Our culture is waging a war on agency. The ultimate conspiracy is that the cultural elites want us to think nothing we do matters because everything is a conspiracy. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Government….you can’t possibly fight all the “bigs” so why bother? You’re just a pawn in their game so give up and quit trying to change anything. Give in and let things run their course.
The war on agency is also a war on responsibility, freedom, and virtue. If you have no agency, you aren’t responsible for yourself. There is no reason to cultivate virtue or courage because it makes no difference to the outcome of your life. If you have no agency, you can’t impose your will on the world. If you come to believe you have no agency, you will acquiesce to your own disempowerment without a fight.
Agency is the opposite of victimhood. If you are told – or tell yourself – “I can do nothing to change my situation,” it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will do nothing because you’re sure nothing you do matters. Life will just happen to you. You are a helpless cog in a bureaucratic machine.
Against all of this Scripture teaches that even in the most dire situations, you have some agency. If you are still breathing, you have agency. You are responsible for your life. You are living the life you chose. No, you didn’t choose all your circumstances, but you chose how to respond to them. Your life is your responsibility. You are living in the life you built. Deal with it.
The war on agency fits with the therapeutic culture in which we live, which surrenders to emotions and looks for scapegoats. This especially impacts young people; the propaganda that tells people they have no real agency is especially aimed at them.
Jonathan Haidt contrasts people who have an “internal locus of control” with those who have an “external locus of control.” The key to feeling “in control” of your life (in a proper sense) is self-control, especially emotional self control.
The reason some young people do not feel like they are in control of their lives has nothing to do with having strict parents or teachers and coaches who put heavy demands on them. Rather, the feeling of not being in control is due to lacking internal control of oneself. It is not that you are being externally controlled (though that can be a problem in some extreme cases) but that you have not learned how to control yourself, especially your emotions. The key to feeling confident and “in control” in a good sense is mastering one’s thought process and emotions. You never have control of the world outside yourself (including other people, circumstances, etc.). But you most certainly can control the world inside yourself — your feelings, impulses, desires, reactions, thought patterns, etc. The best parents, teachers, and coaches might indeed be the strict ones — at least if that strictness if used to inculcate self-control in the young. Those who have the most self-control also capable of exercising the highest degree of agency on the world.
If you are a high-agency person, you will know life does not “just happen” to you; your life is the product of the choices you made under the circumstances you were given. Not everything in your life is necessarily your fault, but it is most certainly your responsibility. Taking full responsibility for yourself opens the gateway to real joy and fulfillment in life.
—–
A note on 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Ephesians 2:10:
If your view of grace makes you lazy, you don’t understand grace. Grace does not negate the need for hard work; it empowers hard work. Grace does not abolish human agency; it unlocks it.
—
We need a theology of risk and failure.
“For the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity.”
— Proverbs 24:16
For the righteous man – the Christian – failure is neither final nor fatal. He falls but he gets back up again because he knows he serves a gracious master. The Christian is not devastated by failure because he knows his acceptance with God does not depend on the work he does for God, but the work Christ has done for him. He can take risks in the present because his future is secure. And through the risks he takes, he grows in grit and grace.
George Washington lost more battles than he won. His most famous and frequent battle maneuver was retreating. He faced long odds as an underdog against the greatest superpower of the day. He was outnumbered and outgunned, but never gave up. He won the war because he kept living to fight another day. He took calculated risks that caught the enemy by surprise because they were so unorthodox, no other general would have tried them. He kept his ragtag army together, even when the cause hung by a slender thread, just long enough to get the victory.
As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the man in arena stumbles. His face is marred with dust, sweat, and blood. He comes up short in his striving again and again. He fails, while daring greatly. But he is not like those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Peter went out to meet Jesus when Jesus was walking on water and began to sink. It’s easy to “Monday morning quarterback” Peter’s failure – why did he take his eyes off Jesus and look at the storm? – but the other 11 disciples stayed in the boat and didn’t even attempt to walk on water. Peter took a great risk and became the only man in history other than Jesus to walk on the waves. Sure, it was safer in the boat, but Peter is the one remembered from that night.
We know Edison tried countless times and failed before inventing the lightbulb. Michael Jordan is famous for his clutch, game-winning shots, but he missed as many as he made. Even the best hitters in baseball get on base in only a fraction of their at-bats. There is no success without failure, and no failure without risk-taking. Everyone who learns to ride a bike falls before they master the skill. Success is never guaranteed to those who try something new, but those who refuse to try are guaranteed to gain nothing.
Trying and failing can be forgiven. Failing to try cannot be. Providence favors the bold. Ships are safest in the harbor, but that’s not what they were made for. Our calling is not to cling to safety and avoid all risk; our calling is to cling to Christ and attempt great things for him.
The second part of the Proverb about the wicked is just as important as the first part about the righteous. The righteous man is strengthened by his failures. He becomes anti-fragile. When the day of calamity arrives, he is ready. He has learned from his failures and grown in wisdom. He knows what he can do and what he can’t. The wicked by contrast has avoided failure – but his lack of ambition, of maturation, of agency are all revealed in the day of calamity when he has no idea how to improvise, how to be resilient, and how to keep going in the face of hardship.
—
“What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the successful ones; often several times. And if you ask them the secret of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that they learned in their struggles along the way; yes, it’s what they learned from failing.”
— Ronald Reagan
—
“What was lost was lost. There was no retrieving it, however you schemed, no returning to how things were, no going back.”
— Haruki Murakami, Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World
—
“It is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.”
— Marshall McLuhan
—
I still can’t fathom how some pastors thought it was a good idea to not say anything after Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom last year. It’d be like Luke writing the history of the early church in Acts and ignoring Stephen’s martyrdom.
—
A post from 8/8/24:
The biggest trouble makers in the church are not alpha males but females married to beta males.
These women are insecure about their own husband’s leadership which makes them anxious. They project that insecurity on all males in positions of leadership. They become anxious about male rule in general.
How women in the church react to preaching on “wives submit to your husbands in everything” generally tells you a lot more about how that woman feels about her particular husband than it does how she views, say, the authority of Scripture. Women who know they married men of high competence and high character virtually never complain about teaching on wifely submission. These women are married to masculine men and so they naturally settle into their feminine.
Sadly, churches today are mostly beta male factories.
—
On the cross, God deceived Satan. This is a theme the church fathers developed. Augustine called the cross a mousetrap – and Satan took the bait:
“The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy, when he seduced the first man and cast him down to death. By seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man, he lost the first from his snare. The victory of our Lord Jesus Christ came when he rose, and ascended into heaven; then was fulfilled what you have heard when the Apocalypse was being read, The Lion of the tribe of Judah has won the day [Rev. 5:5]. . . . The devil jumped for joy when Christ died; and by the very death of Christ the devil was overcome: he took, as it were, the bait in the mousetrap. He rejoiced at the death, thinking himself death’s commander. But that which caused his joy dangled the bait before him. The Lord’s cross was the devil’s mousetrap: the bait which caught him was the death of the Lord.”
—
James Jordan on righteous deception and its limits, taken from Primeval Saints:
“The most controversial aspect of these essays is likely to be my attempt to justify the deceptions practiced by Abram, Isaac, and Jacob. I have taken a much more positive view of the patriarchs than is usually the case today. It is a fact, though, that God rebuked Pharaoh, Abimelech, and the aged Isaac, while saying nothing in criticism of those they sought to oppress. Although most commentators and preachers nowadays do not take this view, it has a long and honorable history, and was held by Luther.
I have found it helpful, building on Augustine and Luther, to distinguish four kinds of lies or deceptions. The first three are from Augustine, via Luther. First, playful lies are those told in jest, or told by actors in the theater. Such lies do no harm and are even pleasing.
Second, obliging lies are told to protect someone else. Augustine tells of a certain bishop who was unwilling to betray someone who had taken refuge with him. Similarly, Dutch Christians lied to protect Jews and other oppressed minorities during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands. Luther remarks that “this lie is called ‘obliging’ because it not only serves the advantage of someone else, who would otherwise suffer harm or violence, but also prevents a sin. Therefore it is not proper to call it a lie; for it is rather a virtue and outstanding prudence, by which both the fury of Satan is hindered and the honor, life, and advantages of others are served. For this reason it can be called pious concern for the brethren, or, in Paul’s language, zeal for piety.” I believe that the lies told by Abrarn and Isaac to protect their wives, and by Rebekah to protect God’s covenant with Jacob, were this sort of “obliging” lie, and were entirely proper.
The third kind of lie is the destructive lie, a violation of the ninth commandment, designed to harm our neighbor.
The fourth kind of lie, which Luther does not mention, is deception practiced in wartime. We could group this as a specimen of obliging lie, but I have found it helpful to distinguish between deception as a military tactic and the deception of a tyrant in the interest of self- and other-preservation. The lie told by Jael at the battle of Megiddo is an example of a praiseworthy military deception….
The basic means for dealing with tyrants in Genesis, and in the rest of Scripture, is through deception. The reason for this goes back to the garden. The serpent tricked Eve through deception (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14), while Adam stood by and failed to protect her. Thus, a theme emerges later in scripture wherein the serpent attacks the bride, and the husband must attempt to protect her. In each case it is the intention of the serpent to use the bride to raise up his own seed. In each case deception is used against the serpent, and God acts to protect the bride.
The use of deception against the serpent is simply an application of the lex talionis: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a deception for a deception. Jesus enjoins us to be ”as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves” and this is because we have been sent out ”as sheep among wolves” (Matt. 10:16). In other words, our practice of deception, where necessary, must be in order to further good and peace, and never be a means of destroying our neighbor, in violation of the ninth commandment.
It is preeminently women or subordinates who practice deception in Scripture. That is, those in a vulnerable position, who do not have power to engage in direct confrontation, are advised to use deception and lies to evade the dragon. Thus, in addition to the examples we shall shortly examine in Genesis, we have the lies told by the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1, and the deception practiced by Moses I mother in Exodus 2. We have the lie told by Rahab in Joshua 2, and the deception by Jael in Judges 4 and 5. Faced with the tyrant, the woman is not in a position to fight, but she can lie and deceive. It is the Satanic, humanistic tyrant in whose face these women told their brazen lies, and God blessed them each time for it (see the blessings in Gen. 12:16-17; 20:7, 14ff.; 26:12ff.; Ex. 1:20; James 2:25; Matt. 1:5; Jud. 5:24).
Another instance of avoiding a tyrant by means of deception is provided by I Samuel 16:2, where we see that when Samuel feared the power of Saul, God Himself provided him with a deceptive strategy. We can also note that David, when living among the Philistines, deceived them by feigning madness (1 Sam. 12:13-15; Psalm 34).
In Genesis 12: 10-20 we have the story of Abram and Sarai’ s deception of Pharaoh. As a result of a severe famine, Abram had moved to Egypt. He realized that Sarai’s beauty would attract the unconverted Egyptians, and they might kill him and steal her. Abram knew that if he were killed, Sarai’s protection would be gone. Abram deceived Pharaoh by telling the Egyptians nothing more than that Sarai was his sister, and not that she also was his wife. Abram counted on the common law fratriarchy of the ancient near east to protect Sarai, because any man desiring her would have to negotiate with her brother, and thus Abram would be able to forestall any marriage. The draconic Pharaoh, however, thinking himself a god, took Sarai without permission. As a result, God sent plagues against him. When Pharaoh found out what had happened, he assumed the role of satanic accuser, and tried to pin the blame on Abram. Meanwhile, Abram had been prospered by God in his deception, and emerged from Egypt with much spoil.
