching tyranny to children and despotism to masters), and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution. However, he was a slaveowner himself and held complex (and often racist) views on Black people and the practicalities of emancipation.
This passage is prominently inscribed on the northwest wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., highlighting Jefferson’s internal conflict over slavery.
It remains a powerful quote on the tension between American ideals and its original sins, often invoked in discussions of providence, justice, and national accountability.

—

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

— Patrick Henry

—

BLM is just Nazism for blacks, with blacks put in the place of the Aryan race.

—

Grok, were Hitler’s views of race shaped by Darwinism?

Yes, Hitler’s racial views were significantly influenced by ideas rooted in or justified through a form of Social Darwinism, though not directly or strictly from Charles Darwin’s scientific work. 
Core Nazi Racial Ideology
Nazi race theory portrayed history and society as a biological struggle for existence between “races,” with “Aryans” (especially Nordics) as superior and destined to dominate or eliminate “inferior” groups (Jews, Slavs, Roma, disabled people, etc.). Key elements included:

• Racial purity to prevent “degeneration.”
• Lebensraum (living space) through conquest.
• Eugenics (forced sterilization, euthanasia like Aktion T4, and ultimately genocide) to improve the “gene pool.”
• “Survival of the fittest” applied to human groups, where weaker races must yield or perish.
  This was framed as “natural law” or scientific necessity.
  Connection to Darwinism
• Social Darwinism, not pure Darwinian biology, was the bridge. Social Darwinists (building on Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, 1859) extended “natural selection” and “struggle for existence” to human societies, races, nations, and classes. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer (“survival of the fittest”), Ernst Haeckel in Germany, and German eugenicists/racial hygienists heavily influenced Nazi ideology.
• Nazis frequently invoked evolutionary language: racial struggle, elimination of the weak, and breeding superior stock. Hitler and propagandists used phrases echoing this, and Nazi education/films promoted it (e.g., beetle fights symbolizing struggle).
• Historians like Richard Weikart argue Darwinian evolutionary ethics and eugenics “smoothed the path” for Nazi racism, providing a secular, “scientific” veneer that justified policies as aligning with nature’s laws.
  Important Qualifications
• Hitler did not cite Darwin directly or read him extensively (no strong evidence). His ideas drew more from 19th/early 20th-century racial theorists (e.g., Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Arthur de Gobineau), völkisch nationalism, anti-Semitism, and pseudoscience popular in Germany.
• Some Nazi theorists rejected strict Darwinism for its materialism or randomness, preferring mystical or directed views of race and providence. Hitler’s worldview mixed biology with mysticism and politics.
• Darwin himself was not a Social Darwinist in the crude political sense, nor did he advocate racial extermination; his work focused on biological evolution. Misapplications and extensions by others enabled abuses.
  In summary, Nazi racial policies were deeply informed by a vulgarized, politicized Social Darwinism that twisted evolutionary concepts into justification for hierarchy, struggle, and genocide. It was one intellectual current among others (romantic nationalism, occultism, pseudoscience), but a prominent one that gave their racism a veneer of modernity and inevitability. This does not make Darwin personally responsible, but the historical link via Social Darwinism and eugenics is well-documented.

—

Grok comparing Nazism and CRT:

The Nazi view of race and Critical Race Theory (CRT) both treat race as a central organizing principle of society and history, but they differ profoundly in their foundational assumptions, methods, goals, and consequences.
Nazi Racial Ideology
Nazi racism was explicitly biological and hierarchical. It drew on 19th- and early 20th-century pseudoscientific ideas (eugenics, physical anthropology) to argue that humanity consists of distinct races with fixed, inherited traits that determine intelligence, creativity, morality, and destiny. 
Key tenets included:

• Racial struggle and hierarchy: The world is defined by competition between races. The “Aryan” (primarily Nordic/Germanic) race was the superior “master race” (Herrenvolk), destined to dominate.
• Jews as racial enemy: Jews were not merely a religion or culture but a distinct, parasitic, rival, and destructive race whose influence corrupted Aryan society. This was racial antisemitism, not just religious prejudice.
• Biological determinism: Traits like appearance, intellect, and behavior were hereditary and measurable (via skull shape, etc.). Inferior races (Slavs, Roma, Blacks, and especially Jews) were Untermenschen (subhumans).
• Racial purity and policy: The state must enforce purity through eugenics, sterilization, segregation (Nuremberg Laws), and ultimately extermination to secure living space (Lebensraum) and prevent “racial pollution.”
  This ideology justified extirminating Jews (and other groups) and aggressive war. It was state-enforced totalitarianism rooted in pseudoscience.
  Critical Race Theory
  CRT emerged in the late 1970s–1980s U.S. legal academy (key figures: Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw) as a response to perceived limits of civil rights liberalism. It is an academic and activist framework analyzing law, institutions, and culture through the lens of race and power, focused on intersectionality.
  Core tenets (per proponents like Crenshaw, Delgado & Stefancic):
• Race as social construct: Race has no significant biological basis; it is a socially invented category used to maintain power and oppression. Disparities stem from systemic/structural racism embedded in institutions, not individual prejudice or biology.
• Racism as ordinary and systemic: Racism is a normal feature of Western (especially American) society, not an aberration. Laws and “neutral” principles (colorblindness, merit, equality under law) often perpetuate white supremacy and racial hierarchy.
• Interest convergence and critique of liberalism: Racial progress for minorities occurs mainly when it aligns with white interests. CRT challenges Enlightenment rationalism, individualism, and formal equality in favor of equity (equal outcomes) and group-based analysis.
• Intersectionality and storytelling: Overlapping identities (race, gender, etc.) shape experience. “Counter-storytelling” from marginalized voices is prioritized over objective or universal claims. This is standpoint epistemology.
• Activist orientation: The goal is not just description but transformation—dismantling structures of oppression for racial justice/equity.
  CRT is primarily scholarly and discursive, though it influences education, policy, and activism (e.g., DEI frameworks). It rejects biological essentialism.
  Key Comparisons
  Similarities (often highlighted by critics):
• Both make race the primary lens for interpreting society, history, and human relations, often subordinating class, individual agency, or universal principles.
• Both employ an oppressor/oppressed binary based on racial groups (Nazis: Aryans vs. Jews/others; CRT: “whiteness”/white supremacy vs. people of color).
• Both can involve collective/group essentialism: Nazis attributed inherent evil/parasitism to the Jewish race; some CRT strains attribute systemic oppression or privilege to “whiteness” as a category.
• Both critique liberal individualism, colorblindness, and merit in favor of group-based power analysis.
• Critics (e.g., some conservative analyses) argue CRT echoes identitarian thinking or inverts Nazi-style racial categorization, replacing biological supremacy with social “whiteness” as the problem.
  Major Differences:
• Ontology of race: Nazis = biological essentialism and pseudoscience (heritable traits determine worth). CRT = social construction (race invented for power; biology largely irrelevant or secondary).
• Hierarchy and value: Nazis explicitly ranked races as superior/inferior and sought domination/extermination. CRT rejects biological hierarchy but identifies systemic “white supremacy” as the problem and advocates equity (often outcome-focused) rather than supremacy.
• Methods and intent: Nazis = state violence, pseudoscience, genocide. CRT = academic critique, legal analysis, discourse, and policy reform. One produced the Holocaust; the other is a contested intellectual movement.
• Historical roots and outcomes: Nazi ideology was totalitarian and expansionist. CRT draws from critical legal studies, postmodernism, and elements of Marxism (via Frankfurt School influences, which Nazis opposed and exiled). It operates in democratic contexts with debate.
• Empirical grounding: Nazi claims relied on discredited pseudoscience. CRT’s strong social-construct view conflicts with population genetics (human populations show biological clustering via ancestry markers, Fst values, etc., roughly aligning with traditional continental races). Many disparities have complex causes (culture, behavior, policy, history, genetics), not solely “systemic racism.”
  In short, they are not equivalent. Nazi racism was a biologically grounded supremacist ideology enabling mass murder. CRT is a social-constructionist framework aimed at diagnosing and remedying perceived structural inequalities. Analogies between them are common in polarized debates but often serve rhetorical purposes rather than precise analysis—equating academic critique with genocidal totalitarianism risks trivializing the latter.
  Truth-seeking requires distinguishing pseudoscientific biological hierarchy from social/power analyses, while honestly examining where both frameworks prioritize group identity over individual universalism. Empirical group differences in outcomes exist and have multifaceted causes; neither ideology fully accounts for them without distortion.

—

“There is an innumerable multitude of sects in the United States. All are different regarding the worship which must be made to the Creator, but all are in agreement regarding the duties of men toward each other. Each sect thus worships God in its manner, but all sects preach the same morality in the name of God.
Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same…
It may be fairly believed that a certain number of Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship from habit more than from conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth…
America is still the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest real power over men’s souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest…
In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people … Christianity, therefore reigns without obstacle, by universal consent…
Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in America…
In the United States … Christianity itself is a fact so irresistibly established, that no one undertakes either to attack or to defend it.”

— Tocqueville

—

Gustave de Beaumont traveled across much of America with Tocqueville. His observations parallel those of Tocqueville:

“Religion in America is not only a moral institution but also a political institution…
In the United States, the law is never atheistic…
All of the American constitutions proclaim freedom of conscience and the liberty and equality of all the confessions…
The Constitution of Massachusettsproclaims the freedom of the various faiths in the sense that it does not wish to persecute any of them; but it recognizes within the state only Christians and protects only the Protestants.
Maryland’s Constitution also declares that all of the faiths are free, and that no one is forced to contribute to the maintenance of a particular church.
However, it gives the legislature the right to establish a general tax,according to the circumstances, for the support of the Christian religion.
The Constitution of Vermont recognizes only the Christian faiths, and says specifically that every congregation of Christians should celebrate the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, and observe the religious worship which seems to it most pleasing to the will of God,manifested by revelation.
Sometimes the American constitutions offer religious bodies some indirect assistance: thus, Maryland law declares that, to be admitted to public office, it is necessary to be a Christian…
The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that one believe in the existence of Godand in a future life of punishment or rewards…
The law…confirms the power of religion…
The religious sects … are far from showing themselves indifferent to political interests and to the government of the country.
They all take a lively interest in the maintenance of American institutionsthrough the voice of their ministers in the sacred pulpit and even in the political assemblies…
In America, Christian religion is always at the service of freedom.
It is a principle of the United States legislature that, to be good citizen, it is necessary to be religious; and it is a no less well-established rule that, to fulfill one’s duty toward God, it is necessary to be a good citizen…
In general, anyone who adheres to one of the religious sects, whose number is immense in the United States, enjoys all of his social and political rights in peace.
But the man who would claim to have neither a church nor religious beliefswould not only be excluded from all civil employment and from all political offices… but…would be an object of moral persecution of all kinds. No one would care to have any social relations with him…
No one in the United States believes that a man without religion could be an honest man.”

—

“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention, and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things, to which I was unaccustomed.
In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country…
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live…From the earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved…
Religion in America…must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it …
This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation.”

— Tocqueville

—

Alexis de Tocqueville predicted how Americans would eventually lose their hard won liberties. Vice would subvert freedom. A centralized power would erode rights:
“I had noted in my stay in the United States that a democratic state of society similar to the American model could lay itself open to the establishment of despotism with unusual ease….
It would debase men without tormenting them…Men, all alike and equal, turned in upon themselves in a restless search for those petty, vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls…
Above these men stands an immense and protective power…
It prefers its citizens to enjoy themselves provided they have only enjoyment in mind.
It restricts the activity of free will within a narrower range and gradually removes autonomy itself from each citizen…
Thus, the ruling power, having taken each citizen one by one into its powerful grasp…spreads its arms over the whole of society, covering the surface of social life with a network of petty, complicated, detailed, and uniform rules…
It does not break men’s wills but it does soften, bend, and control them…It constantly opposes what actions they perform…
It inhibits, represses, drains, snuffs out, dulls so much effort that finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherd…a single, protective, and all-powerful government…
Individual intervention is…suppressed…It is…in the details that we run the risk of enslaving men…
For my part, I would be tempted to believe that freedom in the big things of life is less important than in the slightest…
Subjection in the minor things of life is obvious every day…
It constantly irks them until they give up the exercise of their will…and enfeebles their spirit..
It will be useless to call upon those very citizens who have become so dependent upon central government to choose from time to time the representative of this government…
Increasing despotism in the administrative sphere…they reckon citizens are incompetent…
It is…difficult to imagine how men who have completely given up the habit of self-government could successfully choose those who should do it for them…
The vices of those who govern and the ineptitude of those governed would soon bring it to ruin and… revert to its abasement to one single master.”

—

“The whole of contemporary politics oppresses me with a continuous physical horror like the feeling of growing madness in one’s brain.”

— T.S. Eliot

—

Short documentary on Islam in the West:

My documentary on the Islamification of Birmingham has been demonetized on YouTube after reaching 600,000 views. So here is the entire video on X.

In the video, I'm told that it's okay to strike your wife if she's disobeying you. I'm told that I would have to leave the grocery… pic.twitter.com/jZZrbDWZyg

— Nate Friedman (@NateFriedman97) June 23, 2026

—

Is Clarence Thomas the greatest living American?

This… all of this… is why I love Clarence Thomas.

Greatest of all time. pic.twitter.com/OoaIoPCrOl

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 23, 2026

—

Government is the biggest threat to your life, liberty, and the property.

How did we forget this lesson of history pic.twitter.com/lEj8wlPrQ0

— Giga Based Dad (@GigaBasedDad) June 23, 2026

—

Tim Keller’s anti-whiteness:

Tim Keller preached collective, race-based blood guilt and raging anti-White hatred, cloaked in pious sounding but deeply unbiblical “Christianese,” and his woke defenders will still insist no one can criticize this.

Sorry, no. This is wicked. pic.twitter.com/2aGNsfNPI6

— William Wolfe 🇺🇸 (@WilliamWolfe) June 22, 2026

—

Did God actually say, “Wives should submit in everything to their husbands”?

Did God actually say, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”?

Did God actually say, “Train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled”?

Did God actually say, “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.”

Satan lied to the first woman about God’s Word. And he is still lying to women about God’s Word.

—

“The conception of the relation between the Church and State held by the Covenanters was, in brief, that both are divine institutions, each independent and supreme in its own sphere, united in an alliance of mutual support and helpfulness, the Church to teach the Christian doctrine of the civil magistrate, and the State to establish the Church by appropriate legislation and to provide for its financial support out of the national resources.
The Reformed Presbyterian doctrine concerning the kingship of Christ over the nations is that Christ, not merely in his divine nature, as God, but in his mediatorial capacity, as Godman, has been appointed by God the Father to rule over the nations, and indeed over the universe, during the present age and until the end of the world.”