As we saw in chapter five, the same thing happened again later on in Genesis 20. Again deception was Abraham I s way of trying to avoid the tyrant. Abraham was not condemned by God for this; rather, it was Abimelech whose house was plagued. True, in neither of these stories was Abraham successful in avoiding the tyrant, but that was because God had other purposes in mind. God wanted Abram to come in contact with Pharaoh in order to strike fear into Pharaoh, and to gain Abram much spoil. He wanted Abraham to come in contact with Abimelech in order to convert him to the faith. All the same, the strategy of avoiding tyrants and deceiving them where necessary is not condemned, and Abraham I s use of this strategy is an example for us….
Throughout history God’s people have lived under tyrannies. Since we are forbidden to seize the robe of authority and must wait for it to be bestowed, we are not permitted to engage in violent revolutionary action. Rather, we are enjoined to be patient, and work to change society by the preaching of the gospel.
A strategy of avoiding conflict and confrontation with the “powers that be” is what the Bible always requires, except where the heart of the gospel is involved. The unconverted man, the tyrant, is primarily interested, after all, in power. That means the maintenance of force (through a drafted army) and the seizure of money (through taxation). If we think these are the most important things, then we will make them the point of resistance, becoming “tax patriots” or some such thing. To think this way is to think like pagans. For the Christian, the primary things are righteousness and diligent work. Generally speaking, the unconverted do not care how righteous we are or how hard we work, provided they get their tax money. This is why the Bible everywhere teaches to go along with taxation, even when it is oppressive, and nowhere hints at the propriety of open tax resistance. The Christian has better things to spend time on, such as erecting altars and digging wells. (Sometimes, of course, confrontation with the state cannot be avoided, such as when the civil authorities attack the church.)
Moreover, there are limits to the practice of deception. A case in point is found in the book of Esther. Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, sought power with the king by telling Esther to conceal her faith (Esth. 2:10, 20). This was a great evil, and God later forced Mordecai’s hand over it, so that Esther was compelled to reveal her commitments. We also note that Mordecai was a proud and vain man who refused to show deference to proper authorities (Esth. 3:2; contrast Gen. 23:12; 33:3; 37:9-10). In this case, God protected the bride by converting (in some sense) her royal husband. That God worked good out of Mordecai’s pharisaical schemes in no wise exonerates him, however, and this is clear in that he was forced to reverse his course. We see from this that deception of the tyrant must never involve denying the faith.”
—
Notes on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2-3:
- Genesis 1:29 indicates the prohibition on the tree must have only been temporary. “You SHALL have EVERY tree for food.”
- The Tree of Life is milk for babies, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is solid food, for the mature (cf. Hebrews 5:14).
- The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” is elsewhere associated with kingly rule, glory, and maturity. See 1 Kings 3:7-9 (cf. how Solomon exercises mature wisdom in the next chapter), 2 Samuel 14:17, Deuteronomy 1:39 (knowing good and evil is not basic morality but mature discernment and judgment), etc.
- The Tree of Life is priestly, the Tree of Knowledge is kingly. In life, we adveance from a priestly phase, under law, to a kingly phase, under wisdom.
- Adam and Eve were created with basic morality but needed to grow and mature into kingly wisdom. By resisting the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, they would mature to a point where they ready for it.
- The prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge amounted to a temporary fast, a prelude to a greater feast.
- Eating the Tree of Knowledge would make them “as gods” – exercising God-like judgments, eg, judging angels, thinking God’s thoughts after him, etc. (cf. Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82). There was a built-in eschatology from the time of creation.
- There are many analogies with later Scripture. For example, Abraham had two trees in his garden, Sara and Hagar, and one was forbidden, Jacob and Joseph lived by patient faith, etc.
- Both trees find their fulfillment in the priestly bread and kingly wine of the Lord’s Supper. In the old covenant, priests ate bread but had to pour out the drink offerings. The church has now entered into her state of maturity so the whole body is to partake of both elements (Galatians 3-4).
- Did Adam and Eve die on the day they are of the Tree of Knowledge as God had threatened? He died spiritually, and the process of physical death began. If he had not fallen, he would have eaten and died, but it would have been a “good” death, like the “death” that gave him his bride in Genesis 2.
—
Some want to use Machiavellian means to Aristotelian (or Christian) ends. But Machiavellian means are more likely to lead to Machiavellian ends.
—
A note on parenting and discipline:
Discipline with young kids needs to be immediate – no warnings, no threats. Just do it.
If a command is not obeyed right away, then go straight to discipline.
One diagnostic question I tell parents to use to see how they are doing is to give a simple command and see what happens. How confident are you on a scale of 1-10 that your child will obey cheerfully and completely right away? If it’s not a 9 or 10, then there’s work to do on consistency – but consistent obedience comes from consistent discipline.
It’s really a matter of respecting your own authority as a parent and exercising the power you’ve been given. You do not do your child any favors by letting him get away with disobedience or disrespect.
If parents don’t respect their own authority enough to use it, children won’t respect it enough to obey it.
Discipline should always be a function of love. If a parent disciplines at the first manifestation of disobedience, the parent is far less likely to discipline in anger.
—
Radicalism is the result of conservatism failing to conserve anything meaningful. That doesn’t make radicalism right, or the answer – but it is an understandable and inevitable response to the spinelessness of previous generations of conservatives.
—
“Due to birth rates, if conservative parents successfully transfer their values to their kids, we would dominate the vast majority of elections in 20 years.
Thats it. Thats all it takes.”
— Nick Freitas
—
The new Babylon Bee sketch on Hitler is a good one:
You were lied to about Hitler. Just not in the ways you think. A. N. Wilson gives a summary:
“Yet in other ways, Hitler’s commonplace beliefs have been less easy to shake off. He was convinced that the twentieth century was somehow different from all previous centuries, that the human race had come of age, that, having thrown off the shackles of religion, humanity was now different. ‘The man of today, who is formed by the disciplines of science, has ceased taking the teaching of religion very seriously’… ‘Christianity is the worst of regressions that mankind can ever have undergone … Since the age of fourteen I have felt liberated from the superstition that the priests used to teach…’
It was clear from Table Talk that, just as he believed he had achieved a bloodless revolution in Germany, so, in some strange way, National Socialism was the natural consequence of the Enlightenment. He believed in a crude Darwinism as do nearly all scientists today, and as do almost all ‘sensible’ sociologists, political commentators and journalistic wise-acres. He thought that humanity in its history was to be explained by the idea of struggle, by the survival of the fittest, by the stronger species overcoming the weaker. Unlike the Darwinians of today, Hitler merely took this belief to its logical conclusion.
Hitler’s crude belief in science fed his unhesitating belief in modernity. He abolished the old black-letter Gothic typeface in which Germans had been producing books since they invented printing, and replaced it with a typeface in conformity with the rest of the Western world. He liked the idea of every family possessing a car. He built a system of motorways all over Germany. The mechanized age was one which he assumed to be good. In this respect, Hitler was like almost Darwinians of today, Hitler merely took this beliet to its logical conclusion.
When Tony Blair became Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, he called for every child in every British primary school to be given a laptop computer. He was echoing, almost exactly, Hitler’s view – ‘I find it a real absurdity that even today a typewriter costs several hundred marks. One can’t imagine the time wasted daily in deciphering everybody’s scribbles. Why not give lessons in typewriting at primary school? Instead of religious instruction, for example.’
Hitler’s zest for the modern, his belief that humanity would become more reasonable when it had cast off the shackles of the past – olde-tyme handwriting, religion, and so forth – and embraced science and modern roads, was a belief shared with almost all forward-thinking people at the time, and it continues to be the underlying belief-system of the liberal intelligentsia who control the West. His belief led directly to genocide and devastating war. At the same time, he believed himself to be enlightened and forward-looking, non-smoking, vegetarian, opposed to hunting, in favour of abortion and euthanasia.
Have we asked ourselves the right questions about Hitler’s ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ beliefs? By eliminating some of his more grotesque prejudices from our moral vocabulary, have we really cast off his legacy? Do not the politicians in today’s Western world, when they wish to impose their values on some other nation or group of peoples, still feel themselves entitled to employ war as the ultimate weapon? Far from having cast off Hitler’s legacy, many of the world’s politicians, and especially those who consider themselves most enlightened, are in fact his heirs. For that reason, we will perhaps always be compelled to think about his life – and the chilling fact that in all his world-outlook and his views, Hitler was an embodiment, albeit an exaggerated embodiment, of the beliefs of the average modern person.”
ADDENDUM: I’m convinced these younger guys don’t know any history, and just assume the truth is the opposite of what they were taught.
The PWC really has to be separated out from WW2, even if we conclude WW2 was an “unnecessary war.”
Literally no one who fought in WW2 was fighting for what we see in 2026.
A lot of elements of the PWC in the West pre-date WW2 (especially in the North), and many others were not mainstreamed until the 1990s, a long time after WW2.
To draw a straight line from WW2 to the problems of 2026 is to way oversimplify history.
There’s hardly even a straight line from the 1980s to 2026, much less the 1940s to 2026.
It’s just as bad as Jay Dyer drawing a straight line from Luther’s supposed nominalism to modern transgenderism.
Just dumb.
But I definitely think it’s worth pointing out that re-valorizing Hitler, especially as a “Christian Prince,” is not going to lead to anything good.
That’s a pill no one should swallow.
Hitler was a self-described heathen, a Darwinian, Nietzschean statist, with weird views on race – and, yes, a vegan, and a narcissistic headcase.
He preferred Islam to Christianity and wished Charles Martel had been defeated at Tours.
He’s not the answer.
This where I think the Theopolitan post-liberal approach is useful – the solution to what ails us is not in the past, it’s in the future, a Christian future God has not yet opened up to us – though I trust he will.
ADDENDUM: The issue is not that Hitler “liked technology.” The issue is his modernist mindset, along with his trust in science and the state. Wilson’s point is that your typical leftwing progressive today has a lot in more common with Hitler’s worldview than he’d alike to admit.
—
I’ve quoted from the Churchill article on Bolshevism and Zionism before; this is a good summary:
“Winston Churchill, Zionism versus Bolshevism, 1920. A struggle for the soul of the Jewish People.
In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote a newspaper article so direct, so honest, and so politically explosive that no politician alive today could publish it without being destroyed within the hour. It appeared in a Sunday newspaper. It named names. It called out ideologies. It identified factions. It used language that would end careers in 2026 before the ink dried. And it has been sitting in a free public archive online for years while most people have never heard of it.
The article is called Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People. Churchill was not yet Prime Minister when he wrote it. He was 45 years old, a senior cabinet minister, and one of the most consequential political minds in the British Empire. He wrote it because he believed a battle was taking place inside Jewish civilization itself that would determine the fate of the Western world. And he was not subtle about it.
Before you read any further, understand something about the historical context that changes how you process everything in this article. In 2026 the idea that Jewish people were disproportionately represented in Bolshevik leadership is treated in mainstream discourse as a conspiracy theory, the kind of thing that gets accounts banned and careers ended. In 1920 it was not a conspiracy theory. It was common political knowledge discussed openly by senior British politicians in mainstream Sunday newspapers. Churchill was not writing something radical or fringe. He was writing something that every informed person in the British political class already knew and discussed openly. The composition of the Bolshevik leadership was public record. Trotsky was Jewish. Zinoviev was Jewish. Kamenev was Jewish. The disproportionate Jewish representation in the Cheka and Soviet institutions was documented in contemporaneous reports from journalists, diplomats, and intelligence services of multiple countries. Churchill was not revealing a secret. He was writing about common knowledge in the same tone that a modern journalist would write about the demographic composition of Wall Street or Silicon Valley. The fact that this common knowledge of 1920 has been reclassified as conspiracy theory by 2026 is itself one of the most significant and least discussed transformations in the history of Western public discourse. It did not happen because the underlying facts changed. The facts are the same. What changed was what you are allowed to say about them.
Churchill starts with something that would make any modern editor sweat. He calls Jewish people beyond all question the most formidable and most remarkable race that has ever appeared in the world. He means it as an observation about extraordinary collective capacity, not a slur. His entire argument is built on this premise. Extraordinary capacity cuts both ways. The same people who produced something as transformative as Christianity can also produce something as destructive as Bolshevism. That is his framework and he never lets go of it.
Then he drops the line that has kept this article alive and controversial for over a hundred years. He writes that it would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people. He is saying that the force that built Western civilization and the force now threatening to destroy it both came from the same source. Christianity gave the West its moral architecture. International communism, in his view, is that architecture’s deliberate demolition. Both originated in Jewish thought and Jewish leadership. One was the best thing that ever happened to humanity. The other, if not stopped, would shatter everything the first one built.
He then does something that most people who quote this article choose to ignore. He makes a passionate argument against collective blame. He says there is no greater mistake than to hold individuals responsible for the characteristics of their group, that nothing is more wrong than to judge a person based on their race or origin, and that every person deserves to be assessed on their personal conduct and merit. He is doing this because he is about to say things about Jewish representation in the Bolshevik leadership that he knows will be weaponized against individual Jewish people who have nothing to do with it. He is trying to build a firewall before he walks through the door.
He divides Jewish people into three groups and explains each one.
The first group he calls National Jews. These are Jewish people who have settled in a country, become citizens, fought in its armies, supported its institutions, and practiced their faith privately. He is enthusiastically in favor of this group. He says Jewish soldiers fought with distinction for the Allies throughout the First World War. He says Jewish communities across Europe and America supported the fight against Germany. These people in Churchill’s view are exactly what a good citizen looks like and their religion is nobody’s business but their own.
The second group he calls International Jews and this is where it gets uncomfortable. He argues that a specific faction of Jewish people, mostly from countries where Jews had been violently persecuted for generations, had abandoned their faith, abandoned any sense of national identity, and had become the primary intellectual and organizational engine of the Bolshevik revolutionary movement. He traces the ideology from an 18th century figure named Weishaupt through Karl Marx to the leadership of the Russian Revolution.
Then he starts listing names with their roles in the Soviet state. Trotsky commanding the Red Army. Zinoviev running the Communist International. Litvinoff running foreign policy. Krassin. Radek. He says the predominance of Jews in the Soviet institutions is astonishing and that the principal role in the system of terror run by the Cheka, the secret police that at this moment was operating concentration camps and mass executions, had been taken by Jewish figures.
He adds that non-Jewish people are equally capable of this kind of violence and equally involved in it. But the Jewish representation in the leadership is disproportionate relative to their numbers and the fact that it is disproportionate matters because it is being used to paint all Jewish people with a brush that belongs to a tiny fraction of them. The ordinary Jewish population of Russia, he notes, is itself suffering under the revolutionary regime alongside everyone else.
The third group he calls Zionists and this is the group Churchill wants to win.
His case for Zionism is not religious. He is not making detailed arguments about ancient claims to land. He is making a strategic and ideological argument. He says Zionism gives Jewish people a national identity, a national home, and a national purpose. It channels the enormous collective energy of Jewish civilization into building something. A state. A culture. A homeland. And that is the direct competitor to what Bolshevism is offering, which is the complete abandonment of national identity in favor of rootless international revolution aimed at destroying everything that exists.
He then makes what is probably the smartest observation in the whole article. He says Trotsky hated Zionism with unusual fury and that the fury was completely rational. Trotsky understood exactly what a Jewish national home would do. You cannot be a revolutionary dedicated to destroying all nations if you have a nation of your own that you love and want to build. National identity and revolutionary internationalism are incompatible. Trotsky knew that every Jewish person who chose Zionism was one less revolutionary for his movement. Churchill understood that Trotsky understood this. And from that Churchill concluded that the real battle was not between Jews and non-Jews or between Russia and the West. The real battle was inside Jewish civilization itself, between the Zionist path and the Bolshevik path, and he called it a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
He closes with a call to National Jews across the world to publicly reject Bolshevism, make clear it does not represent Jewish values, and actively support both their adopted nations and the Zionist project. He argues this will demonstrate to the world that Bolshevism is not a Jewish movement but is in fact opposed by the vast majority of Jewish people.
Now here is why the article has been controversial for over a hundred years and why the controversy runs in three completely different directions.
Antisemites have been selectively quoting it since the day it was published. They pull out the phrases about Jewish predominance in the Bolshevik leadership and quote those passages stripped of everything else Churchill wrote. They leave out the explicit defense of individual Jewish people. They leave out the condemnation of collective blame. They leave out the entire argument about Zionism as a positive alternative. This misrepresentation has been happening for a hundred years and it continues today.
Critics from a Jewish perspective find the gospel of Antichrist framing genuinely offensive regardless of Churchill’s intention. Telling a people that they are the source of both the world’s salvation and its potential destruction, even as an observation rather than a condemnation, treats that people as uniquely other in a way that history has shown repeatedly leads somewhere very dark.
Historians find the article remarkable for a completely different reason. Churchill is saying plainly, in 1920, in a mainstream British newspaper, things about the composition of the Bolshevik leadership that are confirmed by the historical record and that serious scholars have documented in detail, but that mainstream political culture has treated as too dangerous to discuss directly ever since. The disproportionate Jewish representation in the early Bolshevik leadership is not an antisemitic invention. It is documented history. The reason it happened, given what Jewish people had endured under the Tsarist system for centuries, is entirely explicable without attributing it to anything more mysterious than cause and effect. But the fact that it is documentable and explicable has not made it discussable in polite public discourse, which is why a 1920 newspaper article by a man who had not yet been Prime Minister is still circulating a hundred years later.
What Churchill was trying to do, taking the whole article seriously and taking his own disclaimers at face value, was build a distinction that the 20th century refused to honor. He wanted people to be able to say: this pattern exists, here is why it exists, it does not make individual Jewish people responsible for it, and here is the political movement that offers an alternative. The century that followed made that kind of nuance almost impossible because the language got picked up and stripped of its context so many times that the nuance itself became politically toxic.
The transformation of 1920 common political knowledge into 2026 conspiracy theory did not happen through open debate. No one held a public discussion and decided by democratic consensus that these facts were now off limits. It happened gradually, through the accumulation of institutional decisions about what could be published, what could be taught, what could be said in a newspaper, and what would end a career. The facts did not change. The permission to discuss them did.”
—
“I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason
to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of
the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have
forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God, who is alone able to protect them.”
— George Washington, in a letter to John Armstrong, March 11, 1782
—
—
“We need to find a way to calibrate our messaging to young people. In truth, a lot of them are dealing with a variety of problems that were not their fault and which afflicted previous generations to a far less degree: growing up in single parent homes, high housing prices, a two-tier society, convergence in cost-adjusted economic opportunity across regions, etc.
We need to lead by acknowledging the ways that things are difficult for young people, and maybe even how they got screwed.
But even when you are getting screwed, you still have to live your life. You still have some agency. You can act in at least some way, even if it is just, as Jordan Peterson used to famously say back in the day, literally cleaning your room. As a man, you can’t give up. You have to keep trying, trying, pushing, pushing despite the odds.
Maybe we need to be telling more stories about how people who were screwed managed to build a life anyway, along with practical tips to help others do the same.”
— Aaron Renn
—
“We know that men were created for the express purpose of being employed in labor of various kinds, and that no sacrifice is more pleasing to God than when every man applies diligently to his own calling, and endeavors to contribute to the general advantage.”
— John Calvin, on vocation
—
“Stamped with God’s image, Adam and Eve were to continue God’s creative work in the world. They were to take the raw materials God left behind and continue shaping, molding, and improving His creation. As Michael Wittmer, a professor at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, notes, “God’s world was flawless, but it wasn’t finished.”
He didn’t create computers, but they were here waiting for His image bearers — working together and combining their diverse skills and talents — to put the pieces together. He didn’t create phonograph records, 8-tracks, audiocassettes, CDs, or iPods, but the raw materials existed from the beginning, waiting for man to make one discovery, then another, each generation building and improving on the work that had come before. God didn’t create television, telephones, or microwave ovens, but the elements were all here, awaiting the creative prowess of His image bearers — engineers, scientists, and industrial designers, working in concert with one another — to call them into existence.
Man invents, produces, and improves products, writer Nathan Bierma says, “because we’re following our mission. … We do this out of instinct, obeying God’s command to fill the Earth and subdue it….
Consider the things that make your life richer, more comfortable, more convenient, and more productive. Think about all the things that make you safer, healthier, and wiser. They are all products of business innovation. There is no more creative force in the world than business, and God has placed most of His people there, not to pursue money or power, nor to satisfy their selfish ambition — but to create, rule, fill, and subdue the Earth. Christians go to work each day to transform God’s world, to make it better than it was the day before. And they do it in obedience to God’s first command — as an act of worship, and for the sake of His glory…
Business is the means by which we rule and subdue the Earth. It is an instrument through which we love our neighbors. And it is, in an ultimate sense, the only solution to poverty.
At the most fundamental level, business provides wealth to share. Psalms 37:25says, “I have been young, and now I am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or his descendants begging bread. All day long he is gracious and lends; and his descendants are a blessing.” When God’s people prosper, they’re generous and take care of the poor. There’s a related idea in Ephesians 4:28: “Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.” Paul seeks more than a transformed heart (let him steal no longer); he understands that for-profit work in the secular world is how we care for those in need.
But there’s far more to business, as an institution, than that. In his book, Business as a Calling, Catholic theologian Michael Novak argues that “capitalism makes it possible for the vast majority of the poor to break out of the prison of poverty — to find opportunity — to discover full scope for their own personal economic initiative; and to rise into the middle class and higher.” Those who live in democratic, capitalistic societies, Novak says, “walk the walk of the free — erect and purposeful and quick.
The Scriptures remind us often of God’s concern for the poor. They command us to respect them, to have compassion for them, and to seek justice on their behalf. And that is surely one reason God has called His people to business, the only institution that can have a permanent effect on their poverty.
Some might argue that it is technology and science — and not business — that have improved life for the poor and made living conditions more bearable. But, Novak rhetorically asks, “Whence came the drive to advance technology — and not only through gaining knowledge about it, but by bringing it to markets that carry it to billions of individuals — if not from an enterprising, dynamic market system?” He pushes the rhetorical argument further, asking, “How many pharmaceuticals do you have in your home that were developed in communist countries or for that matter, in Third World countries?”
The former Soviet Union, Novak points out, trained more scientist and technical experts than any country in the history of the world. Yet they accomplished little for the greater good of mankind. Why? They had no moral or economic incentive. And even if one had existed, there was no market system — no vehicle — for moving knowledge out of the lab and into people’s lives.
Management guru Peter Drucker once said, “The greatest need in underdeveloped countries is people who build … an effective organization of skilled and trained people exercising judgment and making responsible decisions.” The poor, Drucker was saying, need business if they’re to have a chance of changing their circumstances.
As we think about “kingdom work” and jobs that have value, it’s helpful to remember that only business — not the Church, not government, not ministry, nor non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—creates new wealth. And wealth is the only cure for poverty. We must, therefore, encourage believers to go into business, to create new products and wider distribution (in obedience to the cultural commission) in order to create new wealth (good stewardship), which creates more jobs (loving our neighbor, caring for the poor). Adam Smith, the 18th century economist and philosopher, once said that new wealth is the road to “universal opulence,” which he defined as “the condition in which the real wages of workers keep growing over time, until the poor live at a level that in 1776 even kings and dukes did not enjoy.”
A realistic hope for a better (economic) future, Michael Novak says, “is essential to the poor … .” And that is why God’s people must build profitable businesses…
God’s people can, as agents of His redemptive plan, transform business, stripping it of selfish ambition and pursuing instead what’s best for their neighbors. Through business, God’s people can harness mankind’s creativity, and with it nurture His creation, developing products that make the world more satisfying. Through the economic power of commerce, Christians can make the world safer and healthier. The members of Christ’s Church, distributed in offices around the world, can transform greed into good stewardship, showing the world that business has a biblical responsibility to create new wealth and provide a fair return to investors (Matthew 25:14-28). But, with an eye toward the consummation of Christ’s kingdom, we also create wealth in order to create new and satisfying jobs, which offer the hope (and perhaps a glimpse) of a coming world where there is no poverty.