— J. G. Vos

—

The way you live your life should be the best argument for your beliefs.

You believe in God’s design for the family. Great. Do you really live it out? Is it evident in what people see when they look at your family? Do they see you embodying God’s commands to husbands and wives, fathers and mothers?

You believe in a distinctively Christian politics. Wonderful. Can people see that by the things you advocate for and the way you advocate for them in the public square? Are you willing to run for office or provide strong support for righteous men who do?

You believe in covenant succession. Excellent. Can people tell that by the way you raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? By the way you educate them?

You believe in Christendom. Ok, good. But are you helping to build and financially support Christian institutions? Are you making sacrifices the way our fathers in the faith made sacrifices to build a Christian country and Christian civilization?

And so on. Yes, we need to make arguments for what we believe and why. But the strongest argument to be made is the way you actually live and the fruit that it bears. If your life contradicts your stated convictions, don’t be surprised if you aren’t persuasive.

—

A big thing that drives the dissident right/far right’s rethinking of Hitler and WW2 is the (largely accurate) claim that, “We were lied to about everything.” Especially if you got a public school education, you were indeed lied to again and again.

We were lied to about the Constantine. About the Crusades. About Columbus. About America’s founding. About the War Between the States. About MLK. And so on. So isn’t it plausible that we were lied to about Hitler too? Since we are told that Hitler was evil incarnate, is it possible the truth is actually the opposite? That he was really the last “Christian prince”?

I would argue we were lied to about Hitler but not in the way the dissident right thinks. We have been told Hitler was a right-wing racist and fascist who killed the Jews in an effort to purify his nation and create a master Aryan race. This serves as the basis for the “never again!” mythology that drives the postwar consensus’ push for an open society, in which ties to faith, family, and nation are weakened. But the truth about who Hitler was and why he did what he did is still not known.

Were you told that Hitler’s economic policies were more left-leaning and socialist than anything resembling conservatism (e.g., Volkswagen started as a creation of the state, and functioned as a state owned company until 1960; mining, railways, and steel were state run; etc.)? That he was a big-government authoritarian rather than a limited-government conservative? That the Nazis practiced price, wage controls, and heavy regulation of the economy? That the Nazis required companies to use of forced/slave labor?

Were you told that Hitler hated Christianity and viewed it as a “poisonous” offshoot of Judaism that he was wanted to replace with his own Nietzschean vitalist worldview? Were you told that in his diary, Goebbels wrote, “The Fuhrer thinks Christianity is ripe for destruction. That may still take a long time, but it’s coming”? Were you told Goebbels wrote, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race”? Were you told Hitler believed the Jews used Christianity as a tool to destroy the Roman Empire? That Christianity “a monstrosity of the Jews”?

Were you told that Goebbels records Hitler’s saying, “The best way to finish off the churches is to pretend to be a more positive Christian”? Were you taught that Hitler used his youth programs to undermine the Christian faith of children (Otto Dietrich said, “Hitler was convinced that Christianity was outmoded and dying. He thought he could speed s death by systematic education of German youth. Christianity would be replaced, he thought, by a new heroic, racial ideal of God.”)? Were you told that Hitler told close associates that he wanted to annihilate the Jews but planned to postpone his war on the church until after the war? Were you told he believed Islam was more compatible with Nazism than Christianity? Were you taught that Hitler stated, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine”?

Were you told that Hitler denied the virgin birth (he though Jesus was father by a Roman soldier) resurrection of Jesus (he thought the body was removed from the tomb so it would not become a relic)? Were you told that the Nazis removed Christian symbols from public buildings? Were you told that Hitler used Christian rhetoric to support his political program in order to dupe the nominally Christian German population, but expected Christian faith to be completely replaced with his own anti-Christian Nazi ideology over time?

Were you told that one of the top Nazi officials, Ernst Rohm, was an uncloseted sodomite and there were likely others in the Nazi party?

Were you told that Hitler became a strict vegetarian later in life and that the Nazis had a radical environmentalist streak, e.g., renewable energy?

Were you told that Hitler was a pantheist and self-professed pagan? Were you told that Hitler confessed to a newspaper reporter, “You must know, I am a heathen. I understand that to mean: a non-Christian”?

Were you told that many of Hitler’s views on race derived from a Darwinian/evolutionary worldview? Were you told Nazis held to a form of scientistism, and claimed the foundations of Nazism were scientific? Were you told that his whole social philosophy was essentially social Darwinism – a struggle between different race with superior races fitted to survive, while the weaker races were to be eliminated? Were you told that the way Nazis treated people of different races amounted to a form of critical race theory, making racial identity the most important component of personal identity? Were you told that, like CRT, Nazis made race the organizing feature of society?

Were you told that Hitler persecuted and arrested priests and pastors (especially those in the “Confessing Church” movement) who opposed Nazism? Were you told he denied pastors free speech rights?

If you were not told these things, you were lied to about Hitler, his worldview, and his motivations.

William L. Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, argues, “the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany… and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.” Elsewhere Shirer wrote, “We know now what Hitler envisioned for the German Christians, the utter suppression of their religion.”

Martin Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” He said, “We can do without Christianity…The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific searches.”

If you weren’t taught these things, you were definitely lied to about Hitler.

—

A big thing that drives the alt right/far right’s rethinking of Hitler and WW2 is the (largely accurate) claim that, “We were lied to about everything.”

We were lied to about the Constantine. About the Crusades. About Columbus. About America’s founding. About the War Between the States. About MLK. And so on. So isn’t it plausible that we were lied to about Hitler too? If we were told that Hitler was evil incarnate, is it possible that he was actually the last “Christian prince”?

I would argue we were lied to about Hitler but not in the way the dissident right thinks. We have been told Hitler was a right-wing racist and fascist who killed the Jews in an effort to purify his nation and create a master Aryan race. All the lessons supposedly derived from Hitler are used to critique the right. In reality, Hitler was a left wing Neo-pagan pantheistic socialist who hated the Christian faith (because it was offshoot of Jewishness) and became a kind of Nietzschean anti-Christ.

Hitler used the language of Christian faith as a tool to gain political power in a nation that was still nominally/superficially Christian. But Hitler was not a genuine Christian, much less some kind of “Christian Prince.” Privately (and increasingly openly in speeches over time), Hitler viewed Christianity as a Jewish-derived “poison,” “symptom of decay,” and weakening force incompatible with National Socialism’s racial, pagan/pantheistic, and Nietzschean worldview. Public appeals to “Positive Christianity” were tactical for political gain, while private statements and policies aimed to undermine it and replace it. Close associates’ diaries and reports consistently describe his disdain. Antelope Hill publishes a collection of Hitler’s speeches, but they should be treated the way most other politicians’ speeches should be treated — as propaganda aimed at consolidating and maintaining his own power. His public rhetoric about “positive Christianity” (which was thin on theological content) often stands in sharp contrast with his private contempt, and the regime’s ongoing efforts to erode Christian influence (especially among youth via Hitler Youth and SS writings). 
The diaries of Goebbels, reports by Alfred Rosenberg and others such as Otto Wagener, show us clearly what Hitler thought of historic, orthodox Christianity. Here are some prominent:

• Goebbels’ diary (late December 1939): “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”
• Hitler via Alfred Rosenberg: Hitler “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg also reported Hitler equating Christianity with an “evil” on par with syphilis. Hitler seems to have hated orthodox Christians as much as Jews.
• Hitler in the 1937 Hossbach Memorandum, 1937: “It was only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age which appear in every country, which caused ancient Rome to succumb to the onslaught of the Germans.”
• Hitler (1938 statements, per associates/reports): Christianity “has deformed all noble humanity” and was “a lie and a monstrosity of the Jews.” He expressed concern over the destruction of Greco-Roman heritage linked to Christian influence. The influence of Nietzsche is seen here.
• Christianity as “poison” and decay: Repeated references across sources to Hitler calling Christianity a “poison,” with monologues later in the Reich becoming more and more charged with Christ hatred and expressing disdain for Christlike doctrines (e.g., loving enemies, turning the other cheek, sacrifice for the unworthy).
• On Jesus and core Christian doctrines:
  • Hitler denied the virgin birth (claimed Jesus had an Aryan father).
  • Did not believe in the resurrection (per Otto Wagener’s account: Christ’s body was removed from the tomb to avoid creating a relic).
  • Viewed the doctrine of salvation as “idiocy” or “unusable.”
  • Had disdain for Christ’s teachings overall.
• David Irving’s Hitler’s War points out Hitler had a “profound loathing” for the clergy and regretted that the Bible was translated into German (making its influence widespread).
• Hitler was disgusted by the “ceremonial nonsense” of Catholic mass and reportedly did not want any priest within 10 km of his funeral according to Goebbels’ diary. He saw no possible synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. In a 1937 speech (Nov 22), he stated the new state’s foundation was not in Christianity but in the Volksgemeinschaft. Earlier (1920 speech “Warum sind wir Antisemiten?”), he claimed Jews used Christianity as a tool to destroy the Roman Empire he admired. Goebbels (1928) described National Socialism itself in quasi-religious terms as a replacement for Christian faith and the church. Hitler occasionally used Christian sounding jargon about the importance of family and love of nation to prop up his power, but this was just rhetoric; he clearly deposed the traditional Christian faith, rejected orthodoxy, and hated the church. He had many beliefs that can only be described as Neo- pagan, and overlap with the modern environmental cult. He was at root a racialist and statist – he worshipped his race and his political power. Hitler saw Christian faith as an offshoot of Judaism and an anti-natural ideology.

A good resource on Hitler’s hatred for Christian’s faith can be found here:

https://notourguy.substack.com/p/hitler-hated-christ-superthread?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

—

“Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow.”

— Richard Baxter

—

Tucker Carlson and Candace Owen’s say it is “obvious” Charlie Kirk was not killed by leftists or transgenders. Instead, he was killed for his “evolving views on Israel.”

No, that’s not obvious at all. We have plenty examples of transgender lethal violence. The public evidence we have points to Tyler Robinson as the killer (presumably the trial will prove this one way or the other). The notion that TPUSA leadership was in on his assassination because he was going to cost them Jewish donor just does not mesh with human nature. Decent people do not suddenly decide to become complicit in murder, and unless Kirk was an absolutely terrible judge of character and surrounded himself with horrific people (including his wife), this just makes no sense. Plus, a coverup would just require too many people to be in on it. If TPUSA actually played a role in killing Charlie, the whole thing should die. But I just don’t see it.

If Kirk was killed for his somewhat evolving views on Israel, how are Candace, Tucker, and Fuentes still alive? It’s certainly a more dramatic, epic story to say the Israelis were behind it, but I’m skeptical until actual evidence gets presented.

One of the most troubling things here is not just that Candace and Tucker have besmirched Kirk’s legacy and undermined his project; it’s that they are now covering for transgenders and Islam.

Several things can be true at once here. Tyler Robinson’s killed Kirk for his anti-transgender views. The US should rework its “special relationship” with Israel. Erika Kirk has no business running TPUSA; she should be home with her children. And those who say the Israelis killed Charlie are just trying to drive clicks to their platform – they are more concerned with growing an audience than with actually saving our nation.

Good assessment here:

—

“Just a friendly reminder that banning abortion violates Jewish women’s ability to practice our religion”

— Sarah Marian Seltzer

Just a reminder that the existence of Jewish people violates the religion of Islam. If Jewish women get to abort their babies in the name of religious liberty, jihadists get to “abort” the Jewish people in the name of religious liberty.

(This is why there is no such thing as “freedom of religion” in the abstract.)

—

Notes on the Douglas Wilson/Redeemed Zoomer debate on the CREC vs the mainline denominations:

RZ is a perfect example of theological autism
Lots of knowledge
No wisdom
And clueless about the situation we are in

He’s wasting time fighting a battle he will never win

RZ seems to think that a church that gets to a territory first gets to “claim” that territory. Since the first Christians to step foot in the “new world” were here before the Reformation, how can any Protestant church justify its presence here? (This is a stupid argument – but it certainly does not help RZ’s case)

There’s no way RZ’s standards can be met without an established national church
The people he is quoting from against schism virtually all existed in a context where there was a national church
In that context, you do have to figure out what to do with dissenters
But there’s just no way to apply those standards to America since Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. were all her from the outset and no one body could claim to be “the church” of America
America, even before existing as a nation, had a plurality of churches, many of which were rooted in ethnicity and then adapted to the realities of the American situation
And keep in mind, settling which church would be the “national church” in Europe often involved bloodshed and protracted wars – the very thing the American system was eventually designed to prevent

I’m surprised Doug did not point out the way American history makes RZ’s whole project futile
Even if he reformed the PCUSA, it would not be the church of the USA that we are obligated to join
And frankly, he’s about 100 years too late to “save the mainlines”
Even if he succeeded, the mainlines are not really significant any more
They do have nice buildings and endowments but the people are all gone – and the influence they once exerted is most definitely gone
I hope he succeeds but even if he does (which seems unlikely any time soon), he will not be ushering in Christendom

The PCUSA probably has fewer people in church each Sunday than the PCA

The mainlines used to have a lot of influence as the core of America’s informal church establishment

But those days are long gone

RZ’s view that the first church in a geographical area “claims” that area and no other churches are allowed to be formed there created all kinds of problems. Arguably, the first Christian in America was Roman Catholic, since Columbus was here before the Reformation even happened. When the first colonists came from England, they were Anglicans (Jamestown) Congregationalist dissenters (Plymouth) but it would be absurd to say only Anglicans and/or Congregationalists are allowed to have to churches in the entire continent. And since the PCUSA was not the first denomination in America, how can RZ claim it is the church we have to join and everyone else is schismatic?