God has placed His people in business so that they can — in humility, and making full use of the talents and resources He’s given — serve customers, employees, suppliers, and the world at large, looking out for the interests of others and providing for their needs.
On their deathbeds, many Christians will regret that they didn’t love their neighbors, care for the poor, or advance Christ’s kingdom as they should have. They might therefore, with their final breath, gasp: “I wish I’d spent more time at the office.”
— Richard Doster
—
“We receive Jesus in the act of eating and drinking. This is called Dynamic Receptionism, true reception by the power of the Spirit. And, unlike Bullinger, Calvin’s view was not Parallelism, that we receive Christ along with bread and wine, but Instrumentalism, that we receive Christ by means of bread and wine.”
— James Jordan, on sacramental efficacy
—
Some libertarians want to “get the state out of marriage.” But privatizing marriage would declare publicly that we are isolated individuals, that families are fictional rather than natural realities, and that there is no divine design towards which our lives should be ordered.
—
We live in chaotic, tumultuous times. I don’t think anyone paying attention can deny that. It’s like the proverbial Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times!” These are interesting times indeed. We live in clown world. It seems like the world if falling apart and going insane. It is easy to be anxious — and anxiety is not just an individual problem, but a communal one. Anxiety can become a social contagion that spreads through an entire body of people. We can pass anxiety from one person to another just like the flu.
As Christians who trust in the Lord Jesus, we never have any reason to be anxious or fearful. This is what you need to know as a child of God: You have absolutely no reason to worry or fret. This is true if you are looking at the world around you or the details of your own life. You should never be anxious; you have no reason to be anxious. We should banish anxiety from our lives altogether. The world is always a perfectly safe place for the Christian because no trial can befall you outside of God’s sovereign plan to do you good. God will not give you a smidgen of suffering that is not for your good, to mature you and train you in righteousness.
You can live a peace-filled, anxiety-free life. You can live fearlessly. Let your worries drive you to worship and prayer. Let your fears lead you to the heavenly throne room. God’s Word calls upon us to turn anxiety into prayer and when we do so, anxiety is transformed into peace. This peace can spread amongst people as well. Gathering with God’s people relieves us of anxiety because it is a weekly corporate reminder that Jesus is on the throne and all is right with the world. We share peace and joy with one another as we pray and sing. The nations may rage, but Jesus reigns. God laughs at those who attempt to dethrone Jesus and we can laugh as well.
—
Darwinism/evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of humanity. That papacy is the second biggest hoax in history, but since many popes have fallen for the hoax of Darwinism (and Darwin didn’t fall for the hoax of the papacy), it has to be considered bigger. The climate change scam is now in the running for the third largest hoax ever pulled on the human race. COVID is up there as well.
—
In Shrier’s Bad Therapy book, she dismantles Bessel van Der Kolk’s popular book, The Body Keeps the Score. While I basically think Shrier is correct, I do think van der Kolk has some insights worth preserving. But I would want to reframe Van der Kolk’s view.
For example, I do think sexual sin is against the body and can “traumatize” the body in ways we carry with us; Paul identifies sexual sin as having a unique impact on the body I 1 Corinthians 6. Of course, that is doubly true for those who are sinned against sexually, eg, sexual abuse. We are not not gnostics or dualists; what happes to the body can be imprinted on the soul.
But I am skeptical of a lot of what Van der Kolk says.
Shrier blows the lid off all the “body memories” stuff and points how easy it is to manipulate memory (our own or someone else’s, especially a child).
Van der Kolk feeds the view that everyone is victim, trauma excuses and explains all of life’s problems, etc. Shrier’s book is a healthy corrective, I think — a call to make resilience normal again, to take responsibility for yourself instead of blame others (especially parents), etc. She acknowledges trauma is real, but trauma inflation is real too.
Why are people today so lacking in resilience? Shrier traces it back to bad parenting, based on bad therapy. I think that’s a big part of it, but we can go even deeper in assessing the problem. It’s not just bad parenting, it’s the lack of parenting altogether, especially due to family breakdown. The emotional reserves that enable people to be resilient usually arise from a stable family background and so many grow up without that today – that is the one form of really widespread trauma in our culture. Resilience used to be normal because growing up in a stable family was normal. People who do not grow up in healthy family cultures are inevitably going to be fragile and therefore easily traumatized.
While family breakdown is the primary form of trauma people experience today, it’s the one form of trauma many will not acknowledge. Rob Henderson’s book Troubled explores this. Henderson’s book is full of insights, especially in the last couple chapters when he moves from his childhood memoir to the lessons he has learned, especially what he terms “luxury beliefs” (the is, beliefs the elite adopt to viture signal their moral superiority, which cost them very little but which are very harmful to those lower on the social ladder). Henderson points out that while many think education will solve the problems young people face, education is no substitute for a stable home life.
What exactly counts as “trauma”? It can be hard to define, but one thing is certain: Most of what people call “trauma” today is just ordinary life. We are are the most prosperous and comfortable people who have ever lived but we’re being told (and children are especially being told) that we all have insurmountable trauma irrevocably imprinted upon us, which explains (and excuses) our widespread procrastination, promiscuity, anxiety, attention deficits, etc. It’s really ridiculous at this point
—
“Pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
— Hebrews 12:14
Break this down into a summation of the Christian life:
We must strive. That is, we must make every effort. The Christian life does not pit works against grace; rather, true good works flow out of grace. God’s grace does not cancel out our efforts, but enables our efforts. The Christian life is a strenuous life. The Christian life is hard by design. The Christian life requires an active and vigorous and energetic pursuit.
The goal of our striving is holiness. We might think of holiness as a moral category, but it is fundamentally a liturgical category with moral implications. To be holy is to have access to holy space, to the sanctuary, to the presence of God. To pursue this holiness means, basically, live as those who are worthy of entering God’s presence (cf. Psalm 15, 24, etc.). Walk worthy of the access you’ve been granted to the heavenly Most Holy Place. What kind of person belongs in God’s presence? Be that kind of person. Be holy as God is holy.
Only those who pursue holiness in this way will see the Lord. In other words, good works are not an optional extra tacked onto the Christian life. Hebrews 12:14 is a good prooftext for the necessity of obedience to salvation. We are not saved by our works (as if they could be meritorious) but we will not be saved without them. The beatific vision — our ultimate escchatological hope of knowing God face to face — is reserved for those who work at obeying God in the here and now. If you want to see God’s face in eternity, you must seek God’s face right now, you must seek to obey God right now, you seek to be holy as God is holy right now. The fullness of communion with God is only granted to those who seek to live in communion with him now.
—
A while back, went on the Crosspolitic podcast to talk about my book, Measures of the Mission. There were a couple parts of the conversation I wanted to say a little bit more about. I mentioned that many Christians today operate with a two chapter version of the Biblical story (fall in Adam, redemption in Christ) rather than a four chapter version of the story (creation, with God’s original design and program for the human race; fall in Adam; redemption in Christ; consummation in the resurrection and new creation). I want to unpack the implications of the two chapter version of the biblical story a little more.
Why do some Christians have a problem with alcohol? Why do some Christians think you have to be a pastor or missionary to really serve God? It’s because they start with the fall rather than creation. If we start with creation, we can see that alcohol and work (aka dominion) are good in themselves; however much sin may have twisted them, they are fundamentally good. If we start with the fall, we will only see alcohol as a danger, never as a gift for our enjoyment. We will think the only kind of work that matters must be work that has a redemptive focus because redemption is all that matters. Starting with creation gives us a much bigger vision for what the Christian life can and should be. It gives us a much bigger worldview.
Another example: Why do some Christians think that power, especially political power, is always tainted and so Christians should avoid it? A worldview that starts with the fall rather than God’s creational design has greatly weakened the church by cutting us off from God’s creational purposes and design.
One more note on the Crosspolitic conversation. When they asked me what I would do if I were President, I largely deflected. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. I certainly do think cultural change comes from the top down as much as from the bottom up. (Typically, the most explosive movements in history, e.g., the Reformation, have a bottom up and top down component. Without the help of high ranking magistrates like Frederick the Protector, Luther would not have survived and the Reformation would have been stillborn. But the Reformation would have also flamed out quickly if not for populist help, provided largely by the printing press and enterprising publishers who got Luther’s works into the hands of the masses. The Reformation connected highly educated elites like Calvin with powerful and sympathetic political rulers who spearheaded change, but it also spread largely through the energetic reception it got among the masses.) My point is that we should be careful not to think that top down solutions are exclusively or even primarily political. When I say (along with the likes of Doug Wilson), “There is no political solution,” I am doing two things. First, I am pointing out that our political maladies are symptoms of even deeper spiritual problems. Not even our political problems have an entirely political solution. And thus I am also pointing out that even if we managed to get a “Christian prince” into office (ala Wolfe), as of right now, the American people would reject him and his agenda. He’d gave to bear with a great deal because the people would only cooperate so much. Of course, this takes us back to this chicken and egg problem. How can we get a Christian prince elected unless we first change the hearts of the electorate? And is it possible to change the hearts of the masses unless powerful, connected, and influential leaders start speaking truth to them? Again, we need both — elites who are willing to lay their elitism on the line for Jesus and plebs who are willing to embrace the truth widely and deeply.
To put it another way, good statesmen do not grow on trees. A political solution requires politicians who are going to do the solving. Where will these men come from? Such men are the product of a culture, of training, of discipleship. We aren’t producing such men right now, and that is a spiritual problem. We are also not producing an electorate who will vote for them. American voters have passed over many godly candidates and chosen ungodly men when wiser, holier men were available. This too is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution. Politics alone cannot fix this.
That being said, when I say “there is no political solution,” I am NOT saying we should ignore politics in order to focus on evangelism. Wolfe has rightly criticized those who substitute piety for political action. We should be politically active. But we should be realistic about the fact that even a small dedicated hardcore body of Christians would have a hard time steering the Titanic that is current American culture apart from some kind of widespread revival and reformation. Further, it’s hard for me to believe that Jesus will give us a faithful and wise magistrate until the American church shapes up.
—
Fake history is even worse than fake news.
—
Everyone was designed to live a bounded existence. We all have certain responsibilities and obligations assigned to us. We were never meant to live with unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled freedom. We were made to live lives of ordered liberty under God‘s law. The way of pure autonomy turns out to be incredibly destructive, no matter how alluring. Every man who is in authority should also be under authority. A man is the head of his household, yes, but he’s accountable to other authorities around and above him. Pastors and elders have real authority in the context of a local church, but they are to be accountable to the wider church, particularly through presbyteries. Civil magistrates have real authority, but the governors are always accountable to the governed, and there are legitimate ways to push back on tyranny. Of course, we are all accountable to God, our Creator and Judge.
The damage that unfettered, disordered liberty can do is perhaps best seen in the sexual realm. The sexual revolution promised liberation and instead brought bondage. Sexual liberation is actually sexual suicide. Our sexual lives need to be ordered and bounded and accountable. Sexual perversion destroys lives; the pleasures it brings are momentary but the pain lasting.
God assigned men and women particular roles precisely so that men do not have to invent manhood and women do not have to invent womanhood. The burden of creating your own existence is unbearable. The weight of having to create your own identity and essence from scratch is intolerable. It leads to a purposeless, aimless, anxious life. Having to create your own meaning and morality ex nihlo is too much for any creature to bear. We need the roles that God has assigned us the same way fish need water. So far from bringing liberation, the idea that “you can be anything you want to be” (as we sometimes tell little kids) is actually crippling and paralyzing. You can be a range of things within what God designed you to be. You can be many things within parameters assigned by God in Scripture and nature. You have plenty of freedom within what God‘s law permits. But you can’t be anything you want. That’s the worst possible thing we can tell someone.
Maybe this is what that depraved sage Mark Twain meant when he said, “The worst possible advice you can give someone is ‘Be yourself.’” You should not be who you want yourself to be. You should be who God has designed you to be, who he has called you to be, who he has commanded you to be. It is incredibly arrogant to think we know ourselves better than God. The way of wisdom is humility before God. God knows the best way for you to live. God’s ways are always best.
—
“Many in my generation come from a world without any kind of love like this. We have barely seen our parents in the same room together, let alone care for or compliment or credit each other. We grew up not with the promises of freedom and liberalism but only with its consequences: a world where spouses are often seen as burdens and where men and women are taught to hold each other at arm’s length. Ours is a world so filled with the sons and daughters of divorce that many of us cope by pretending not to care. We have seen the dangers of having feelings, so we try not to have any. We deal with our parents’ shattered hearts by hardening our own…We’ve been so persuaded that our pain comes from the constraints other people put on us that we want to be free of everything: conventions, commitments, traditions, even one another.”
— Freya India
—
Auron McIntyre and his guest make several good points in this podcast. You cannot separate ideology from the people who hold to it. It is not enough to ban Sharia; we must ban Muslim immigration. Blank slate ideology has driven disastrous immigration policies in the West.
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bu3Y9UwqB0M?is=eT_h81OYEP17kDqq
God’s laws, revealed in his Word, are an expression of his love for us. God’s laws are for our good. God’s laws do not kill pleasure; rather, the deepest possible joy is found in keeping them. God’s laws reveal the wisest and best way for us to live.
—
The “original sin” was, from one perspective, effeminacy. Adam failed to fight the serpent on behalf of his bride and (if necessary) lay his life down for her.
ADDENDUM: Adam had been given the command to “guard” the garden in Genesis 2:15, so he had to know an intruder of some sort would eventually show up.
Adam was with her when the serpent deceived her according to 3:6. As soon as the serpent contradicted God’s Word, Adam should have crushed the serpent’s head.
Instead of guarding the garden and leading his wife, he allowed his wife to follow the serpent and he followed her. She was deceived by the serpent and fell into transgression, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he sinned.
ADDENDUM: It’s funny that some edgelords are accusing me of white-knighting, as if I’m blaming Adam in order to defend his wife from any accountability. That’s not true at all. It’s the response of guys who do not know the Bible – or basic logic.
Adam stood by and watched as the serpent deceived his bride. He was commanded to guard the Garden and failed. Instead of obeying the voice of God, he obeyed the voice of his wife, who chose to obey the voice of the serpent rather than the voice of her husband.
Adam and his wife are both held accountable by God later in Genesis 3. They are each cursed in their respective domains.
Here’s another take: in Genesis 3, Adam becomes a cuck. Look at the analogy Paul draws in 2 Corinthians 11:
“For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
Paul is telling the Corinthians that if they listen to the Satanic false teachers who proclaim another Jesus, they will be committing spiritual adultery – just like Eve did in the garden. Paul is jealous for them in a good way. As their first pastor, he is a kind of husband to them, representing Christ the true husband. But Paul is not going to stand by passively (like Adam in Genesis 3:6) and watch as they get swept away by seductive and deceitful false teachers. He is going to guard the bride – the church – from these charlatan “super apostles and their Satanic pseudo-gospel.
Now go back to Genesis 3. Adam stood by and watched as his wife committed spiritual adultery, joining herself to the serpent and submitting to his deceitful words. Adam is a spiritual cuckold.
Eve commits sin because she was deceived. She decided to become a “strong independent woman” who rejects the word her husband (and pastor) taught her about the forbidden tree, a word that had come straight from God. Her sin is a sin wandering. She transgressed, but she transgressed because she was deceived. And while she bears her own blame, she was deceived because she was left unprotected.
Adam’s sin is high-handed. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Perhaps he wanted to see if she would really die like God said when she ate – and since she didn’t die right away, he decided to eat as well. The entire scene reverses God’s order for the creation. The man was to rule his wife, and together they would rule the lower creation (including serpents). Instead the serpent ruled them and the woman ruled her husband. The fall turns everything upside down.
But this shows where effeminacy (and cuckoldry, one of the ultimate expressions of effeminacy) come from and how deep it runs in fallen men. Adam fell because he refused to fight for his bride and guard her. He fell because he was a pacifist when he should gone to war with the serpent and crushed its head. He was effeminate when he should exhibited manly courage. He fell because he submitted to his wife rather than leading her. Those fallen tendencies in men trace straight back to Genesis 3 – just as the woman’s tendency to rely on her own intuitions rather than submit to her husband trace straight back to Eve. Most everything we need to know about gender dynamics can be found right there in the Garden.
Note that God’s promise of redemption includes a promise not just of victory over the Satanic serpent, but a promise to restore his creational design. The man will rule his wife, even in a fallen world. Her (sexual) desire for him will be rekindled, even though he made himself very unattractive to her by failing to protect her. He will still be a provider, though thorns and thistles will make it more difficult. She will still have children, though now with great pain.
ADDENDUM: Henry, Calvin, and most especially Milton are wrong about Genesis 3:6, in denying Adam was with her during the temptation by the serpent. Milton in particular retells the story in a way that relieves Adam of blame.
It would make no sense for Paul to say that Adam was not deceived in 1 Timothy 2 if he was not even present when the deceptive words were spoken. The most natural way to read Genesis 3:6 is to view Adam as present with her the whole time. Forget the chapter break between Genesis 2 and 3. The woman is made in the garden in chapter 2; there is no reason think either of them left it before chapter 3 unfolds. There are other arguments that can be made, eg, the grammar of the serpent’s speech, but these are sufficient to establish Adam’s presence.
If you believe, as I do, that the garden is the original sanctuary, the trees the first sacraments, Adam and his wife not only the first husband/wife but first pastor/congregation (as Paul seems to presuppose in 1 Timothy 2), and the fall happened on the first Sabbath, there is even more reason to insist Adam was there the whole time. Genesis 3 is actually a worship service but a perverted one, with the serpent preaching the sermon and the woman distributing the sacramental meal.
If Adam wasn’t with her the whole time, he still failed since he was commanded to guard/keep the garden (and the bride, who is in the garden and embodies the garden, per Song of Solomon), and he failed in that duty. He had to know from the command to guard that an intruder was coming. Who would leave his wife unattended in such a situation? Had she been in the land of Eden he could have left her alone; the command to keep/guard only applied to the sanctuary/garden because that’s where the intruder would attack. (Jim Jordan does a good job explaining the meaning of this pre-fall geography of the garden of Eden, the land of Eden, and the outer-lying lands.)
The conclusion that this somehow serves to blame husbands for the sins of their wives simply does not follow, and confuses the issues at stake. Men have responsibility for their duties and women for theirs. But my reading of the text does show why some fallen men veer in a passive/effeminate direction; this is one (thought not the only) way sin manifests itself in the lives of men (as is obvious from history and experience). In the same way, I’d argue the woman’s sin – obeying the voice of an outsider rather than the voice of her husband – shows she was, in a certain way, the first feminist. And, of course, in a fallen world, women have continued to sin this way ever since. Men have their particular sin patterns and women have theirs; Genesis 3 goes a long way in explaining both.
—
“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader…”
— R L Dabney
—
“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
We need politicians to be more Christian and Christians to be more political.
—
A reminder to socialists/Mamdani supporters:
The bus ride to hell is free too.
—
A note on 2 Samuel 11-12:
David had to learn that Uriah’s blood could not cover his sin. Only the blood of Jesus can do that.
—
No Christian would ever say he wished his nation had been conquered by Islam rather than conquered by the gospel. And yet that’s what Hitler said.
—
Why do some blacks like to say, “We built America?” No one who knows anything about Africa would find that the least bit believable.
I have no doubt that when the leaven of the gospel permeates the African nations, the will have many glorious treasures to bring into Christ’s kingdom. But that hasn’t happened yet and it’s ridiculous to pretend that it has.
White Europeans were once rock-worshipping barbarians. The gospel transformed my people. Your people (if you’re not white) can be transformed too. But that transformation takes time, faithfulness, and diligence, under the Word of God.
—
This video on old cars
Reminds me of this story
https://cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/a-nice-morning-drive.php
Which reminds me of this song
And this
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/04/10/banning-the-barchettas/
—
“The Church is filled with hypocrites. Of course she is. You found one in the mirror before you left home. The Church is made up of people who still sin, fail, misunderstand one another, and need to grow. That does not mean we excuse sin or pretend that problems do not exist. It means we stop searching for a perfect congregation filled with perfect people. Christ did not die for a Church that had already made herself spotless. He died to cleanse, sanctify, and present His Church to Himself in glory.”
— Joseph Spurgeon
—
“It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“It is the business of these great masters to produce in every age a general misdirection of what may be called sexual ‘taste’. This they do by working through the small circle of popular artists, dressmakers, actresses and advertisers who determine the fashionable type. The aim is to guide each sex away from those members of the other with whom spiritually helpful, happy, and fertile marriages are most likely. Thus we have now for many centuries triumphed over nature to the extent of making certain secondary characteristics of the male (such as the beard) disagreeable to nearly all the females- and there is more in that than you might suppose…”
— C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
—
“It is noteworthy that the solid fact of what God has done is always the ‘perch’ (so to speak) from which Christian prayer takes it flights and to which it returns.”
— C. F. D. Moule
—
“Cleave fast unto the naked and pure word of God. The promise of God is the anchor that saveth us in all temptations. If all the world be against us, God’s word is stronger than the world. If the world kill us, that shall make us alive again.”
— William Tyndale
—
Where’s Joe McCarthy when you need him?
—
On the affordability crisis and why “the good life” now seems so expensive:
The loss of social capital leads to the loss of financial capital. The “price of entry” to “the good life”/the American dream is a lot more expensive than it used to be. You have to make enough money to escape the consequences of the Civil Rights Act and open borders. And you have to do it in an economy that is strangling good jobs for young men in particular.
—
“islam has a problem with gays, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, women, atheists, wine, beer, bacon and dogs
But God forgive I criticize islam, suddenly
I’m a bigot and an islamophobic”
— Richard Urso, on the scourge of Islam
—
Two things can be true at the same time:
- Our economy has systemic problems that make it more difficult than in the past few generations, especially for young men, to get ahead financially, provide for a family on one income, buy a decent home in a good area, and advance in many career fields. Our society is riddled with debt, regulation, and bias that mean young men are not playing on a level field.
- Young men should not complain or whine about any of this. Recognize the facts on the ground and play your hand as best you can in the circumstances you were given. Change what you can, but also recognize these problems run deep and will not be fixed overnight. Give thanks you still have a better situation, more comfortable life, and greater opportunities than the vast majority of the human race over the course of history; things could be much, much worse. Identify the challenges, act wisely, seek out mentorship, develop resilience, and meet the hardships head on like a man. No excuses, no scapegoating. Get to work.
—
The church does need to choose between soul-winning and culture-warring. She is called to do both; both are aspects of discipling a nation.
—
“A loser is a man who sees life as hopeless, who insists that the deck is stacked, the dice loaded, and man doesn’t have a chance. A loser is an unbeliever: he believes that everything works together for evil, because life is supposedly meaningless, and the world totally irrational….
Those who live in Christ have a faith for victory: ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose’ (Rom. 8:28). This means simply that God’s holy purpose governs all events, including the fact of sin,’, to make it add up finally for good. Instead of being losers, we are inescapable winners.
Ours is a faith for victory. Thus, if you are Christ’s, stop talking about defeat.
There is a world to be conquered, and we are the people called to do it.”