Catholicity as an eschatological goal, as Doug pointed out, is exactly right – we do strive for it
I believe we need denominational mergers, as John Frame argues
But the kind of organizational catholicity RZ demands is a present impossibility right now — which is why the kind of practical catholicity Doug talked about (and that the CREC practices) is so important

Until God gives his church greater likemindedness, practical catholicty is the best we can do — recognizing one another’s baptisms, communicant status, disciplinary actions, ordinations, etc. We should eschew sectarianism that treats one denomination as the “true church” because that is obviously false

Also, it seems to me that RZ is the one in a schismatic church – he’s in a denomination that separated itself from the historic church by, eg, ordaining women, promoting LGBTQ, using heretical non-Trinitarian baptismal formulas, etc.
How can he lecture everyone else about catholicity when he’s not part of a remotely orthodox body?
The same confessions RZ is quoting from also laid out the marks of a church, and the PCUSA as an institution does not meet those criteria — the very people he’s quoting from would call the PCUSA a “synagogue of Satan”

There’s no way Athanasius or Samuel Rutherford would stay in a church with sodomite and lesbian “pastors” — that’s a level of corruption that goes far beyod anything the Reformers encountered in the Roman church

Denominationalism is certainly flawed, and will eventually need to be undone, but until God grants his church greater likemindedness, it’s a necessary and inescapable evil — the alternative is constant chaos and argument, e.g., every time there’s a baptism

Doug also way underplayed the “schools of the prophets in the OT”
It’s all in 1-2 Kings
The Reformers pointed to them as precedent for what they were doing in the Reformation
There were definitely times in old covenant history when God’s people separated themselves from the corruption of the temple/priesthood
The temple did not function in Israel exactly analogous to a local church anyway

If RZ is right, it seems there would be no Roman Catholic Churches in America (given our Protestant founding)
And definitely no Eastern Orthodox churches
But unless America establishes a national church, his whole program is pretty irrelevant and useless
I sympathize with establishmentarianism in some ways but until God grants greater likemindedness to Christians in America, it’s an impossibility here

RZ’s view of “validity” is really problematic
It becomes a form of Donatism, only worse
And if his PCUSA pastor commanded him to stop trying to bring reform, would he accept it? If he gets ordained and denominational policy requires him to perform a same sex “marry” would he do it? What if they refuse to ordain him?

I assume RZ does not have a wife and kids
I think that might change his calculus
At the end he talks as if fathers could take their kids to an apostate church every week and it have no impact so long as he catechizes them
That is naive to the point of stupidity

I knew a guy several years ago who decided to undertake the same project in the PCUSA
He thought he could change it
Instead it changed him

None of the church fathers or Reformers would recognize the PCUSA as a church
It’s a synagogue of Satan — not a true church in any meaningful sense
Thus it is impossible to be schismatic by remaining apart from it.

I would agree with a lot of his criticisms of evangelicalism’s anti-institutional bent
I do think he diagnoses a real problem

Weak ecclesial presence is the bane of America
But I don’t think the church fathers or Reformers would view the PCUSA as a real/valid church (women pastorettes alone make that a reality)
So being separate from it cannot be schism

—

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

— George Washington

—

“Though many defend the status quo, I will not raise my voice in defense of the dying postwar consensus. In this book, I argue that the West overreacted. Intent on countering the evils of Auschwitz and all it represented, we embarked on a utopian project of living without shared loves and strong loyalties. Human nature was never going to allow that project to succeed. We are made for love, not open-ended diversity, limitless inclusion, and relentless critique. The postwar consensus went too far, emptying our souls and desiccating our societies. So yes, the strong gods can be dangerous. But they make transcendence possible. They restore to public life spiritual drama and shared purpose.”

— R.R. Reno, “The Return of the Strong Gods”

—

Rob Henderson on shame, stigma, and judgmentalism in our progressive society:

“Many conservatives say we now live in a nonjudgmental society. That’s obviously wrong. We live in a society that has changed what it’s willing to judge.
There used to be certain behaviors that were stigmatized. And then we reached a point where judging those behaviors, or upholding those stigmas, was itself stigmatized.
So stigma is now stigmatized.
And, oh yeah, I have a joke for you as well, by the way. Two psychologists walk out of a bar, and they see a man lying in the street. He’s broken, bloodied, clearly been attacked. And one psychologist looks at the other and says, “Oh my God, we have to find the person who did this and get him some help.”
But, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time around people who have this attitude, and I’ve recognized that, yes, there is now a stigma around judgment itself, at least when it comes to violations of conventional moral values. If you want to use drugs, if you want to shoplift, if you want to engage in all sorts of alternative relationship arrangements and so on, the attitude is often: fine, who are we to judge?
But the same category of people can still be extremely judgmental. If you don’t recycle, if you use outdated terminology for historically marginalized groups, if you don’t hold the right political opinions, you’ll suddenly see that desire to judge and condemn activate within them.”

—

“A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.”

— C.S. Lewis

—

So far this summer, foreigners visiting America for the World Cup have done a better job celebrating America than Americans have – despite it being our 250th birthday.

—

Happiness eludes the modern woman because she constantly pushes against the constraints and conditions of her own nature. She is at war with God. She cannot fit neatly into the world of public life because it is inescapably masculine. It’s like trying to put a round peg in a square hole. At the same time, she rejects the domestic role for which she is properly suited.

The modern woman has rebelled against and rejected femininity so she can never inspire the kind of attraction and devotion from a man as her grandmother and great grandmother were able to do. Men are not going to ever be devoted to unsubmissive, nagging women who want to compete with them rather than complement them. She seeks male sexual attention and sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, with her immodesty and promiscuity, failing to realize that the vast majority of women can never realize their true potential and find lasting joy in this world without a secure family life. The modern woman says submitting to a husband who loves her would be oppressive and so instead submits to a corporation that does not and cannot love her. Instead of directing her maternal instinct where it belongs, to her children, she latches on to supposed victim classes or cats in a futile quest to satisfy her maternal nature.

Lewis pointed out that a woman can never find fulfillment, including sexual fulfillment, apart from respecting and submitting to a man. Feminism tells her to go have sex with any man she wants, as a means of pleasure and empowerment, not understanding that true sexual pleasure for a woman requires respect for her man and that true female power is found in femininity, chastity, and virtue. Men will run through a brick wall for a sweet, submissive woman. They will run away from boss babes and bitchy women (as they are doing at present).

The only way for women to regain happiness is to unwind their participation in the sexual revolution and femininsm. Young women are in crisis and will continue to be until they are reined in and restored to their proper nature and role. Of course, what is at stake in smashing feminism is not just the happiness of women; the future of civilization itself is bound up in these issues.

—

“I think ordinary liberals underrate the extent to which progressive arguments have totally won the day. Pretty large shares of the population believe that we have something like mass incarceration, that the police are racist, that the criminal justice system is racist, that therefore there are lots of Black people in prison for crimes they didn’t commit (or that at least would not result in the imprisonment of a white person).
And of course they all start from the position that to be racist is the worst possible thing you could ever be, so if our system is racist, then that basically means that it’s entirely illegitimate.
People believe this stuff to varying degrees and of course it’s not literally everybody, but a pretty large share of the population has this stuff in the back of their head and more or less agrees that it’s an important feature of our system.
The difference between a progressive and a squishy liberal is not the squishy liberal somehow doesn’t allow themselves to take it completely seriously and follow all these beliefs through to their logical conclusions. But these beliefs are obviously influencing what people think about policy.
Progressivism won. What you’re seeing is what happens when these ideas win. Even people who don’t say we should, like, abolish prisons or whatever, when asked that question directly, still hold all the ideas above in their head. And that has consequences!”

I think ordinary liberals underrate the extent to which progressive arguments have totally won the day. Pretty large shares of the population believe that we have something like mass incarceration, that the police are racist, that the criminal justice system is racist, that… https://t.co/3duoK1aNsH

— wanye (@xwanyex) June 20, 2026

The only thing I would alter in this post is that it’s not exactly right to say “progressives win.” The battle rages on. It’s not over.

—

Texas Republicans angling to ban IVF and surrogacy:

Incredible.

Texas Republican platform included plank to ban IVF and commercial surrogacy.

It is not conservative to endorse massive amounts of eugenic, embryonic destruction and the buying and selling of children through commercial surrogacy.

Texas, show the rest of the…

— Katy Faust (@Katy_Faust) June 20, 2026

—

“Bernie Sanders thinks it’s hilarious that a 5% wealth tax would still leave @ElonMusk with “just” $737 billion to “survive” on.
Spoken like a man who’s spent his entire adult life in government, never built a company, never created a single scalable job, and never turned an idea into trillions in real economic value for society.
Elon’s net worth isn’t a vault of gold coins he’s sitting on. It’s mostly stock in companies that are actually moving the needle on energy, transportation, and space.
Things governments have been promising and failing at for decades.
The sarcasm reveals the entire game: punish the people who create the wealth, pretend the government will magically spend it better, and act shocked when the engine of progress stalls.
Keep coping, Bernie. The future is being built by the people you resent, not the ones who’ve spent 40 years complaining about them.”
Writer: Oliver
x.com/clashreport/st…

Stealing from those who made it. It’s the Marxist way. https://t.co/ciKJCwDSHu

— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) June 20, 2026

—

“The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

— Noah Webster

—

The American adoption of the Second Amendment in 1791 is undoubtedly one of the most important and brilliant political acts in the history of the world. It’s impossible to overstate its significance. The 2A is right up there with the Magna Carta in terms of impact, maybe even greater. The right to keep and bear arms is what has allowed Americans to protect their other rights when citizens of other Western nations have have had their rights systematically stripped away.

Thank God for the Anti-Federalists. They saved our country at its inception. I am confident America would be a very, very different, and much, much worse place without it. The European mind cannot comprehend America’s love affair with firearms, and that’s precisely why Europe is in far worse shape than America.

—

John Papola with a good podcast on American self-loathing. He points that Trump’s UFC fight on the White House cranked up both the testosterone level and patriotism level to 11. And this is precisely why the left hates it.

—

Americans have always been a confident people. You don’t carve a civilization out of the wilderness while fighting off Indian savages without having confidence in your mission. The biggest question going forward is whether or not we can regain confidence in that mission.

—

“By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral Subjects. Our Saviour in speaking of it calls it “Truth,” in the Abstract. It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. It contains a faithful representation of all its follies, Vices & Crimes. All Systems of Religion, morals, and Government not founded upon it, must perish, and how consoling the thot!—it will not only survive the wreck of those Systems, but the World itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.””

— John Adams

—

The complete collapse of patriotism on the political left is sad but not surprising. It’s just self-loathing manifesting itself at the national level. The saddest thing is that these anti-patriotic Americans who hate their own country don’t realize how good they have it. Imagine living in one of the most prosperous and free nations in world history and hating it? That’s the American left.

The point is not that America is beyond criticism. The right criticizes America too. But the right’s criticisms are out of love with an aim to improving America, not destroying her.

—

Who are the Cherethites and Pelethites of 2 Samuel 8:18?

The Cherethites (also spelled Kerethites) and Pelethites were groups of people—likely ethnic or tribal—who served as elite mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and a special forces unit in King David’s army. 
Biblical Role and Activities
They are frequently mentioned together in the Old Testament, especially in 2 Samuel, and played a key role in David’s military and political success:

• Commanded by Benaiah son of Jehoiada, a trusted warrior (distinct from Joab’s command over the main Israelite army; see 2 Samuel 8:18, 20:23; 1 Chronicles 18:17).
• They accompanied David during crises, such as when he fled from his son Absalom’s rebellion (2 Samuel 15:18, alongside Gittites from Gath).
• They helped pursue rebels like Sheba son of Bichri (2 Samuel 20:7).
• They served as bodyguards during Solomon’s anointing and coronation as king (1 Kings 1:38, 44).
  Some sources describe them as having roles like executioners (possibly linked to “cutting off” or similar etymological ideas) or runners/couriers, making them a reliable personal guard for the king.
  Origins and Identity
  Their exact origins are uncertain, but the Bible links them closely to the Philistines (a non-Israelite people):
• The Cherethites lived in the Negev (southern region) near Ziklag, an area associated with Philistine territory (1 Samuel 30:14).
• Prophetic texts equate them with Philistines or related groups (Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5).
• The name “Pelethites” is often seen as a variant or corruption related to “Philistines” (Pelishti in Hebrew).
• Some traditions connect the Cherethites to Crete (via Caphtor, the Philistines’ possible origin; see the Septuagint’s rendering), suggesting they were part of Sea Peoples migrations or mercenary bands from the region.
  They were not Israelites but foreign mercenaries who showed strong loyalty to David. David, who had spent time among the Philistines earlier in his life (e.g., at Ziklag), likely recruited them for their military skills and reliability, especially when he may have had reasons to distrust parts of his own people.
  In summary, they functioned as David’s trusted elite unit—protecting the king, enforcing his rule, and ensuring stability—much like foreign bodyguards in other ancient monarchies. This fits the broader biblical pattern of God using unlikely allies in His providence for David’s kingdom.

—

I asked Grok to calculate the value in todays’s dollars of the materials David collected for Solomon’s temple, according to 1 Chronicles 22:14. This puts modern church building budgets to shame. Granted, our church buildings do not play the same function as the old covenant temple, but there is at least an analogy. When you see these staggering figures, it’s no wonder the temple was considered by many one of the wonders of the ancient world:

Roughly $450–550 billion USD for the gold and silver combined (as of mid-2026 spot prices), with gold making up the vast majority. 
This is an enormous sum—equivalent to hundreds of billions in today’s dollars—illustrating the immense scale of David’s preparations for the Temple. Bronze and iron are described as “beyond weighing,” so they’re not included in the valuation.
Key Assumptions and Calculation

• Talent weight: Biblical scholars commonly estimate a Hebrew talent (kikkar) at ~34 kg (about 75 pounds). This is based on 3,000 shekels per talent, with a shekel around 11.4–11.5 grams. Some sources use 75–80 lbs or slight variations (e.g., ~35 kg), but 34 kg is a standard figure for these contexts.
  • 100,000 talents gold ≈ 3.4 million kg (≈ 109.3 million troy ounces).
  • 1,000,000 talents silver ≈ 34 million kg (≈ 1.093 billion troy ounces).
• Current spot prices (approximate as of June 2026; these fluctuate daily):
  • Gold: ~$4,150–$4,300 per troy ounce (recently around $4,170).
  • Silver: ~$65–$66 per troy ounce.
• Estimated values (using ~$4,170/oz gold and ~$65.50/oz silver):
  • Gold: ~$456 billion.
  • Silver: ~$72 billion.
  • Total: ~$528 billion.
  Slight differences in talent weight (e.g., 75 lbs vs. 34 kg) or exact prices shift the total by 5–15%, but it remains in the hundreds of billions. For context, some older calculations (with lower metal prices) put it lower, while recent high gold prices push it higher.
  Notes on Context and Caveats
• These are raw material/spot metal values only. In reality, refining, minting, transport, and ancient economic context would differ, but the question asks for today’s dollar equivalent of the metals.
• David’s provision (plus contributions from others and Solomon’s additions) funded one of the most opulent structures in the ancient world. The numbers emphasize the scale of devotion and God’s provision through His people.
• Prices are volatile—gold especially has seen significant rises recently. Check live spot prices for the most current figure.
  This wealth underscores the biblical theme of generous, costly worship and God’s sovereignty over resources. If you’d like adjustments for a specific talent weight, different prices, or more details on the Temple context, let me know!

—

America’s Founding Fathers did not produce a single, uniform definition of the “duty of a civil magistrate” (a term drawn from biblical, Reformed Protestant, and common-law traditions), but they generally viewed civil government as ordained by God (or nature) for the public good, the protection of rights and persons, the punishment of evil, and the promotion of justice, peace, and virtue.
This drew heavily from Romans 13 (magistrates as “ministers of God” bearing the sword to reward good and punish evil), natural law, English common law (e.g., Blackstone), and Protestant confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith (and its American revisions). Many Founders were influenced by Reformed theology, which emphasized magistrates maintaining order, protecting the innocent, and (in earlier views) supporting true religion, though American practice emphasized limited government, religious liberty, and no established national church.

Key Themes in Founders’ Views:

• Protection of the public good, justice, peace, and rights: Magistrates/government exist to secure life, liberty, and property; punish wrongdoing; and enable peaceful, virtuous society.
• Limited role in religion: Many supported moral/religious foundations for society but opposed civil interference in conscience or worship (e.g., Jefferson and Madison’s strong separationist views on federal power).
• Biblical and moral basis: Government officials were seen as accountable to higher (divine/natural) law.
  Quotations and Examples:
• From the American revision (1788/1789) of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23 (adopted by many Presbyterians; John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and Madison’s teacher, was involved):
“Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. … It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever…” 
This reflects a shift toward religious liberty while retaining the magistrate’s protective and moral role.
• James Madison (often called the “Father of the Constitution”): In the context of religious liberty, he and Jefferson emphasized limits on magistrates intruding into opinion or faith. Madison described religion as “the duty which we owe to our Creator” and opposed using civil power as an “engine” for religious policy.
• Thomas Jefferson: 
“To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty… it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786). 
Jefferson saw the core duty as protecting actions that harm peace/order, not policing beliefs.
• Broader context from Founders and influences:
  • Government protects rights and punishes violations (echoing Locke, whom many Founders read). Madison in Federalist No. 10 and elsewhere stressed controlling factions to protect private rights and the public good.
  • Many viewed magistrates as guardians of virtue/morality rooted in Christianity. For example, influences like Noah Webster (educator tied to the era): “The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”
  • George Washington and others issued proclamations calling on magistrates to enforce laws for public peace and welfare and called for days of public fasting and thanksgiving.
  In summary, the Founders saw the civil magistrate’s duty as executing justice, defending the innocent, punishing evildoers, and fostering conditions for liberty and virtue—often with biblical undertones but adapted to a republic with separated powers and religious freedom. This was not unlimited power but a God-ordained (or natural) trust limited by law and rights.

—

The Founding Fathers defined the purpose of civil government primarily as securing the natural, God-given (or unalienable) rights of individuals—especially life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness)—while promoting the public good, justice, safety, and ordered liberty. 
This view drew from John Locke, the Bible (e.g., Romans 13), English common law, and Enlightenment thought, tempered by a realistic assessment of human nature (sinful or self-interested, requiring constraints). Government was seen as a necessary institution ultimately authorized by God and derived from the consent of the governed, not an end in itself, but a means to protect people from chaos, foreign threats, and domestic injustice—while itself being limited to avoid tyranny. 
Core Statements from Key Documents and Founders

• Declaration of Independence (1776, primarily Thomas Jefferson):
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” 
This is the clearest and most famous articulation: government’s legitimate purpose is rights-protection; when it fails, it loses legitimacy.
• James Madison (key architect of the Constitution, Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51):
“The protection of these faculties [of acquiring property] is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results…” (emphasizing how diverse interests arise and must be managed to prevent factional tyranny). 
In Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Government exists because of human imperfection, with checks and balances to control it. 
Elsewhere, Madison stated: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…” (including rights of conscience/religion).
• John Adams:
“ As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government, so the consent of the people is the only foundation of it…” (linking purpose to popular consent and well-being). 
Adams also stressed virtue and morality as essential for republican government to function.
• Thomas Jefferson (various writings):
Government should be “wise and frugal,” leaving people “free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” while restraining injuries to others. He viewed it as enabling safety and happiness.
• George Washington and others: Often emphasized government’s role in providing for the common defense, promoting general welfare (as in the Constitution’s Preamble), and fostering justice/peace. Washington saw it as protecting liberties won through the Revolution.
  Additional Context
• Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1787): “We the People… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” This outlines practical purposes aligned with rights-security.
• Many Founders (influenced by Reformed theology and Puritan thought) saw government as ordained by God for the public good, punishing evil and rewarding good, while protecting the church indirectly through liberty rather than establishment (post-1780s American revisions).
  In essence, civil government was not for providing all goods, enforcing uniformity, or maximizing power, but for creating a framework where individuals and society could flourish under law. It was limited, consent-based, and accountable—reflecting suspicion of concentrated authority. This vision balanced order with liberty, informed by history, Scripture, and reason. For primary sources, see the Declaration, Federalist Papers, or Founders Online archives. Views had nuances (e.g., Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists on strength), but the rights-securing core was widely shared.

—

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

— John Philpot Curran

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

— Thomas Jefferson

“Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

— Ronald Reagan

—

Most evangelicals hold to the possibility of assurance of salvation. Indeed, for most evangelicals, and certainly for Reformed evangelicals, the “normal” Christian life is one in which the believer of fully assured of eternal life. John Calvin and the Westminster Confession do an excellent job developing the doctrine of assurance.

How many evangelicals who convert to Roman Catholicism realize that one thing they must give up is the assurance of salvation? Is it even possible to become unsure of one’s salvation after living with it for so long as, no doubt, many coverts to Rome have? The assurance of salvation was a major point of contention at the time of the Reformation, and it still is. Westminster teaches believers “may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace.” By contrast, Council 16 of the Council of Trent pronounces, “Anathema on anyone who claims “absolute and infallible certainty” of the gift of perseverance to the end, unless by special revelation.”

—

Good summary of the Reformed doctrine of assurance:

The Bible teaches that true believers can (and should) have a well-grounded assurance of salvation, but it also addresses the reality of doubts, temporary lack of assurance, false assurance, and the danger of ultimately denying or falling away from the faith. Assurance is not automatic or constant for every believer at every moment, but it is a privilege grounded in God’s promises, the work of Christ, and the witness of the Spirit—while warnings against presumption and apostasy guard against complacency. 
Key Biblical Foundations for Assurance
Scripture emphasizes that genuine faith brings confidence in God’s saving work:

• Promises of God: Believers are assured through the objective truth of Scripture, sealed in the sacraments (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; 10:27-29; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:13-14). God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), and nothing can separate us from His love in Christ.
• Inward evidence and fruit: A changed life, love for God and others, obedience, and the fruit of the Spirit serve as confirming evidences (1 John 2:3-6; 3:14, 18-19; 5:13; James 2:14-26; Galatians 5:22-23). Peter urges diligence to “make your calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10).
• Witness of the Spirit: The Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:15-16; cf. 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 4:30). This produces peace and joy, though not always without struggle.
  The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 18), a key Reformed summary aligned with Scripture, captures this well: True believers “may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace” through the promises, inward graces, and the Spirit’s testimony. This assurance is “infallible” in its foundation but does not belong to the essence of faith, so believers may wrestle before attaining fuller enjoyment of it.
  On Doubts, Temporary Denial/Lack of Assurance, and Shaken Confidence
  The Bible does not teach that every true Christian enjoys unbroken, effortless assurance. Doubts and seasons of darkness are acknowledged and addressed pastorally:
• Believers can experience conflicts, trials, negligence, special sins that wound the conscience, temptations, or God’s temporary withdrawal of the sense of His presence (leading to walking “in darkness” without light—Isaiah 50:10). Yet even then, the “seed of God” and life of faith remain, and assurance can be revived (see Westminster 18.4 for a biblical summary).
• Examples: David (Psalms of lament), Asaph (Psalm 73), John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-3), and Paul (who disciplined himself lest he be disqualified, 1 Corinthians 9:27, while still confident in God’s keeping).
• Doubt is not the same as unbelief; faith can coexist with it (“I believe; help my unbelief,” Mark 9:24). Calvin noted faith is often “tinged with doubt,” and Jude 22 calls for mercy toward doubters.
• Exhortations to fight for assurance: Examine yourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5); draw near with full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:22); hold fast the confession (Hebrews 10:23).
  Denial of assurance (in the sense of rejecting or lacking personal confidence) is often a call to self-examination and reliance on Christ rather than feelings. It can stem from sin, spiritual warfare, or immaturity, but persistent despair is combated by returning to the gospel promises.
  Warnings Against False Assurance and Apostasy
  Scripture strongly warns against presumptuous or false assurance:
• Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” enters the kingdom (Matthew 7:21-23). Hypocrites and the unregenerate can deceive themselves with carnal hopes that perish (cf. Westminster 18.1).
• Parable of the sower: Some “believe for a while” but fall away in testing (Luke 8:13).
• Sobering passages on those enlightened who fall away (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31), tasting the heavenly gift yet turning back (2 Peter 2:20-22), or being cut off for unbelief (Romans 11:20-22; John 15:1-6).
• These warn against presumption and encourage perseverance, but in Reformed/covenant theology (consistent with perseverance of the saints), they do not describe true believers finally losing salvation. Genuine faith perseveres; apparent faith that does not may reveal it was never saving (1 John 2:19).
  The Bible rejects both easy-believism (false assurance without fruit) and perfectionism/legalism (denying assurance to struggling believers). Assurance motivates holiness, not looseness (Romans 6; Titus 2:11-14).
  Pastoral Application (Especially Relevant for Ministry)
• Ground assurance in Christ, not performance. Point people to the promises, the finished work of Jesus, and the Spirit’s ongoing work.
• Use ordinary means: Word, sacraments, prayer, fellowship, and self-examination to cultivate assurance.
• Comfort the doubting with gospel truths while urging diligence and repentance for the complacent.
• Distinguish between temporary doubts (common and addressable) and final apostasy (a warning, not a threat to the elect’s perseverance—Philippians 1:6; John 10:28-29).
  This balances God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the full counsel of Scripture. For deeper study, 1 John is the classic book on assurance, and resources like the Westminster Confession or works by Calvin, Owen, or modern Reformed teachers (e.g., on the “threefold foundation” of promises, evidences, and Spirit) expand on it biblically.

—

The truth of this quote plays out almost daily:

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

— P.J. O’Rourke

—

It’s crazy how leftists confess their living on stolen land but then refuse to give it back. Why bother confessing it’s stolen if you’re still going to keep it? What’s the point?

—

Progressivism is a death wish. Why liberal women do not want to have children:

Andrew Bagley explains the psychology behind why egalitarian, progressive, and liberal women either don’t want children or have fewer kids than conservative women. pic.twitter.com/g4GHFmh9Fy

— Anthony Bradley (@drantbradley) June 19, 2026

—

Whereas the average American diet was reasonably healthy a generation or two ago, that is no longer the case today. Our food, like our money, has been debased and degraded. It takes more knowledge, discipline, and, frankly, money, to eat healthy today than in the past.

—

Grok summarizes Phillip Kaysar on free markets and international trade:

“Phillip Kayser (often spelled Phil Kayser), a Reformed pastor, author, and scholar associated with Dominion Covenant Church and Biblical Blueprints, teaches on international trade primarily through a biblical lens of economics, dominion, stewardship, and specialization. 
He emphasizes applying Scripture comprehensively to all areas of life, including economics, business, and civil government. His teachings draw from biblical laws, historical examples (like the tribes of Israel), principles of voluntary exchange, diversification, and the benefits of trade for prosperity and evangelism. He critiques both prosperity gospel extremes and statist interventions, favoring market-oriented approaches rooted in biblical ethics. 
Key Themes in His Teachings on Trade and Economics

• Positive View of International Trade and Diversification: Kayser highlights the tribe of Zebulun as a biblical model. Located by the sea, they engaged in shipbuilding, fishing, international trade, finance, and evangelism. This brought abundance (“the abundance of the seas and treasures hidden in the sand”) and enriched the rest of Israel, fulfilling prophecies in Genesis 49:13 and Deuteronomy 33:18-19. Trade allowed diversification beyond agriculture, which he sees as essential for national prosperity—purely agricultural societies tend to lag. Trade also facilitated gospel outreach to Gentiles.
• Voluntary Exchange and Mutual Benefit: In his economic glossary and sermons, trade/exchange is defined as voluntary swapping of goods/services (or for money) where both parties expect to benefit. This aligns with broader biblical principles of stewardship, sowing/reaping, and dominion (e.g., in his “Christian and Prosperity” sermon series).
• Biblical Laws and Ethics in Economics: Kayser covers topics like stewardship, risk management, accounting, contentment, sales resistance, and laws of harvest in prosperity-related teachings. He opposes unethical practices, oppression in lending/trade (e.g., referencing Ezekiel), and government overreach (e.g., price controls, interventions causing shortages/famines). He draws from influences like Gary North and Austrian-leaning economics while grounding everything in Scripture.
• Critiques of Statism and Related Policies: He warns against civil government controlling commerce, banking, or farming, viewing such interventions negatively (e.g., in Revelation commentary contexts). While specific detailed statements on modern tariffs/protectionism vs. free trade aren’t prominently quoted in searches, his framework supports voluntary markets, specialization, and opposition to coercive policies that distort trade.
  Context and Resources
  Kayser’s views fit his broader postmillennial, theonomic-leaning Reformed theology, which applies Old and New Testament principles to modern life (e.g., in series on Deuteronomy, Joshua, or prosperity). He has authored many books/booklets and sermons on these topics, available via Biblical Blueprints and SermonAudio.
  For deeper study, check:
• His “The Christian and Prosperity” sermon series (covers biblical economic laws).
• Sermons on Joshua (Zebulun’s trade) or Bible surveys.
• Economic glossary on BiblicalBlueprints.com.
  Overall, Kayser presents international trade as a God-ordained means of prosperity, cultural engagement, and kingdom advancement when conducted ethically—part of faithful dominion rather than isolation or unchecked statism. His approach is pastoral and exegetical, aimed at equipping believers for multi-generational faithfulness.”