— R. J. Rushdoony
https://youtu.be/AfFq3077OuA?is=7FORkaPf4wfFBn6Y
—
Things the Smithsonian defines as “white supremacy”:
—
“There will not be a pure, unmixed society until the end of time. For Kuyper, God’s will – the mandate of King Jesus himself – is a polity of freedom, tolerance, and forbearance; an open public square where antagonists could build their own institutions and seek to persuade one another; equality under the law; freedom of religion, conscience, speech, and assembly. For Kuyper, what we call ‘classical liberalism’ is what King Jesus requires of the institution who bears the sword.”
— Brian G. Mattson, on Kuyper’s social/political vision
—
“Don’t treat me as a sex object even though I am obviously dressed as a sex object.”
— The modern feminist woman
—
“”Lenin wasn’t “complicated.” He was evil. Full stop.
We don’t say that enough in the United States because most people never actually learn what he did and others with “intellectual” mentors, parents or grandparents can’t let themselves admit they had a warm heart for the man who ushered in the new age of true totalitarianism quite intentionally. Instead we get at best a cartoon: czar bad, revolution messy, Stalin later goes too far. Lenin is treated like the grim (or for true elitists, heroic) but necessary prologue. That’s backwards.
This is a man who personally ordered people hanged in public “so that the people will see, tremble, and know.” Not generals on a battlefield—peasants labeled “kulaks,” defined as the wrong class of peasant, you know? Like my family. He didn’t reluctantly authorize force in a crisis. He theorized terror as a positive good. He wanted fear as a permanent feature of the system. If deliberately terrorizing civilians as a category isn’t evil, the word doesn’t mean anything.
And what he built was not run-of-the-mill authoritarianism. A normal dictator mostly wants you to shut up and not plot against him. Lenin’s party claimed a monopoly on TRUTH. Every independent center of life, churches, unions, rival socialist parties, the press, civil associations, had to be destroyed or absorbed. Violence wasn’t a last resort; it was a standing method; it was “cleansing”. Whole groups were pre-classified as enemies to be “liquidated” if necessary. He made the jump from dictatorship to totalitarianism.
He also helped kill millions. His Red Terror and campaigns against “class enemies” produced mass executions and death in prisons and camps. His economic and food policies during the civil war helped turn catastrophe into a famine that killed millions more, and he treated it as a problem to manage, not a moral alarm bell. He saw the bodies and stayed the course. You don’t get to hand-wave that away as “history is complicated.”
And Lenin didn’t just drown his own country in blood; he opened up what one scholar called the hemocklysm—the 20th-century blood-cataclysm where states murder their own people in industrial numbers with an ideological permission slip. He built the template: the one-party, (midwit) “scientific” dictatorship with a secret police, total censorship, and entire classes of humans defined as targets. Mussolini literally started as a radical socialist who admired Lenin and then adapted the same basic party-state model to fascism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot—different flags, same underlying architecture of terror.
So when someone says, “Lenin wasn’t evil,” I just can’t take that seriously. He personally ordered terror against civilians, built a system that crushed every independent source of truth, helped send millions to early graves, and handed later monsters a working blueprint. In American education we mostly skip that, or soften it, and then we’re surprised when people talk about him like he was just a tough reformer in a rough time.
He didn’t just live through the 20th-century slaughter. He opened the hemocklysm. If that’s not evil, nothing is.”
— Greg Lukianoff
—
“The rise of feminism signifies the exaltation of the angry, spoiled girl-child.”
— Steve Brule
—
If you nation has so much money it can give billions to other nations in “foreign aid,” you are being taxed too much.
—
Men built civilization. Feminism will destroy it.
—
In the book of Proverbs, Harlot Folly aims to seduce the young man, and thus destroy him. When your culture is full of women who dress and act the part of Harlot Folly, the result is the destruction of masculinity. Of course, to the degree men allow themselves to be be seduced by Harlot Folly (real or pixelated), they are complicit in their own destruction. But men having to live in a culture that surrounds them with such titillation is an injustice to them.
—
Alvin York was born in a small town in north-central Tennessee in 1887. Growing up in poverty, he had little education. As a matter of survival, he came to excel in hunting and marksmanship. Unfortunately, he also excelled in gambling and drinking as a youth. His mother would plead with him, “Alvin, when are you going to be a man like your father and grandfather?” After a friend suffered a violent death, he found himself in a church revival meeting where he was converted to Christian faith and his life was instantly transformed. Then came World War I and with it, the draft.
York was deeply conflicted when his draft notice came. How could he square military service with Jesus’ command to love neighbors (including enemies) and turn the other cheek? His attempts to escape service as a pacifist were denied and he was assigned to the 82nd division. But long conversations with other Christians in the military, particularly Major G. Edward Buxton, changed his understanding of the Bible’s teaching on war. He came to see that the Bible distinguishes different types of violence; that sinful private vengeance and the legitimate authority of civil government to wield the sword fall into different categories; and a man’s duty to his nation includes defending her from her enemies. He finally concluded that he could be a good citizen and a good Christian, a good soldier and a good Christian.
York did not just serve his country in wartime, he became America’s most decorated serviceman in World War I. His most famous exploits came on October 8, 1918, during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Leading a small patrol that had been ambushed and pinned by German machine-gun fire, York used his marksmanship to silence multiple enemy positions. When six Germans charged him with bayonets, he stopped them with his pistol. A German officer eventually surrendered his remaining force. By the end of the action, York and the handful of surviving Americans had captured 132 prisoners and silenced roughly thirty-five machine guns. When he moved the POWs to division headquarters, General Julian R. Lindsey said, “Well, York, I hear you have captured the whole German Army.” “No, sir,” York, replied. “I only got 132 of them.” For this feat he received the Medal of Honor, the French Croix de Guerre and Legion of Honor, and other decorations. Amazingly, a man who did not want to be a soldier at all was hailed as “the greatest civilian-soldier of the war.” He returned home a national hero yet refused most commercial opportunities, choosing instead to marry Gracie Williams, raise a large family, and devote his energies to founding schools, including York Bible School, near his hometown.
Stories like Alvin York remind us why it is important for us as Christians to understand the Bible’s teaching on just war and righteous uses of violence (as I preached on 7/26/26).
—
Was Christendom mainly built by forced conversions?
No. Christendom was not mainly built by forced conversions. Force occurred in specific later campaigns and regions, but the core growth that turned Christianity into the dominant religion of the late Roman world—and thus the foundation of medieval Christendom—happened largely through voluntary and social processes under persecution, not state coercion. 
Early growth inside the Roman Empire
Christianity began as a small Jewish sect and expanded across the Mediterranean for nearly three centuries while periodically persecuted. By the time of Constantine’s conversion (early 4th century), it already had substantial numbers; his shift and the later Edict of Thessalonica (380) under Theodosius recognized and privileged an existing trajectory rather than creating one by the sword. 
Sociologist Rodney Stark’s analysis in The Rise of Christianity models this as ordinary exponential growth (roughly 40% per decade), comparable to modern movements such as Mormonism, driven by:
- Social networks (household and relational conversion rather than mass events).
- Higher fertility and survival (Christians rejected infanticide and abortion more consistently; cared for the sick during epidemics).
- Exclusive monotheism and the promise of salvation/afterlife.
- Appeal across classes, especially to women and the marginalized.
No miraculous mass conversions or systematic forced baptisms of the pagan population were required. Force against pagans became possible after Christianity gained imperial favor; it was not the engine of the earlier rise.
Later expansion into northern and eastern Europe
Once Christianity was the imperial religion, conversion of Germanic, Slavic, Scandinavian, and Baltic peoples often followed a different pattern: elite (royal or noble) conversion for political, diplomatic, or cultural reasons, followed by gradual or pressured adoption by subjects. Examples include Clovis of the Franks, Vladimir of Rus, Mieszko of Poland, and Harold Bluetooth of Denmark. The Church offered literacy, administration, prestige, and alliance value; many rulers saw advantages in joining the Christian cultural sphere.
Force was used in notable cases: - Charlemagne’s Saxon Wars (772–804): prolonged campaigns, destruction of pagan sites, mass baptisms under threat, the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae (death for pagan practices or refusal of baptism), and the massacre at Verden.
- Northern Crusades against Baltic pagans.
- Some later episodes in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.
These were real, sometimes brutal, and shaped the frontiers of Christendom. Historians such as Richard Fletcher note that coercion became a recognized tool of Christian rulers in the early medieval period. Yet even here the picture is mixed: many areas saw longer processes of missionary work, cultural assimilation, and political incentives rather than pure “convert or die.” Force was more common on the edges than in the Mediterranean core.
Broader pattern and later periods
In the Americas, Spanish and Portuguese conquest involved significant coercion alongside missionary efforts. Overall, however, the claim that Christendom was mainly built by forced conversion overstates the role of the sword relative to preaching, social networks, elite adoption, institutional advantages, and demographic factors. Balanced historical assessments treat forced conversion as an important exception or regional method rather than the primary mechanism across the whole story.
Christian theology itself (New Testament emphasis on persuasion and the heart) sat in tension with later political uses of force; churchmen sometimes criticized excesses (Alcuin urged Charlemagne toward persuasion over the sword). The historical record shows both genuine voluntary spread and episodes of coercion. Reducing the entire formation of Christendom to forced conversion is inaccurate.
—
“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
— Attributed to Samuel Adams as a summary of his thought (September 6, 1987 issue of Parade magazine)
—
We live in an era of correction. Just as nationalism is a corrective to globalism, populism is a corrective to elitism.
—
Sanctification makes a man more masculine.
Sanctification makes a woman more feminine.
Sanctification is not an androgynous process.
—
“It is awfully hard to persuade someone of something when their continuation in sin depends on them not understanding you.”
— Douglas Wilson
—
“It is the modern feminists who are the real male chauvinists, lusting for reproductive freedom (sexual irresponsibility like playboys and demanding empowerment, that is, envying and imitating not only males, but male fools, judging inner worth by outer performance, sacrificing being for doing, finding their identity in their worldly careers, not in their inner essence, in their physical and spiritual wombs and motherhoods…. It is a strange and sad phenomenon.
Genuinely hurt women often become radical feminists, hating their own femininity and hating ordinary women who love and enjoy their ordinary femininity. How often have you heard radical feminists praise midwestern housewives?”
— Peter Kreft and Alice von Hildebrand
—
“By projecting a vision of a world in which the problems of blacks are consequences of the actions of whites, either immediately or in times past, white liberals have provided a blanket excuse for shortcomings and even crimes by blacks.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
Auron MacIntyre on the anarcho-tyranny of the surveillance state:
“In a high-trust town, every grandmother on the porch once knew which cars belonged and which did not. Flock offers a technological imitation of that lost social awareness.
But imitation carries a price. Grandma knew her neighbors and exercised human judgment. The database knows everyone and answers to government employees.
Flock is not alone in selling technological substitutes for social order. Cities have used gunshot-detection systems. Networks of acoustic sensors identify gunfire and triangulate its location, allowing police to respond faster.
The engineering may be impressive. The governing theory is primitive: If authorities watch and listen to everyone constantly, they can prevent more crimes and solve more cases.
A surveillance panopticon may work. People who know they are always being watched behave differently. Americans have resisted that bargain for good reason.
The Fourth Amendment exists because efficient policing is not the highest political good. Government must possess evidence and follow procedures before invading the privacy of citizens. New technology should not erase old constitutional limits.
Britain offers a warning. Closed-circuit television cameras have become ubiquitous across the United Kingdom. Some estimates suggest that the average British resident appears on camera dozens of times each day.
Britain has no written equivalent of the Fourth Amendment, and its political culture places fewer obstacles before constant public surveillance. Yet cameras did not prevent the Rotherham grooming-gang scandal or protect thousands of vulnerable girls from organized abuse.
Officials ignored or concealed the crimes for years because confronting them threatened the ruling class’s multicultural ideology. When public anger finally erupted, the surveillance state proved far more competent at identifying and punishing citizens who protested the cover-up.
That is the anarcho-tyranny trap.
Conservative thinker Samuel Francis used the term to describe a regime that tolerates disorder while imposing suffocating control on peaceful citizens. Authorities fail to punish criminals, then use the chaos created by that failure to justify new powers over everyone else.
Americans have already seen the pattern.
The government possessed enormous amounts of video from the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Businesses burned, neighborhoods were looted, and citizens were assaulted. The system showed little appetite for using every available image to identify and prosecute everyone involved.
After January 6, the same government used surveillance footage, facial recognition, financial records, and digital communications to pursue participants with extraordinary intensity. Officials punished many who entered the Capitol and investigated people who merely stood nearby.
During the pandemic, technology companies yielded to government pressure, censored disfavored speech, and turned over user information. Neither the administrative state nor its corporate partners have earned the benefit of the doubt. They have repeatedly demonstrated that enforcement depends on the target.
I am less hostile to state power than many conservatives. A government that cannot control its borders, remove violent criminals, or maintain public order is not a serious government.
But power must be directed toward the common good. The officials asking for universal surveillance are the same officials who refuse to use ordinary authority against illegal immigration, organized crime, urban disorder, and politically favored mobs.
Giving them a database that tracks every American driver will not correct their priorities. It will magnify them.
Supporters will insist that only criminals need to worry. That argument assumes surveillance will remain limited to serious crime and that government will apply its powers impartially. Recent history destroys both assumptions.
Today’s stolen-car database can become tomorrow’s political enforcement system. A hot list can identify a murder suspect, an immigration protester, a gun owner, a church attendee, or anyone traveling to a disfavored rally.
The danger does not require a secret conspiracy. Bureaucracies naturally expand their missions. Politicians redefine threats. Private vendors seek new contracts. Once the infrastructure exists, every crisis supplies another justification for using it.
America’s disorder has obvious political causes. Elites imported cheap labor, weakened borders, excused criminality, and dissolved the social bonds that once allowed communities to police themselves informally. Citizens now feel like strangers in their own homeland.
Technology cannot repair that betrayal.
The difficult answers remain immigration restriction, deportation, competent policing, equal enforcement, and the restoration of families, neighborhoods, and civic trust. Cameras may assist legitimate police work, but they cannot substitute for political courage.
Flock promises safety without social repair. The bargain is tempting because rebuilding order is difficult.
Americans should refuse it.
Rewarding the people who created the crisis with the power to monitor every movement will not restore a high-trust society. It will lock law-abiding citizens inside an open-air prison while the disorder continues beyond the cameras’ reach.”
—
The primary Greek word for “enemy” in the New Testament is ἐχθρός (echthros, Strong’s G2190), used about 32 times. 
It is an adjective (often used substantively as a noun) meaning “hated,” “hostile,” “inimical,” or “adversary.” It derives from roots related to hatred and can refer to:
- Personal or relational enemies — e.g., those who hate or oppose you (Matthew 5:43-44: “Love your enemies [echthrous] and pray for those who persecute you”).
- Spiritual or cosmic foes — such as Satan or hostile spiritual powers (Luke 10:19; often the “last enemy” is death in 1 Corinthians 15:26).
- God’s enemies or those hostile to the gospel (Romans 5:10: we were reconciled while enemies; Romans 11:28; Philippians 3:18).
- General opposition — including weeds as “enemies” of the crop (Matthew 13:25, 28) or family division (Matthew 10:36).
Echthros emphasizes personal enmity, alienation, or hostility rather than necessarily armed conflict. In Jesus’ teaching (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), it calls for love and prayer toward such people, transforming relationships through grace. It aligns with classical Greek distinctions where echthros often denotes a personal or “private” enemy (within a community or relational sphere), contrasting with terms for public/war enemies.
Other Related Terms
Several other Greek words convey related ideas of opposition or adversity, though they are less frequent and not always translated simply as “enemy”: - ἀντίδικος (antidikos, Strong’s G476): Appears 5 times. Means “opponent” or “adversary,” especially in a legal/judicial sense (an accuser or plaintiff in a lawsuit). Examples: Matthew 5:25 (settle with your “adversary” quickly); 1 Peter 5:8 (“Your adversary the devil prowls around…”). It highlights conflict in a courtroom or accusatory context, sometimes applied to Satan as the ultimate accuser.
- ὑπεναντίος (hypenantios, Strong’s G5227): Rare (a few uses, e.g., Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 10:27). Means “opposed,” “contrary,” or “adversary”—something set directly against another. It describes legal indebtedness canceled by Christ or divine judgment on opponents. It conveys active opposition or being “over against” someone/something.
- Related verbs/concepts: Words like πολεμέω (polemeō, “to wage war” or fight, used eschatologically or metaphorically, e.g., Revelation) appear, but the noun πολέμιος (polemios, “war enemy” or public foe in classical Greek) does not occur in the NT. The NT does not sharply distinguish “private/personal enemy” vs. “public/war enemy” with separate nouns in the way classical Greek sometimes does.
Key Comparisons and Theological Notes - Echthros is by far the broadest and most common term for “enemy.” It carries emotional/relational weight (hatred, hostility) and is the word Jesus uses when commanding love toward enemies—emphasizing reconciliation and the gospel’s power to turn enemies into friends (cf. Romans 5:10).
- Antidikos and hypenantios are more specialized: legal opposition or direct contrariety. They often appear in contexts of resolution, judgment, or Christ’s victory over opposition.
- Theological emphasis: The NT portrays humanity as naturally “enemies” of God due to sin, yet reconciled through Christ’s death (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21). Enemies (human or spiritual) are real, but the response for believers is not primarily retaliation but love, prayer, and trust in God’s sovereignty. Satan and death are ultimate adversaries defeated at the cross and finally at the resurrection.
- In the Septuagint (Greek OT), echthros frequently translates Hebrew terms like oyeb (“enemy”), showing continuity.
These distinctions enrich passages on loving enemies, spiritual warfare, and reconciliation. For deeper study, resources like BibleHub, Bill Mounce’s dictionary, or BDAG lexicon provide full concordances and contexts.
In the video “A Pastor Beat Up A Man… What Would You Do?” (Seth Gruber, discussing Christian self-defense and a Louisiana pastor charged after confronting a neighbor who allegedly threatened his family), the segment starting around the 16-minute mark addresses distinctions between types of enemies. 
The speaker argues that English translations obscure important differences found in Latin and Greek, with major implications for how Christians understand Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43–44) and whether physical force is ever justified.
Latin Distinction
- Hostis (transcribed imperfectly as “hostess”): Public or collective enemy — enemy of the state, a hostile group, or enemies of mankind.
- Inimicus (transcribed as “enimicus”): Private or personal enemy — a personal foe, adversary, or simply someone hostile, annoying, or unfriendly.
Greek Distinction (Applied to the New Testament)
The speaker claims the same difference appears in the Greek New Testament: - Πολέμιος (polemios): Public/war enemy, derived from the word for war (polemos). This refers to collective threats such as invading forces or groups seeking to destroy a city, community, or people.
- Ἐχθρός (echthros) (transcribed as “ethos,” “ecos,” etc.): Private/personal enemy or antagonist. This is the word used in Matthew 5:43–44 (“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”).
He notes that English Bibles translate both simply as “enemy,” erasing the distinction. The command to love enemies, he says, uses the personal term (echthros) and therefore does not require loving or remaining passive toward “the barbarian horde storming your city gate” or those planning to destroy a community or family.
Application and Implications - At the private/family level, the distinction is already intuitive: the person breaking into a home at night (referencing Exodus 22) is treated as an enemy who may be resisted.
- The same logic should extend to schools, the state, and the nation.
- Jesus forbids personal vengeance, not the defense of innocent third parties.
- Supporting texts include Luke 22:36 (“Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one”), which the speaker takes as evidence against absolute pacifism (the sword is practical, not merely ceremonial).
- Christian love is protective, not passive. Stopping an aggressor who is attempting to kidnap, rape, or murder is itself an act of love toward the innocent.
Analysis of the Claims
The core pastoral and ethical point is clear and consistent with the video’s overall argument: Scripture does not require Christians (especially men protecting their households) to be passive in the face of violent threats. The speaker uses the personal-vs-public enemy distinction to limit the scope of “love your enemies” and to support legitimate force in defense of the vulnerable.
Linguistically, the classical Greek distinction between echthros (personal/hostile within a community) and polemios (enemy in war/public conflict) is real and appears in broader Greek literature. However, πολέμιος does not occur as a noun for “enemy” in the New Testament. The dominant (and essentially exclusive) NT term translated “enemy” is ἐχθρός (echthros), which appears in a range of contexts—from personal antagonists (Matthew 5) to cosmic/spiritual foes and those hostile to God or the gospel. The NT does not maintain a sharp, consistent lexical split of the kind the speaker describes.
The Latin pair (hostis / inimicus) is a useful historical parallel for illustrating public vs. private enmity, but it is not the language of the New Testament itself.
In short, the segment uses a classical distinction (and some imprecise transcription of the Greek terms) to argue that Jesus’ command targets personal hostility and does not prohibit defensive force against existential or public threats. This supports the broader thesis of the episode: love of neighbor and family can require resisting evil with force when necessary, rather than pure non-resistance. The practical conclusion aligns with historic Christian just-war and self-defense reasoning, even if the precise Greek lexical claim overstates the NT evidence.
—
What do I think of this clip?
https://twitter.com/not_our_guy/status/2079245820117778623/video/1?s=46
Well, to be fair, I did post this:
https://x.com/vicar1973/status/1883284748312731829?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw
I’m not sure if this is why Vance hedged on abortion before the election, then reverted back to pro-life rhetoric after he and Trump won.
What does he really believe?
Perhaps it really was deceitful talk just to get elected.
But overall it’s a bad thing that the GOP platform dropped the pro-life and same-sex “marriage” issues from the platform, and I honestly doubt it made much difference in the outcome of the election
I was thankful he spoke against abortion shortly after getting elected.
In general, I do not think a Christian statesman can be Machiavellian in the way Jay describes.
I think Jay is making what ought to be exceptional cases (according to Reformed casuistry on the 9th commandment) the norm.
I would see this as a total abandonment of the Reformed “Lex Rex” tradition, that the magistrate is under the law, as a servant of God.
Jay seems to be saying the magistrate is a law unto himself.
If that’s the case, there is no reason to ever have a written constitution so the whole idea strikes me as not just unReformed but very unAmerican.
It’s true politicians cannot always disclose all they know to the public once in office, eg, national security matters that factor into their decision making and war strategies, for obvious reasons.
But in general, and especially when candidating, lying about what you believe in order to get elected is not wise and probably sinful in most cases.
It will also backfire over time.
Jay makes politics hyper-pragmatic so the politician can lie continually to get what he wants, gain or maintain power, etc.
“There is no blueprint” translates into there being no ethical code
It’s a rejection of any kind of general equity theonomy.
It’s rejection of natural law.
In the American system, I don’t even think that would work, certainly not for long.
After all, you have to get elected more than once to really accomplish things.
At what point do you reveal that you don’t believe any of the things you said to get elected? How long do you play the game of deceit?
If you lied about x to get elected, when do you reveal what you believe about x if you want to get re-elected? You end up living by lies.
It would be much better in general for a politician to master the art of persuasion rather than master the art of deceit.
If he is supposed to set an example for his people and elevate their character, I don’t see how lying constantly in some Machiavellian way serves the common good or promotes piety the way the WCF teaches the magistrate should.
How far would Jay take this?
Should a Christian candidate say he is pro-same sex “marriage” to get elected? Should he say “Allah akbar” if it helps him get elected? Is there any line that can be drawn? And, again, how long does this go on once he gets elected?
If Vance runs on a pro-Zionist platform to get elected and receives massive donations from Zionists, then turns his back and completely rejects Zionism once in office, what do you think will happen? He will certainly create a lot of enemies.