—

Jon Crist captures the red pill point that the evangelical church has a double standard when it comes to men and women (specifically Father’s Day and Mother’s Day):

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1KQMZSgrVT/?mibextid=wwXIfr

—

There are still many things God has to do before Jesus’ final return. The nations must be discipled and the fullness of the Gentiles brought in. The Jews must be converted on a scale commensurate with their earlier rejection of the gospel. The sheer scope of the project Jesus gave his church and the slowness with which it is being completed suggests Jesus’ final return is a long way off.

—

An old X post from 6/5/25:

Psalm 2 is the ultimate political red pill.

You kiss the Son or get smashed by the Son. There is no third way. Every nation must choose. Every king and ruler must choose. Every person must choose.

Just as we need fathers who will rise up and say, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,” we need civil rulers who will rise up and say, “As for me and my nation, we will serve the Lord.”

—

”In 1786, when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states, the states of the Ottoman Empire and North Africa. Tripoli, shores of Tripoli. Ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery. We estimate 1.5 million European and American slaves taken between 1750 and 1815.
Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said, why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren’t in the crusades. We weren’t at war with Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people? The ambassador said very plainly, Mr. Abdul Rahman said, because the Quran gives us permission to do so, because you are infidels, and that’s our answer. Jefferson said, well, in that case, I will send a navy which will crush your state, which he did.
Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It’s a lie to say so. It’s a masochistic lie, and it excuses those who are the real criminals, and blames us for the attacks made upon us.”

— Christopher Hitchens

—

I asked Grok, “Would Adam and Eve have eventually been granted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if they had remained faithful?” The response was decent:

“Yes, in the view of many biblical interpreters (especially in covenant theology and typological readings of Genesis), the prohibition on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was temporary—a probationary test during a period of immaturity. If Adam and Eve had remained faithful and obedient, they would likely have been granted access to it in due time, as part of maturing into their full creational calling. 
Biblical and Theological Context
Genesis presents two special trees in the Garden (Genesis 2:9): the Tree of Life (symbolizing ongoing communion with God and the gift of life) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (tied to moral discernment, judicial authority, and maturity). God explicitly permits eating from every tree initially (Genesis 1:29), then gives the specific command to Adam not to eat from the second one, on pain of death (Genesis 2:16-17). This command tests obedience and trust in God’s word and timing. 

• “Knowledge of good and evil” often carries connotations of maturity, wisdom, discernment, and the ability to exercise authority/judgment (e.g., Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16; 2 Samuel 14:17; Hebrews 5:14). In their created innocence, Adam and Eve knew good (obedience and dependence on God) but had not yet faced the test of resisting evil. The tree represented a path to godlike discernment—but only on God’s terms and timetable.
• Eating it prematurely was an act of grasping autonomy, distrust, and rebellion (seizing wisdom “from below” rather than receiving it as a gift through obedience). The serpent twisted this into a promise of immediate godlikeness apart from God (Genesis 3:5).
  The text does not explicitly say the ban was temporary, but this reading fits the narrative flow, God’s character (good gifts in proper season), and broader biblical patterns of testing leading to maturity/reward. After the Fall, God bars access to the Tree of Life to prevent them from living forever in a fallen state (Genesis 3:22-24), which underscores that the original setup was oriented toward life through obedience.
  Insights from Covenant Theology
  In the Covenant of Works (or Covenant of Creation), Adam as federal head was under probation. Perfect obedience would have led to confirmation in righteousness and a higher state of blessedness (eternal life in closer communion with God, often linked to the Tree of Life as pledge/reward—see Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 20).
  Theologians and interpreters (including typological voices like James B. Jordan, and others drawing from patristic or Reformed lines) often argue:
• Adam and Eve were like “infants” or in spiritual adolescence—invited to the Tree of Life for sustenance but not yet ready for the “solid food” of judicial knowledge and authority represented by the other tree.
• Faithful endurance of the test (resisting the tempter, as the Second Adam later did) would have led to maturity. They would gain the knowledge rightly—through obedience, training their senses to discern good and evil (cf. Hebrews 5:14)—and be granted access. The tree itself was good for food (Genesis 2:9; 3:6 notes its appeal), but timing and submission mattered.
• This parallels how God trains His people elsewhere: tests of obedience precede greater responsibility and blessing (e.g., Abraham, Israel in the wilderness, Christ in the wilderness).
  Geerhardus Vos and others emphasize the eschatological goal: Adam was not created in the highest state but positioned to attain unchangeable life/glory through obedience. The Tree of Knowledge was part of that maturation process under God’s sovereign timing.
  Counterpoints and Humility
  Not all agree on the exact details (the text is sparse), and stricter readings focus on the command as an absolute test of loyalty without speculating on later access. The key failure was distrust and disobedience, not the tree itself. Speculation about “what if” remains hypothetical—Scripture emphasizes what did happen and points us to Christ, the Last Adam, who succeeded where the first failed (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15). Through His obedience unto death, He secures the Tree of Life for His people (Revelation 2:7; 22:2).
  This reading underscores God’s goodness: He designs humanity for growth into mature image-bearing dominion, not static innocence or autonomous grasping. As a pastor steeped in covenant theology, you might connect this to themes of federal headship, maturation in Christ, and the church as the new humanity progressing toward consummation. If you’d like to dive into specific commentators (e.g., Vos, Jordan, or patristic views), sermon applications, or related passages, let me know!”

—

“Fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”

— Nehemiah 4:14

“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”

— G. K. Chesterton

—

Juneteenth – the day we remember white Republican men freeing black slaves from Democrats.

—

“Part of the huge disconnect about the deal, which is a recurring problem with Trump and normal people, is that Trump doesn’t see the deal the way we see the deal. It’s provisional and contingent to him. You can see this reflected in almost everything he says about it.
The reason for this is that Trump is extremely high-agency, and extremely high-agency people don’t worry about making mistakes or whatever else and just do things that seem plausibly good and savvy, which Trump is also very good at.
They do this because they know if things go wrong, they’ll just do something else because they’re extremely high-agency and extremely confident in their abilities.
A good fighter doesn’t get in the ring concerned about if the guy is going to fight in a way he doesn’t really expect. He gets in the ring confident in his ability to fight and to adapt to the conditions he’s faced with. He “goes according to the situation.”
Trump is a good fighter. He goes according to the situation. He doesn’t really care much about what’s on paper beyond how he can use it in the current play to get advantage and the next play to gain another advantage, even if that means dropping the deal (and bombs).
It’s extremely hard to understand this when you prefer guidelines, contracts, certainty. It’s even harder to abide it when you feel like you, yourself, are stuck in a dangerous low-agency position with what appears to be a mad king making fatal errors that impact you and yours.
I said something like this yesterday to someone, and the reply was, “you’re giving Trump a lot of credit.” Well, yeah. Trump’s earned a lot of credit, frankly, and in many cases it was by being extremely high-agency Trump while the world bit its nails and melted down (“Rocket Man, everything is gonna be alright… Rocket Man…”).
I think it’s a good time to breathe and let the man’s agency work a bit. If it goes as badly as people fear, there’s plenty of time later to hang it around JD’s neck and seize a different victory from the jaws of defeat.”

— James Lindsey on Donald Trump as a high agency man

—

People are talking about two major crises today. There is the dating crisis – men and women are repelling one another rather attracting one another, so the marriage rate is declining. There is the civilizational crisis – Western civilization is collapsing and once great Western nations are dying. These are actually the same crisis.

—

4 C’s of manhood:

Character
Competence
Confidence
Courage

The 3 B’s of manhood:

Billfold
Ballfield
Bedroom

—

Uriah drunk was a better man than David sober.

—

One of the biggest mistakes we can make is trying to be kinder than God.

—

“If Satan took over Philadelphia, all the bars would be closed. Pornography banished. Pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, yes sir and no ma'am, and the churches would be full every… pic.twitter.com/kv0HHoXXqd

— Credo (@CredoMagazine) June 15, 2026

Nice try ripping Christian culture. Sorry, but Satan is in control of Philadelphia right now and it looks nothing like this. Why are evangelical preachers so dumb? Why do they constantly focus on all the wrong temptations and miss all the obvious issues?

—

So it looks like the war – sorry, military operation – against Iran is over. Congratulations to Trump for wrapping this up. A few thoughts:

The war may not be totally over, obviously, since things are not yet finalized. And Iran is not known for upholding deals like this. Lasting peace in the Middle East remains elusive, especially since the ISRG remains in tact and in power, even if crippled.
Assuming the conflict is over for the foreseeable future, Trump got out without putting boots on the ground and without massive loss of American lives. That’s a win.
Side objectives with regard to China and Russia seem to have been largely accomplished.
In terms of Iran, it’s not exactly clear what the war accomplished at this point, other than decimating Iran’s military capability and infrastructure. It’s not at all certain that Iran will surrender its uranium. And that refusal could reopen hostilities at some point. The Middle East is probably safer with Iran hobbled in the short run, but I’m not sure in the long run.
Oil prices are coming back down. Not quite at pre-conflict levels, but much lower than at the peak during the conflict. That should help American citizens struggling through our affordability crisis.
Assuming hostilities do not ramp back up, Trump finished this in more than enough time before the mid-terms. I’m not convinced the mid-terms were going to be a disaster for Republicans anyway, but this should help. I hope Trump can return to focusing on his domestic agenda – the SAVE Act, deportations, etc.
It sounds like funds to rebuild Iran will not come the US taxpayer, so that’s good. Let’s hope there’s no “refugee crisis” coming out of this.
Israel is proving that their interests do not align with American interests, and I’m glad to see Trump rebuke Israel, a further sign that the US/Israel alliance is on shakier ground than ever: https://x.com/foxnews/status/2066859840169803873?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw
Also this: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2067642712560689401?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw
And this:
https://x.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2067660895757689068?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw

The fact that Neo-Cons don’t like the agreement is probably a good sign:
https://youtu.be/kpKQKOHzPLU?is=wwucOrJ52j5MksP2
I was skeptical of the war from the outset, but it could have turned out a lot worse. If you grant the necessity of the war, Trump, Hegseth, and our military did a pretty good job. If you don’t grant it’s necessity, obviously it doesn’t matter – it never should have happened. While I might like to seen all this go down in a different way, it certainly has not turned me against MAGA or the Trump administration.

—

The news coming out about the Muslim rape gangs in the UK is despicable but not at all surprising. Muslims are doing what Muslims do. The real culprit here is Western leaders who do not know history and do not love their own people. This is what happens when your nation is full of effeminancy, white guilt, and self-loathing. It’s what happens when your national leadership is more afraid of being called “racist” than doing what is right for their own nation. A few podcasts/articles with good info:

What you should know about Rupert Lowe’s UK “Rape Gang Inquiry”

https://notthebee.com/article/op-ed-the-sentence-that-should-shame-a-nation?from_social=twitter&fbclid=IwVERFWAShNZhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeJ1mrIVEOmsnnXOo6lS5HLCpbys8W1WZhjyPBLXmasKVf5IK3s_tWs4Jfh30_aem_OkHapWgU8bTp6Kz6J7GThw

—

Channeling Charles Spurgeon: Christ became a man for you. You must become a man for Christ.

—

Grok on the NT use of Hebrew/Masoretic text vs Septuagint:

The New Testament (NT) relies on both the Hebrew text (similar to the later Masoretic Text, or MT) and the Septuagint (LXX/Greek translation), but it draws more frequently from the Septuagint tradition—roughly 60–80% or more of formal quotations align more closely with the LXX wording. 
Key Statistics and Observations
Exact counts vary by scholar (due to what counts as a “quotation” vs. allusion/paraphrase, and textual variants), but here’s a summary based on common analyses:

• Total OT references in the NT: Around 300–400+ (formal quotes ~200–300; many more allusions).
• Preference for LXX: A strong majority of direct quotations follow the Greek Septuagint’s wording more closely than a literal rendering of the Hebrew MT. Estimates often range from ~60–80% (or higher in some books, like Hebrews or those by Paul).
  • This makes sense: Greek was the lingua franca of the early church and the NT’s language. The LXX was the common Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.
• Hebrew/MT influence: A significant minority (~20–40%) follow the Hebrew more closely (sometimes against the standard LXX), or represent the NT author’s own translation/adaptation from Hebrew. Examples include places where Matthew prefers “my son” (Hosea 11:1 Hebrew) over the LXX’s “his children.”
• Mixed or independent renderings: Many quotes show minor variations, paraphrases, or combinations—neither purely LXX nor MT verbatim. NT writers often adapt for context, theology, or emphasis under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
  Why the Variation?
• Audience and Context: The NT authors wrote for Greek-speaking audiences but drew from Hebrew Scriptures when it better fit their argument (e.g., messianic precision).
• Textual Fluidity: In the 1st century, the Hebrew text wasn’t fully standardized like the later MT (ca. 6th–10th centuries AD). The LXX reflects earlier Hebrew manuscripts (sometimes closer to Dead Sea Scrolls readings). NT writers used available texts flexibly.
• Theological Freedom: Quotations serve the inspired message. Even when following the LXX, the NT often highlights Christological fulfillment (e.g., in Psalms or Isaiah).
  Examples
• LXX-leaning: Many in Romans, Hebrews, and quotes from Isaiah/Psalms.
• Hebrew-leaning: Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15; some in the Gospels.
• Notable: Almost no NT quote matches any ancient LXX manuscript exactly in every detail—adaptations are common.
  Bottom Line for Interpretation
  Modern Old Testament translations primarily follow the Masoretic Text for its stability and preservation by Jewish scribes, but they consult the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other witnesses for textual criticism. The NT’s use of both reminds us that Scripture’s authority lies in the inspired message, not one manuscript tradition. The early church’s preference for the LXX helped the gospel spread, while the Hebrew foundation anchors it in God’s covenant with Israel.
  This flexible approach underscores the unity of the Bible: the same God speaking through prophets in Hebrew, translated into Greek, and fulfilled in Christ. If you want stats for specific books (e.g., Paul vs. Gospels) or examples, let me know!

—

Most of those we call Marxists are actually Jacobins. The French Revolution unleashed the revolutionary, egalitarian spirit that has wrecked the West.

(Jacobins advocated radical egalitarianism, centralized and secularized state power, revolutionary mob violence, and “terror” as a tool of governance.)

—

“Don’t drink the tap water in a country the denies the filioque,” is a way of pointing out that Eastern Orthodox nations are culturally inferior to Western Protestant nations.

—

“However zealously we may be devoted to the practice of integrity, we shall never be without detractors and slanderers; for if integrity of life were exempt from all calumny, we would have no quarrel with our enemies.”

— Calvin (on Psalm 127:5)

[HT: Zach Garris]

—

“Life is hard. It’s even harder if you expect it to be easy.”

— Bryan Dawson

—

Regulation without representation is the bane of modern America. The founding fathers never intended our lives to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats and regulators.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BDbpvc73V/?mibextid=wwXIfr

—

Despite the fact that I have to share this country with Democrats, I remain a proud and patriotic American.

—

“As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.”

— George Mason

—

Matt Walsh with a good update on America 250 (and pushback on the demonizing of Elon Musk’s wealth):

—

People fear the truth more than they fear lies. Lies are comfortable. The truth is not.

—

Identity matters. But identity is a lot thicker than skin color, which is why racial identity politics is counterproductive.

—

Noah Revoy with a good take on the wife’s submission, responsibility, and agency in marriage, pointing out that both feminism and complementarianism take a “blame the husband” approach to marriage problems, expecting everything of the man and nothing of the woman:

“There is a strange point of agreement between certain feminists and certain supposed conservatives.

They disagree about almost everything else, but they often share the same underlying model of marriage. If there is a problem in the relationship, the husband must change. He must communicate differently, lead differently, validate more, validate less, become more assertive, become less assertive, or otherwise adjust his behavior. Once he finds the correct formula, the wife will respond in the desired way.

The assumption underneath this advice is more radical than it first appears.

It is not merely that the husband’s behavior influences the wife’s behavior. Of course spouses influence one another. Everyone knows that.

The real assumption is that the wife’s behavior is nothing more than a reaction to the husband’s behavior. She is not treated as an independent actor making choices. She is treated as a mechanism responding to inputs.

If she is resentful, the husband caused it.
If she is distant, the husband caused it.
If she is disrespectful, the husband caused it.
If she is selfish, the husband caused it.
If she is unhappy, the husband caused it.

The analysis always moves backward through the wife and arrives at the husband, as though her conduct has no independent source.

Ironically, people who speak this way often believe they are defending women. In reality, they are removing women from the equation as agentic human beings.

A human being has thoughts, desires, interests, biases, virtues, flaws, convictions, fears, and aspirations. A human being interprets the world, makes judgments, and chooses how to act. Human beings possess agency.

The model being presented leaves no room for any of that.

In this model, the wife’s behavior does not originate within herself. It originates in the husband’s behavior. Her conduct is treated as an output generated by his input. If the output is bad, he entered the wrong command. If the output is good, he entered the right one.

Success then comes from pushing the right buttons.

For all their disagreements, both sides end up imagining a version of the same person: a Stepford wife. She does not possess independent motives, judgments, desires, virtues, flaws, or choices that must be understood on their own terms. She simply responds to programming. Change the inputs and the outputs change accordingly.

That is not a view of women as human beings. It is a view of women as mechanisms.

A mechanism does not choose. It responds.

A mechanism does not exercise judgment. It produces outputs.

A mechanism does not bear responsibility. It merely reflects the forces acting upon it.

The irony is that people who claim to take women seriously often adopt a framework that strips women of the very qualities that make them fully human. The wife ceases to be a person with her own interior life and becomes a device whose behavior can be explained entirely by reference to someone else.

The problem with this view is not that it asks too much of husbands. The problem is that it asks nothing of wives. It removes them as independent actors and recasts them as objects to be managed, calibrated, and manipulated.

A husband can contribute to a problem without causing every aspect of it.
A wife can contribute to a problem without being programmed by her husband to do so.

Relationships are not engineering problems where one person manipulates inputs to produce predictable outputs. They are interactions between two human beings, each with agency, each making choices, each capable of wisdom or foolishness, virtue or vice, generosity or selfishness.

The moment every fault in a marriage becomes evidence of the husband’s failure, the wife ceases to exist as a responsible actor. She becomes a reflection of him, a mirror of his conduct, a mechanism whose behavior is explained entirely by his actions.

That view does not elevate women. It diminishes them. It denies their agency, their responsibility, and ultimately their humanity.

A healthy understanding of marriage begins with a simple principle: both people possess agency. Both people make choices. Both people bear responsibility for those choices. Neither person exists merely as the product of the other.”

There is a strange point of agreement between certain feminists and certain supposed conservatives.

They disagree about almost everything else, but they often share the same underlying model of marriage. If there is a problem in the relationship, the husband must change. He must… pic.twitter.com/3p1jUQGlEs

— Coach Noah Revoy | Arms Dealer For The Soul 🏴‍☠️ (@NoahRevoy) June 15, 2026

—

A thread from October 23, 2024 on patriarchy:

Let’s talk about the patriarchy.

It’s easy to blame the patriarchy for anything and everything. This is because the patriarchy is literally ubiquitous. The patriarchy just is. It’s embedded in the way God made the world. It’s inescapable. Every society in history has had some kind of patriarchy. Patriarchy has been woven into everything from the very beginning. It is an aspect of the structure of creation.
1/7

Thus, blaming the patriarchy is basically just another of saying that people sin. There’s nothing profound, interesting, or insightful about it. Because of the way God made the world, when men sin, it has far reaching impact. Even those who say the patriarchy needs to be smashed unwittingly confirm that it is inescapable. Thinking we need to smash the patriarchy to get a better society just underscores men’s unique social responsibility and impact. No society has ever been a matriarchy so no one is going to ever say the matriarchy needs to be smashed – even though women are sinners just like men – because women will never be the default rulers of society, intrinsically responsible for society as a whole. Patriarchy puts a target on men’s backs; men wear a target because patriarchy is unavoidable.

2/7

But there is a key distinction that critics of the patriarchy fail to make. We must distinguish the patriarchy as God originally designed at creation from what it has become after the fall. In Genesis, God made the man first; he gave instructions about the forbidden tree to the man; the man named his wife; the whole human race derives its name from the man; the man represented all humanity in the creation covenant. There are numerous indicators that the man was made head of the woman from the beginning. This is a creational truth.

Of course, the woman was made equal to the man – indeed more than equal in some ways, since she has a different glory than he has. She is made in the image of God just like the man, and she shares in the same mission God gave the man, as his necessary helper. But in terms of governance, she is to respect and obey him. She is accountable to God as an individual; he is responsible as both an individual and as a covenant head.
3/7

The fall was a failure of the patriarch (Adam) to fulfill his patriarchal duties to his wife. Instead of teaching and leading his wife, he abdicated, allowing her to be taught and fed by the serpent. He stood by and watched passively when he should have guarded her and fought the serpent for her. Adam was still head even when he failed to act as head. In Genesis 3, Adam could have exercised his headship in a good way or an evil way, but ceasing to be the head was never an option. This is why God interrogated the man first in Genesis 3. This is why Romans 5 says all mankind sinned when Adam sinned.

The fall is not the end of the patriarchal system. The patriarchy remains just as inescapable as ever. But now we must contend with fallen patriarchs. The patriarchy continues to exist, but now it operates under fallen conditions. Sin and the curse infect everything, including how men rule and lead. There are plenty of examples of twisted and tyrannical patriarchy. Because the patriarchy overlays the entire creation, every sin committed has some connection to the patriarchy. Because the patriarchy is inescapably everywhere, and now sin is everywhere, it’s easy to link the patriarchy to sin.
4/7

Those who want to smash the patriarchy and replace it with an egalitarian or androgynous order can never actually succeed. We cannot change human nature or the way God made the world. The architecture of human society is what it is. Blaming the patriarchy for society’s problems is like blaming gravity for things falling to earth. Men are the inescapable leaders of home and society. Using the power of the state (or some other apparatus) to suppress male leadership will not bring healing to society. Forcing men into more submissive roles and exalting women to positions of leadership will not bring healing. In reality, these things only make society sicker and more miserable.

Blaming the patriarchy is not completely wrong; men are responsible for society, and while not everything is a man’s fault, there is no doubt many of our social ills today are due to the failure of men to be men, of fathers to rule faithfully as fathers. It is a well established sociological fact that fatherlessness is the single issue that accounts for more social ills than anything else. A theological analysis of society’s ills would lead to the same conclusion. Men are responsible and need to be held responsible. If society is crumbling, men have led the way into the mess and men need to lead the way out.

But focusing on the patriarchy and blaming men, as feminists and egalitarians want to do, can have another effect: it can allow women to avoid accountability for their sins. As our society has focused more and more on men as THE problem, it has allowed women to more and more escape accountability for their bad behavior. This is not healthy either. Everyone grants women can be and often are victims are male sin. But women can also be victimizers. Women are moral agents and need to be held accountable for their own sins. Our society isn’t really doing that right now, allowing women to radicalize.
5/7

We all grant some men are bad men. Yes, men do terrible things. Smashing the patriarchy will not change this. Men will still sin. The world is a fallen place. Legislating egalitarianism or electing women to positions of civil rule does not change its fallenness. If we have a lot of bad men in our society today, the answer is not eradicating patriarchy (an impossibility); rather, it’s forming better patriarchs. You will not make men better leaders by telling them they are actually not leaders at all. You cannot mock male honor and expect to get honorable men. You cannot smash the patriarchy and still expect to get men to step up and take responsibility. You cannot punish men for acting as protectors and then wonder why they have stopped playing the role of protector. You cannot tell men their contributions are not needed and then wonder why they don’t contribute. You cannot say masculinity is toxic and then complain when it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But you can get better patriarchs if you remind men what they were made for; if society honors them when they do fulfill their roles; and if you point them to celebrated models of faithful patriarchal leadership.

To seek to destroy the patriarchy is to sin against nature; it is to violate God’s creational design. Trying to eradicate patriarchy is like trying to eradicate male and female. If society is broken, the hope of a better society is not found in trying destroy nature further (which will make things worse); the hope is that God’s grace restores nature. There is no other way forward. We can continue to contend against the fallen patriarchy in various unsuccessful ways or we can cry out to God to graciously grant us the kind of men we need.

To simply blame the patriarchy without distinguishing the patriarchy as God designed it from what the patriarchy has become as a result of man’s sin is really the same as blaming God. Feminist women are not made any happier by pinning their problems on the patriarchal structure of reality. It is women saying to God, “The man whom you gave me…” (cf. Genesis 3:12).
6/7

I wrote an article on this for the “It’s Good to Be A Man” website a few years ago, which provides more background:

discipleshipanddominion.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-…

7/7

—

The South has done the most to preserve what has made America great. Here’s a good example:

https://notthebee.com/article/a-german-soccer-fan-has-been-live-tweeting-his-reaction-to-visiting-the-usa-and-its-some-of-the-best-stuff-on-the-internet-right-now

—

In a fallen world, husbands often revolt against their calling to be responsible heads and wives revolt against their calling to submit to their husbands as their heads.

When husbands and wives reverse roles, as is so often the case today, the man’s authority is undercut, as the wife usurps her husband’s position of leadership. The result is the worst of all worlds: The man is still responsible but has no authority, and the wife has all authority but no responsibility.

This is what men and women today need to understand: The huband’s masculine headship role and the wife’s submissive helper role are not just practical necessities in order to create peace and order and stability in the home. They are also romantic/erotic necessities. Wives in particular need to understand that headship was not designed by God to be some kind of powerplay that holds the woman down. But the headship/submission dynamic is not a powerplay. It’s a dance. One leads, the other follows. Marriages that lack this dynamic diminish (or even reverse) the sexual polarity that makes marries what it is supposed to be. There will be hard limits on the happiness of marriage without strong masculine and feminine polarity. Feminine softness is a true power; it is influence with her man. Feminine beauty (manifested physically but also in terms of demeanor) inspires masculine greatness and service.

C. S. Lewis understood this well: “At some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity.” A woman cannot be attracted to a man over the long haul unless she respects him, looks up to him, and grants that in some core way he is superior to her. He goes on to explain further: “This is the tragi-comedy of the modem woman — taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success. Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, to go no further, some degree of obedience and humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the woman’s part.” internal surrender to a man — that’s the essence of a wife’s femininity. Until a woman surrenders to her man, she limits her own happiness – as well as his, of course. 150 years of feminism may have changed society, social norms, and laws, but it has not changed male and female nature. Men want they feminine. They are drawn to femininity. And women want the masculinity. They are aroused by the masculine. At this point, with marriage and birth rates collapsing in a catastrophic way, recivering male/female polarity is essential not only for personal fulfillment but for the survival of civilization.

Modern couples could learn a lot about marriage from Mark and Jane in Lewis’ That Hideous Strength. The advice the Director gives to Jane would cure the misery found in many modern marriages: “You do not fall in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience.” Most modern wives would do well to heed this old (but not ” old fashioned”) counsel. As the Director points out, courtship and romance know nothing of equality. Equality kills marriages faster than anything else. The Director’s words to Jane should be given to every modern wife: “No one has ever told you that obedience – humility – is an erotic necessity. You are putting equality where it ought not to be.”

Old romantic movies used to understand this. The on-screen chemistry between the leading man and his dame was just masculine and feminine archetypes playing out. He leads through the crisis; she follows and helps him along the way. It is precisely his leadership and her surrender that creates the romantic chemistry. The masculine and feminine are drawn to one another like magnetic poles. There is no romance without polarity. To the degree that our notions of equality kill polarity, they make sexual fulfillment impossible.

Country music captures this from time to time as well. Cody Johnson’s song “With You I Am” is all about the way femininity brings out the best in a man:

“I’ve never been a Cool Hand Luke
The quarterback of the winnin’ team
Or the guy with the right kind of punch-lines everybody wants to be
I never was that lucky ol’ cuss with a straight flush in his hand
Oh, but with you, I am
I ain’t no Patrick Swayze
My old boots never danced on air
Never walked with a swag lookin’ sharp as a tack
Lit up like Time Square
Who’s that guy with a big ol’ smile as wide as the Rio Grande?
Oh, with you, I am
Strong as an oak, soft like leather
High as a pine and light as a feather
The same ol’ boy but a whole lot better
Whenever you’re holdin’ my hand
I used to poke fun at them punch-drunk lovers
I never thought I’d be that man
Oh, but with you, I am
Oh baby, with you, I am
I’ve always been a do it my way drifter
Another highway, another town
Never thought about that little white house
With a porch all the way around
Yeah, I never saw me on a swing
Talkin’ sweet-talkin’ dreams
But I’ll be damned
With you, I am
Strong as an oak, soft like leather
High as a pine and light as a feather
The same ol’ boy but a whole lot better
Whenever you’re holdin’ my hand
I used to poke fun at them punch-drunk lovers
I never thought I’d be that man
Oh baby, with you, I am
Strong as an oak, soft like leather
High as a pine and light as a feather
The same ol’ boy but a whole lot better
Whenever you’re holdin’ my hand
I used to poke fun at them punch-drunk lovers
I never thought I’d be that man
Oh baby, with you, I am
Oh baby, with you, I am
With you, I am”

Note that line: “The same ol’ boy but a whole lot better whenever you’re holdin’ my hand.” That’s the way marriage is supposed to work. A feminine woman makes a man the best version of himself. Put the right girl by his side and suddenly a man is Tom Brady, Patrick Swayze, and John Wayne rolled into one. He’ll be strong as an oak for her and soft as leather towards her.

Morgan Wallen gets at the same thing in his song with the line, “He’ll wanna lay the world right there at her feet” in his song “Silverado for Sale.” Ladies need to understand that a man really will want to give her everything he has if she is sweet, submissive, and brings him peace. A man will run through a brick wall for a feminine woman.

—

“After 7 decades of “civil rights” activism, we have a huge black population that believes murder ought to be legal if against a white person.
Black students ought to pretend to be white on college applications, since we are said to live in a “white supremacist” society. Strangely, they do not.
That’s because the truth is this: white people, in the 7 decades since the civil rights movement, crippled their own children with preferential policies that favored much less qualified black applicants in schooling and employment.
Any qualification that blacks couldn’t meet at the same rate as whites had to be thrown out (or you bankrupt yourself in court by trying to show, with a team of vulture lawyers after you, that the requirement was absolutely necessary).
Countless jurisdictions have had to throw out entry exams entirely after no amount of dumbing them down could get enough black students to pass them.
The campaign against “gifted and talented” programs, meanwhile, has been driven partly by the “disparate impact” doctrine.
You’ve heard some of the news items. Seattle phased out its “highly capable cohort” (separate accelerated classes/schools) starting around 2021-2022, and aimed for full phase-out by 2027-2028 (with some delays). The rationale? Addressing “historical inequity” and overrepresentation of white and Asian students.
Your student can’t have those programs because we’ve decided there are too many people in them who look like him.
Rockville Centre, New York, has long moved away from gifted tracking toward mixed-ability classes. San Francisco Unified delayed Algebra I and eliminated honors/gifted math tracks for “equity” purposes. We could go on and on.
Even though some of America’s most politically “progressive” people are in education, and despite repeated and aggressive (and expensive) efforts across the country, no school district anywhere in America, no matter how progressive, has ever managed to eliminate the black-white educational achievement gap, which by 12th grade is estimated as a four-year difference.
And vastly fewer black students percentage-wise choose to take advanced-placement classes even in school systems in which such classes are open to anyone.
Given that nobody anywhere has been able to solve this problem, why, apart from hatred and spite, should bright students be singled out to be deprived of a program that benefits them?
The disparities are evident even at the very beginning of the educational process. The National Center for Educational Statistics found that blacks entering kindergarten we’re already disproportionately testing in the bottom, quarter of students in reading, math, and general knowledge.
Behavioral differences are also evident that early, and they persist to the future. On average, black students are much less likely than whites to be described by kindergarten teachers as a tentative, eager to learn, and persistent in carrying out assigned tasks, and they are more likely to be described as argumentative, quick tempered, and violent.
These discipline disparities persist over time. Later in life blacks are 2 1/2 times as likely to be suspended or expelled from school as whites.
Faced with statistics, like these, so-called civil rights groups, typically accuse white teachers of arbitrarily, singling out blacks for punishment. To the contrary, black teachers have been found to be even more critical of black students than white teachers are.
Moreover, Asian students are less than half as likely as whites to be suspended or expelled, and it is unreasonable to ask us to believe that an anti-white, pro-Asian bias permeates the American educational system.
And educational disparities between the races persist even when social class is taken into account, so that comfortable explanation doesn’t work.
The crime statistics tell us everything: if you based your opinions on TV or the movies, you would think the big problem in America is white-on-black violence. In fact, the reality is so overwhelmingly the opposite that most people would be shocked to learn the real numbers.
Per 10,000 whites, 3.4 violent crimes are committed against blacks. Per 10,000 blacks, 153 violent crimes are committed against whites.
As time has gone on, special accommodations for blacks, and disabilities placed on whites, have only grown more intense.
In 2023 the percentage of white men in tenure-track faculty positions at Harvard declined from 39 percent in 2014 to 18 percent. That doesn’t happen by accident.
Oh, who cares about Harvard faculty, some will say.
But it reflects a society-wide problem. Here are some other numbers we now know, that also incorporate the anti-male bias in hiring:
TV/Hollywood Writers: White men comprised roughly 48% of lower-level TV writers in 2011, dropping to 11.9% by 2024.
Medical school matriculants: White men accounted for 31% in 2014, declining to 20.5% in 2025.
The Atlantic staff: In 2013: 53% male / 89% white; by 2024: 36% male / 66% white.
University faculty hiring (tenure-track): At UC Berkeley, white men comprised 52.7% of new tenure-track faculty hires in 2015, dropping to 21.5% in 2023.
Humanities/social sciences faculty hires: UC Irvine hired 64 tenure-track assistant professors in humanities and social sciences since 2020 — only 3 (4.7%) were white men.
At UC Santa Cruz, of 59 assistant professors in Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (2020–2024), only 2 (3%) were white men.
Law school matriculants: White men accounted for 31.2% of law school matriculants in 2016, falling to 25.7% in 2024.
Corporate/tech entry- and mid-level (specifically Amazon): Entry-level “professionals” (college graduates) were 42.3% white male in 2014. By 2024, mid-level managers had fallen from 55.8% white male in 2014 to 33.8% (nearly 40% decline).
Tech workforce (specifically Google): White men represented nearly 50% of the workforce in 2014, dropping to less than one-third by 2024 (a roughly 34% relative decline).
Four years ago a survey of a thousand hiring managers in the United States came out that showed 16 percent of such managers had been expressly told to stop hiring white men.
Further, 48 percent of hiring managers say they have been instructed to prioritize “diversity” over merit, and 53% believe they will lose their jobs if they don’t hire accordingly.
All across the country there are special programs, of every shape and size, for minority applicants. If you had any idea of the scale of it, you would be shocked — no matter how much you think you know about the subject.
Instead of the kind of gratitude you might expect from people who have benefited from the most systematic effort in any society to assist a minority group — I haven’t even mentioned the literal trillions in wealth redistribution — it is never enough, and the recipients will scream “RACIST” in your face even for pointing any of this out.
We can hope that the Karmelo Anthony case accelerates the coming of the day when whites say: we have done everything humanly possible for you, and received only hatred and ingratitude in return. You are on your own now.”

— Tom Woods on anti-whiteness

—

“More and more people on the moderate and conservative side are recognizing that feminism has been harmful. They talk about how it lied to women, made women unhappy, damaged families, hurt boys, and left men struggling.
But frustratingly, the conversation often ends in the same place: women as the primary victims.
Women are the victims of dating apps. Women are the victims of birth control. Women are the victims of delayed motherhood. Women are the victims of feminism itself.
Even if all those things disappeared tomorrow, the deeper problem would remain.
Feminism’s greatest victory was not dating apps, birth control, or women entering the workforce. It was teaching us that every social question must be judged primarily by how it affects women.
Can we say that children need their mothers without immediately shifting the conversation to whether mothers will be bored?
Can we say that a struggling marriage should sometimes be endured for the sake of the children without immediately asking whether the wife feels fulfilled?
Can we ask what men need from women without first reassuring ourselves that women will benefit too?
The family was built on obligations flowing in all directions. Feminism taught us to see obligations to women as moral, and obligations from women as oppression.
Until that attitude changes, feminism remains undefeated.”

— Hannah Spier on the triumph of feminism/the gynocracy

—

The gist of my book “Measures of the Mission” is that much of the church has reduced the creation/dominion mandate to an evangelism mandate. But there is more God wants Christians to do in this world than merely evangelize. The great commission of Matthew 28 does not replace the creation mandate of Genesis 1; it fits inside of it and is a means towards fulfilling it.

—

Conservatives and Christians use technology. Progressives worship technology.

Conservatives see technology as having trade-offs. Progressives see it as the key to ushering in utopia.

—

The left wants to use Islam as a battering ram against the church. They think they can control Muslims with the surveillance state once Western/Christian civilization is destroyed, and then progressivism will be the last man standing. But will it play out that way? Modern secular leftists are a laughingstock to Muslims. They think they are using Islam, but it is more likely Islam will use them. Muslims are absolutists. They believe in an afterlife and have no problem with martyrdom. Secularists, by contrast, have nothing worth dying for. They have no nobility, honor, or courage. They will not win a contest of wills with Islam. The secular mind simply does not understand religion and this blind spot makes them naive. It will cost them. Does anyone really think Keir Starmer will ever actually stand up to Islam? Of course not. He’s a damned fool. Even now, he is more scared of being called a racist, bigot, or Islamophobe more than actually protecting his own nation and people from murderers and rapists. Before long, Britain will be fully in Islamic hands. The next Muslim nuclear power will be Britain. Britain is very close to being a caliphate – probably within my lifetime, apart from some dramatic reversal.

The red/green alliance (embodied in Mamdani, Ilhan Omar, and others) is a temporary demonic truce. But it is not stable and will not last.

—

Islam should be suppressed and banned in the West. Europe won’t do it. But America must. Islam is anti-Constitutional. It rejects the core tennents of America’s constitutional system. Sharia is contrary to the American order. It cannot be allowed as a parallel governing system.

—

“It is mortifying to belong to a church that is five minutes behind the times, huffing and puffing to catch up.”

— Joseph Sobran

—

This echoes some things I wrote about post-partum depression when I reviewed Abigail Favale’s book:

(My notes are here: https://tpcpastorspage.com/2023/04/05/odds-and-ends/)

—

Too many immigrants treat American like an economic zone (they’re just here to use our economy and make money) or a refugee camp (they’re come to get welfare benefits in the name of seeking asylum). But it is neither. Things have to change – in America and elsewhere in the West.

—

The West is experiencing a managed decline. But as the Belfast fires show, sometimes managed declines become unmanageable. Sometimes those being “managed” into decline pushback. The responses to the Nowack murder and the Karmelo Anthony case show it.

The selective identity politics of the mainstream media and progressive politicians has busted open. The narrative is broken. Americans in general are tired of blacks using racism as an excuse for uncivilized, barabaric behavior. Crazy black women screaming about Karmelo isn’t going to change that at this point.

Black fatigue and Muslim fatigue are real. I don’t think this genie can be put back in the bottle.

A couple trustworthy treatments of what’s happening:

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=8274058&post_id=201536931&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5ov0i&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5NTU4MDE4LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoyMDE1MzY5MzEsImlhdCI6MTc4MTE0MTY3OSwiZXhwIjoxNzgzNzMzNjc5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItODI3NDA1OCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.W4HfHZd_DV9srqLnnPzS4K115TiJ5CGki2wPpFL_x7A

—

“No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion—nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”

— Thomas Jefferson, explaining why he attended church services in the Capitol building during his time as President

—

“Men crawl through the sewers, work the oil rigs, and account for nearly nine in ten people killed on the job. Society demands this of them and offers no apology for it. So ask the reverse: what does society still require of a woman that it cannot get from anyone else? After 50 years of feminism, the honest answer is nothing. We told women they had finally been freed. What we did was excuse them from being needed at all…
Every civilization depends upon certain responsibilities being embraced whether or not they are personally fulfilling…
Without the responsibility of bearing and raising children, women are left without any true duty in a feminist world. There is nothing that society demands uniquely from them. On the other hand, men are not excused from their unique duties. Men are protectors of a society; they enforce law, protect borders, and protect the people within the borders. They keep our society running, outperforming women in the dirtiest and most labor-intensive jobs. Men make up 95.5% of sewage waste disposal jobs, 96% of field-based oil drilling rig operations, 85% of the police force, 95% of firefighters, and 80% of the military. Almost 92% of workplace deaths were experienced by men. These jobs are often physically demanding, thankless, and dangerous, yet we depend on them every day. Women are not barred from these industries; they simply opt out of them en masse.
If instead of feminism there existed a movement convincing men that instead of fulfilling their duties they should pursue personal happiness above all else, society would soon collapse as we know it. Humans seek comfort; many men may prefer to stay home and pursue comfort and hedonism instead of labor and sacrifice. But they don’t. Society puts necessary expectations on them as they are the only group that can ultimately fulfill these needs. Though women make up a small percentage of these fields, the truth is that women aren’t needed in these fields; men are. The equivalent role for a woman is motherhood, the only duty that only a woman can fulfill. No serious society would celebrate a movement encouraging men to abandon protection, provision, or sacrifice in exchange for comfort and self-actualization. Yet feminism allows women to celebrate their withdrawal from uniquely female responsibilities…The role of mothering has been degraded into something oppressive, something unworthy of women today. They are left to serve nobody but themselves. And they aren’t even happy. Women’s happiness as it relates to themselves and to men has been on the decline for over 50 years. At a time when women experience the most freedoms, they are experiencing the lowest levels of happiness. In the process of feminist progressivism, women were taught to view dependence, caregiving, and sacrifice as signs of weakness rather than expressions of love. Yet the strongest relationships and societies are built upon those very virtues.
No serious society would celebrate a movement encouraging men to abandon protection, provision, or sacrifice in exchange for comfort and self-actualization.
Feminism encourages women to deny their biological imperatives and maternal instincts in favor of career ambitions and personal autonomy. Feminists want women to be more like men and elevate masculine traits as ones women should emulate. They put the male role on a pedestal while degrading the feminine roles of mother and caretaker…In a feminist society, nothing is needed of women that is unique to them; in other words: anyone can do the jobs women do in a feminist society. This doesn’t sound like a movement that uplifts women. It instead sounds like a movement that deeply misunderstands what women were made to do. A society flourishes when its members embrace responsibility before self-interest.
The tragedy of feminism is not that it asks women to do more, but that it increasingly tells them they owe less.”

— Evie (https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/nothing-is-asked-of-women-anymore)

—

Louise Perry’s WSJ article sums up feminism’s war against God:

“They forget that the past had its own problems. They forget, too, that the most difficult parts of most women’s lives are beyond the reach of politics. The physical realities of motherhood serve to disrupt our working lives in a way that simply isn’t true for fatherhood. There is a difference in the size and strength of the sexes that will always put a woman at a disadvantage in any violent encounter with a man. Men aren’t to blame for the pain and discomfort of childbearing, menstruation, menopause and breast-feeding—in fact, these experiences are better now than they once were thanks primarily to male doctors and scientists. If you have a problem with the biological substrate of women’s lives, your only option is to take it up with God.”

—

If you haven’t watched Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” recently, you should. Obviously it’s a fictional story (based loosely on Francis Marion, the “swamp fox”), but it’s a great story about American liberty and fatherhood.

—

A question I want to ask an evolutionist: Do you believe blacks descended from monkeys?

—

I’ve recently mentioned Nick Freitas as a trustworthy voice in the podcasting cacophony. Another voice I like is John Doyle. Granted, Doyle is a bit less, shall we say, sanctified, in style and approach compared to Freitas. But he had the basically correct approach – a wise political pragmatism aimed at conservative ends, but without the baggage of the “retareded right” as he so delicately puts it. This video is a good example:

—

Dads with daughters do not need to do queer, effeminate, transgender and transvestite stuff to be good dads.

View this post on Instagram

—

I’d like to revisit this thread on white evangelicals as the “lone bulwark” sometime:

https://x.com/perfinjust/status/1647931701773860865?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw

—

Nature is the art of God.

—

Women will never attain full equality with men until 50% of oil rig jobs are done by women.

—

The one thing the most famous female pilot is remembered for is not making it back home. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

—

Notes on my DC trip:

The best thing about Lincoln Memorial is view of Washington Monument.

CCDC is a great congregation. Young, vibrant, high energy. Very encouraging. Police and national Guard did a good job keeping the protestors at a decent distance.

The Library of Congress might have the best interior architecture of any building in DC.

When science finally catches up to the reality that Darwinism is a hoax, it’s going to cost tax payers a lot of money to fix the Natural History museum.

The American History museum was a major disappoinmemt, except for the flag exhibit and the “Price of Freedom” section. Why all the bi-lingual stuff in an *American* history museum??

In Europe, you go to see churches (and some castles, but mainly churches). In America, you go to see government buildings (and a few churches but mainly government buildings). That’s the difference between the medieval and modern West.

I have a love/hate relationship with Jefferson. His main issue was that he could not abide any authority outside or above the mind of man.

The faded text of the Declaration and Constituion at the National Archives is sadly symbolic — the things that built our great nation have faded from our memory.

You can see a lot of great things in DC in a short amount of time if skip all the civil rights stuff — which is what I’d recommend.

—

As I’ve said before, headship and submission in marriage are not just practical necessities to keep the home well-ordered; they are romantic necessities as well, to keep attraction going. Headship and submission are the essence of sexual polarity.

—

Biblically, a wife falls into one of two categories: she is submissive or quarrelsome. She is respectful or bitchy.

—

Covenant blessings become covenant curses to covenant breakers.

—

“The conservatism I shall be defending tells us that we have collectively inherited good things that we must strive to keep … All are under threat. And conservatism is the rational response to that threat. Maybe it is a response that requires more understanding than the ordinary person is prepared to devote to it … Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created … the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opposition exciting but false”

— Roger Scruton

—

In Mark 11, Jesus curses the fig tree which is obviously symbolic of Israel and the termple. But we are told “it was not the season for figs.” What does that cryptic remark mean? Here’s my stab at it: The “season” is the old covenant. The old covenant is like Narnia under the witch’s reign — it is always winter and never Christmas. The new covenant will be the season when the true temple bears fruit. This seems to be Jesus’ point in Mark 13:28-29. The destruction of the temple means the season for figs is approaching.

—

Doug Wilson is proving the adage, “You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.”

Wilson is now considered a compromiser by the alt right. This is ridiculous. But it has the benefit of turning Wilson into a moderate. He now sounds like the voice of reason.

—

“But if you’ve ever watched a group of young, predominantly or perhaps exclusively male right-wingers having an argument on the internet, you’ll see that the “feminine” style is the mode of conflict there. If you think about what the internet does as a form, it incentivizes endless talking, ostracism, backbiting, dogpiling, and so on, and it forecloses actual physical violence. As a form, it forces everybody into a social performance which is indistinguishable from what Joyce Benenson characterizes as feminization. So, the internet is actually feminizing…”

— Mary Harrington

I have noticed this as well, especially from far right/alt right types. The internet does not have to be a feminine space. It can be a place for a masculine form of argumentation. But the internet rarely rewards careful argumentation in this way. Before social media apps like Twitter/X basically replaced blogging, sustained argument was more common. A lot of far right men resort to name calling and other psychological and feminized tactics rather than making arguments. They treat their views as self-evident. They absolutize their positions in such a way that people are treated as all good or all bad – a “mean girl” tactic. This, along with the victimhood mentality, leads me to believe a lot of far right men are really effeminate.

—

“Sex is supposed to be the closest feeling to heaven on earth when it is done with your spouse inside the loving union of your marriage…That’s awesome. I mean, that’s the most amazing thing you could possibly sell to the next generation. Unfortunately, we’re learning sex from Planned Parenthood in America today more often than not.”

— Isabel Brown

—

I wonder what some guys online are going to talk about after the Boomers are all dead and gone and things don’t get better. I wonder what they’re going to talk about when America separates itself from Israel but things don’t get suddenly better. I guess they’ll have to find new scapegoats.

—

“My prediction for 10 years time, maybe sooner, but realistically 10 years time is that the crisis of femininity will make the crisis of masculinity look like a vaccine.”

— Chris Williamson

This is what I’ve been saying for some time now. Women are trying to escape womanhood. The feminist rejection of femininity is boiling over. The only difference is I think the crisis for young women is already here, not 10 years down the road.

—

It’s FLGBTQP month. All our sexual perversions are downstream from feminism. They are all leading to the sexualization of children.

—

All perversions of sex and sexuality exist on a continuum. Once you reject God’s design for sex and the sexes, there is no logical stopping point.

A reminder that Pride Month is downstream from the "Women's Rights Women" that Dabney wrote about. Without feminism, you wouldn't have perverted men dressed as women clamoring for access to young children.https://t.co/c2BZudic7T

— Rick Davis (@TheRhetorRick) June 2, 2026

—

Masculine strength is a man’s ability to get things done for those he loves.

—

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.
[T]here is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence on the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. And the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things to which I was unaccustomed. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other. But in America, I found that they were intimately united, that they reigned in common over the same country.”

— Alexis de Tocqueville

Obviously, one implication of this is that the American Revolution and the French Revolution ran on radically different tracks. The American Revolution was inspired the Christian faith of the Great Awakening. The 1789 Revolution in France unleashed demonic forces that are still running rampant. These Jacobins, even more than the Marxists are to blame for the decline of the West.

—

It’s not the Jews. It’s the Jacobins. They are the real destroyers of America and the West.

—

One sign of the poverty of modern conservative Presbyterianism: Other than Joe Morecraft (and Vos), it’s been a long, long time since anyone wrote a commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism. Presbyterians ignore it to their own hurt, especially the section on the Ten Commandments.

—

America’s Christian founding really starts with Christopher Columbus, who was looking for new routes to take the gospel to the Far East. When he arrived in the Caribbean, the first thing he did was plant a cross in the ground and then lead his sailors in prayer. He named the island “San Salvador,” claiming it for Christ.

ADDENDUM: To be more precise: Columbus came to the “new world” before the Reformation, and America was eventually settled and then founded as a nation by Anglo- Protestants.
Obviously it would look very different had America been settled/colonized/founded by the Spanish or Portuguese before the Reformation.
We can thank God’s Providence for that.
But I still can’t get past how much Columbus’ own aims in sailing to the new world are similar to the explicit aims of the Pilgrims and Puritans when America finally was colonized.
America’s settling and founding took place within a Christendom context – as did Columbus’ mission a century+ earlier, even though Christen changed quite a bit between 1492 and, say, 1607.

—

A lot of people want to blame the Jews for the dissolution of Western Civilization. But I put far more blame on the French. The 1789 Revolution in France unleashed demonic forces that are still running rampant.

—

Is Gen Z going to be the most conservative generation in a long time? Perhaps, at least among men. But if men don’t bend women to their political positions, it will be the most politically divided generation.

—

“Over the past century, Western societies have steadily dismantled this layer of containment in favour of autonomy, self-expression, and suspicion of judgment itself. Especially in domains of sexuality, relationships, and female conduct, norms were not merely loosened but morally delegitimised. Modesty became oppression, reputational caution became cruelty, parental standards became control, and behavioural expectations became relics of patriarchy. What had once constrained temperament was reinterpreted as injustice.
Worse still, the dominant message now moves in the opposite direction: be yourself, express yourself, never suppress your “true self,” and if you want something strongly enough it should be yours. This is especially true for girls, where agreeableness is recast as weakness: if they accommodate others, they’re told they’re erasing or shrinking themselves, and any form of behavioural restraint they’re told is oppression or emotional invalidation. While a girl who is demanding, volatile, provocative, or relentlessly self-prioritising is praised as confident and empowered. The term bossyis now considered offensive. To the point where I have received eyerolls at the playground for telling my daughter off for bossing her younger brothers.
The shift was not simply toward permissiveness, but toward the moral suspicion of discipline itself. Female behaviour was no longer something to be evaluated, but something to be validated. Emotional expression came to be treated as self-justifying, while subjective experience elevated above observable behaviour. The distinction between acknowledging a feeling and endorsing whatever action followed from it gradually disappeared.
Feminism played a central role in this reframing. It did not merely shield borderline-adjacent traits from criticism but often provided the cultural soil in which they could flourish. It recast traditional guardrails like modesty, reputational vetting, social shame and behavioural judgment, as oppression. As casting unfair moral judgement on women. This paralysed the social immune system that once interrupted unhealthy trajectories. In “shaming shame,” it removed one of the oldest brakes on self-centred behaviour, despite shame functioning in part as a biological signal for social correction.”

— Hannah Spier

—

Writing the history of America while sidelining the impact of Christian faith would be like writing the history of Iran and ignoring the role of Islam.

—

“Strong men admire great men.
Weak men attempt to tear great men down.”

Strong men admire great men.

Weak men attempt to tear great men down. pic.twitter.com/QTaOmVnIi2

— Southern Accents (@AccentsSouthern) June 2, 2026

—

Anti-whiteness presupposes a kind of white supremacy.

—

“Many relationships eventually look like they’re going in the right direction but are sacrificed to an unwillingness to do battle. And you wind up sort of at the end of your life having been stripped of people who somehow gave in to the other side. And the ranks get thinner and thinner. I’m sort of living in that era.”

–John MacArthur

—

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”

— J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

—

On the Civil Rights Act:

The CRA certainly played a role in rising criminality starting in the 1960s. But the welfare state (LBJ’s Great Society/war on poverty) arose at the same time and also played a role in increasing criminality. Statist welfare creates a sense of entitlement. It subsidizes all the worst features of human fallenness. If you’re going steal people’s stuff via the vote, why not skip the voting part and just take just what you want when you want it?

The same mentality drove the sexual revolution. Economic and sexual libertininsm, socialism and sexual perversion, are driven by the same mentality: taking what isn’t yours. In the book of Proverbs, theft and adultery are related sins. Gang violence (Proverbs 1) and sexual license (Proverbs 7) are linked. Both are perversions of the creation mandate, which calls on man to be fruitful and multiply (= to engage in family formation) and to rule the earth (= to engage in productive labor). Social policy and economic policy are inextricably intertwined.

As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the welfare state did what Jim Crow and segregation could not: destroy the black family. The state systematically demolished black patriarchy (and now it’s doing the same with white patriarchy). No society can prosper without fathers and when the state uses policy to subvert fatherhood, the results are always predictable.

Sounds like he understands why crime spiked dramatically after the Civil Rights Act, as he has to deal with the criminality and antics of Crime Committing Americans every day

America would probably see crime fall noticeably were he put in a position of authority

This has… https://t.co/QXGMTzhLGP pic.twitter.com/h1XWU8UjCE

— Will Tanner (@Will_Tanner_1) June 3, 2026

—

Presbyterian Minister says that if Jesus was alive he would have said "Blessed are those who end their pregnancies, for they will be known for their loving kindness." pic.twitter.com/fT67Feuh3L

— Garbage Human (@GarbageHuman24) June 2, 2026

Not a Presbyterian. That’s a Jezebel.

—

In politics, all too often, one bad policy leads to another.

—

Like polarity in a battery, sexual polarity between a husband and wife makes attraction flow. Biology mirrors physics.

—

Adam was give the mission of subduing the earth and ruling over it. His starter kit consisted of his brain, his hands, and his wife. That was it. He had to build a civilization from scratch. There was gold and other precious metals, but they were buried deep in the earth. He had to get to work.

—

The political gender divide: Men are skewing conservative, women are skewing mentally ill.

(Stolen from some comedian.)

—

Every generation inherits a mess it did not make.

—

Men who cheat on their wives cannot be trusted. Men who are afraid of their wives cannot be trusted either.

—

“Yes, the nations will obey the Law of Christ.
Yes, there will be prosperity and progress.
Yes, the “cultural mandate” will be fulfilled.
But it will not be fulfilled by self-confident, proud, fleshly, “positive thinking,” yuppie, “triumphalistic” believers.”

— James Jordan

—

“Capitalism is morally superior to socialism not because of the people who operate within it but because of how the boundaries and incentive systems within it work with human nature to try and mobilize self-interest toward individual and collective good.”

— Nick Freitas

—

“But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Galatians 6:14)

I hereby declare June to be “Pride In the Cross” Month. While perverts boast about their perversion, we will boast in the bloody cross of Jesus, which brings salvation to sinners.

—

I wouldn’t necessarily put it the same way, but this makes a good point:

—

“Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy.”

— George Washington

—

“Speak not injurious words, neither in jest nor earnest. Scoff at no one, although they give occasion.”

— George Washington

—

“Amongst the motives to such an institution, the assimilation of the principles, opinions, and manners of our country-men by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter well deserves attention. The more homogenous our citizens can be made in these particulars the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic what species of knowledge can be equally important and what duty more pressing on its legislature than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

— George Washington

—

“There have been many times where I expected to lose everything. Who starts a car company and a rocket company expecting them to succeed? Certainly not me. I thought they both had a low chance of success, less than 10 percent. Maybe 1 percent, I don’t know.”

— Elon Musk

—