But it requires allies to actually get things done (unless you have a dictatorship). The betrayal of those who put you in office will come at a price.
I think the real problem is not that we need more Machiavellianism in our politics.
It’s that we have too much of it already.
And that’s why our politics tends to be a race to the bottom, constantly sacrificing truth for power.
It’s why we have such skepticism about politicians.
We already think they lie to us all the time.
I also think that if a man constantly lies the way Jay recommends it is going to corrode and corrupt not just the nation and her people, but his own personal character.
Honestly this is the kind of thing that makes a lot of normie Christian’s stay out politics – the come to consider it hopelessly “dirty.”
I’m also not convinced by Isker’s appeal to David.
David was in exile, at war with with Saul and still at odds with the Philistines.
His deceit fits under the usual Reformed way of dealing with the 9th commandment.
It does not make the magistrate a permanent exception to basic Christian ethics.
Bottom line: Jay makes what should be a carefully guarded exception (deceit) into the norm. It is morally sloppy rather than morally serious.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: for a Christian political program to succeed, it needs the blessing of God. God will either bless us or curse us. Lying, Machiavellian politicians might win some people over with their deceit, but they will not win God’s favor. God favor and judgment must always factor into the equation.
ADDENDUM: I’m also interested in the context of this discussion.
“Liquidate the Zionist regime” could be taken different ways, from defeating Zionism politically to outright killing people.
It seems to me that Andrew and Jay disagree in the clip – Andrew affirms a normative standard of ethics, and Jay denies one.
But the real issue here in the clip is should a political candidate lie about his positions in order to get elected. It seems to me that will backfire. Can a Christian say he favors same-sex marriage to get elected? Can he lie about his foreign policy? Can he dishonestly slander his opponent? Do we need to use Christian means to attain Christian ends? Where is the line to be drawn?
Yes, the wicked always have an advantage in that they are not bound by principles. But this is true in most areas of life – cheating games, gaining wealth by illicit means, etc.
ADDENDUM: There are many useful principles and insights in Machiavelli. He understood political power. In a sense, he provided the “red pill” of political philosophy. But it must be noted that his work was a self-conscious break with the Christian political tradition and many of his views (eg, a ruler need only have the appearance of virtue, not actual virtue) are contrary to the Christian faith. In his own words:
“Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.” 
—
Richard Nixon’s allying with China in 1972 stands as his biggest strategic mistake—one with profound, enduring negative consequences that outweigh the short-term Cold War gains. It’s on par with the Allied powers embracing Soviet Russia in WW2 (which lost China to communism and created the Cold War in the first place). Nixon was naive about the extend to which communist China was completely at ideological odds with the American system. The result was that America ended up strengthening an enemy, and sold out a friend (Taiwan) in the process.
Short-Term Tactical Win, Long-Term Catastrophic Shift
Nixon and Kissinger pursued rapprochement to exploit the Sino-Soviet split, triangulating against the USSR, easing pressure on Vietnam, and gaining leverage in arms control. Beijing and Washington found common ground viewing the Soviets as a mutual threat. This was classic realpolitik: playing one communist power against the other. 
Yet this “brilliant” move fundamentally altered global power dynamics in ways that empowered a far more formidable long-term adversary. By normalizing relations, the U.S. helped legitimize and integrate the People’s Republic of China into the international system. What followed was decades of Western capital, technology, investment, and market access flowing into China—fueling its transformation from a backward, agrarian society reeling from the Cultural Revolution into an industrial and technological powerhouse. 
Economic and Strategic Blowback
- Manufacturing and Economic Hollowing-Out: Engagement policies (accelerated under later administrations) enabled China’s export-driven growth. U.S. companies chased cheap labor, offshoring production. This contributed to the decline of American manufacturing heartlands, wage stagnation for workers, and massive trade imbalances. China’s accession to the WTO in 2001—building on the foundations laid in 1972—supercharged this. The U.S. gained cheap consumer goods; China gained capital, know-how, and the industrial base to challenge America.
- Technology Transfer and Military Rise: Engagement facilitated dual-use technology flows, joint ventures, and outright theft of intellectual property. China modernized its military rapidly, developing anti-access/area-denial capabilities, hypersonics, a blue-water navy, and ambitions in space and cyber domains. The U.S. now faces a peer competitor in the Indo-Pacific, with Taiwan as a flashpoint. Nixon’s move helped create the very rival that threatens U.S. primacy today.
- Supply Chain Vulnerability and Strategic Dependence: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how reliant the U.S. (and West) became on Chinese manufacturing for pharmaceuticals, electronics, rare earths, and more. Decoupling is now painful and incomplete precisely because of 50 years of integration.
Moral and Ideological Costs
Nixon, the anti-communist Red-baiter, shook hands with Mao amid the tail end of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors and ongoing repression. This realpolitik sidelined human rights and ideological consistency for decades. Critics noted the moral compromise: engaging a regime responsible for tens of millions of deaths while it continued authoritarian control.
Subsequent U.S. policy often assumed economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization—a bet that failed spectacularly. China under Xi Jinping has grown more repressive, assertive, and ideologically hostile (wolf warrior diplomacy, “community of shared future,” united front operations). The CCP learned to exploit openness while maintaining Leninist control.
Bigger Than Watergate or Other Flaws?
Nixon had many flaws and errors: prolonging Vietnam, wage-price controls, the “enemies list,” and Watergate’s self-inflicted wound. But those were more personal/political. The China opening reshaped the global order. It turned a fragmented communist world into one where the U.S. midwifed the rise of its strongest challenger since the USSR at its peak. Other mistakes were reversible or contained; this one created structural realities we grapple with now—great power competition, de-risking debates, and military spending focused on the Pacific.
Alternative paths existed: maintaining stricter containment, supporting a stronger Taiwan, or slower, more conditional engagement tied to reforms. Exploiting the Sino-Soviet split didn’t require the depth of economic embrace that followed. Nixon’s diplomacy opened the door; later leaders walked through it without sufficient safeguards.
In hindsight, Nixon’s bold gamble traded a declining Soviet threat for a rising, patient, and ideologically resilient Chinese one. It was a masterstroke for the 1970s bipolar mindset that underestimated the long game of economic integration with a totalitarian state. That miscalculation defines his legacy more than détente or any domestic scandal. The world of 2026—marked by U.S.-China strategic rivalry, technological decoupling efforts, and concerns over Taiwan—bears the imprint of that 1972 handshake.
—
George Washington made several significant military mistakes during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), particularly in his early campaigns. He lost more battles than he won overall but demonstrated strategic resilience, learning from errors, maintaining the army’s survival, and adapting to a war of attrition against a superior British force. His biggest shortcomings often involved overcommitting to fixed positions, underestimating British flanking maneuvers, intelligence failures, and occasional indecision. 
Here are some of his most notable mistakes in the War for Independence:
- The New York Campaign (1776), Especially the Defense of Long Island/Brooklyn and Loss of Fort Washington This is frequently cited as one of Washington’s most serious blunders. After the British evacuated Boston, they targeted New York. Washington chose to defend the city despite its vulnerability to British naval power and superior numbers. • At the Battle of Long Island (August 1776), he allowed his army to be trapped on Brooklyn Heights. Poor preparation of defenses, failure to adequately scout or supervise subordinates, and dividing forces contributed to a heavy defeat. The British under General William Howe outflanked the Americans. Only a nighttime evacuation across the East River (aided by fog and Colonel John Glover’s Marblehead regiment) saved the army from potential destruction. • This was compounded by the loss of Fort Washington (November 1776) on Manhattan. Washington initially opposed holding the fort but deferred to a council of war, Nathanael Greene’s advice, and Congressional pressure. The fort fell, resulting in ~2,900 American prisoners (many of whom later died in British captivity), along with significant artillery and supplies lost. This was arguably his worst single defeat of the war. Washington later privately blamed Greene but bore responsibility for his own irresolution. It forced a difficult retreat across New Jersey. Impact: These setbacks nearly ended the war early, damaged morale and Washington’s reputation, and led to the “times that try men’s souls.” However, the army survived to fight another day, setting the stage for Trenton.
- Battle of Brandywine (September 11, 1777) Washington positioned his army along Brandywine Creek to block the British advance on Philadelphia. He mistakenly believed his forces covered all fords across the creek. • Howe repeated the flanking tactic from Long Island: a large portion of the British army under Cornwallis crossed upstream at unguarded fords (due to poor American reconnaissance and intelligence). Washington was caught off-guard again, and his right flank collapsed. Only a desperate rearguard action by Greene’s division prevented total disaster. Impact: The British captured Philadelphia (the American capital) shortly after. It was a major blow to morale and raised doubts about Washington’s leadership, especially as Gates won at Saratoga around the same time. Washington learned from it but repeated some intelligence shortcomings. Other Notable Issues • Early over-reliance on European-style pitched battles: Washington initially sought decisive engagements (reflecting his experience and desires for glory), which played to British strengths. He later shifted toward a more “Fabian” strategy of harassment and avoiding annihilation, which proved wiser. • Persistent supply, recruitment, and discipline challenges: These were partly systemic (weak Congress and states), but Washington struggled with them throughout. He dealt with short-term enlistments, desertions, and logistical nightmares. • Intelligence and scouting weaknesses: Recurring problems, as seen at Long Island and Brandywine. • Pre-war mistakes (e.g., Fort Necessity in 1754 during the French and Indian War) are sometimes referenced but fall outside the Revolutionary period proper. Washington’s strengths—perseverance, ability to learn (e.g., adapting tactics, building alliances like with the French, and preserving the army as the “revolution incarnate”), political acumen in deferring to civilian authority, and inspirational leadership—far outweighed these errors. Historians note that his strategic patience and focus on survival were key to eventual victory at Yorktown. For deeper reading, sources like the Journal of the American Revolution, Mount Vernon’s site, and Washington’s papers offer detailed accounts. His record shows a commander who grew through adversity rather than innate tactical brilliance.
—
Both Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision to ally with (or support) the USSR, but it was a pragmatic, mutual choice driven by necessity after Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) on June 22, 1941. 
Key Timeline and Roles
- Churchill (UK) acted first and publicly: On the day of the invasion, Churchill delivered a broadcast declaring that Britain would give “whatever help we can to Russia and to the Russian people,” despite his long-standing opposition to communism. He framed it as a common enemy: “The Russian danger is our danger.” Britain offered technical and economic assistance immediately.
- Roosevelt (US) followed with major material support: The US promised assistance shortly after (within days). Roosevelt extended Lend-Lease aid to the USSR (initially ~$1 billion interest-free credit by late 1941), prioritizing shipments even before formal US entry into the war. He saw a strong Soviet resistance as vital to preventing a German victory that could threaten the US and Britain. Harry Hopkins (Roosevelt’s key advisor) played a big role in assessments and implementation.
The alliance formalized more fully after the US entered the war in December 1941 (following Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the US). The “Grand Alliance” or “Big Three” (US, UK, USSR) coordinated strategy, with joint declarations and conferences (e.g., the 1941 joint message from Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin on aid).
Context - This was not ideological friendship but “the enemy of my enemy” realpolitik. Both leaders distrusted Stalin (due to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler, purges, etc.), but defeating Nazi Germany took priority. Churchill famously quipped something like: if Hitler invaded Hell, he would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.
- Lend-Lease from the US (trucks, aircraft, food, raw materials, etc.) was crucial to Soviet logistics, though Soviets emphasized their own efforts. Britain provided some aid and intelligence too.
- Later conferences (Tehran, Yalta) involved all three leaders in broader wartime strategy and postwar planning.
In short, neither acted alone—Churchill led the immediate rhetorical and initial commitment as the one already at war with Germany, while Roosevelt drove the decisive US industrial and logistical support that sustained the alliance. It was a joint Allied policy born of survival against a greater immediate threat.
—
The hammer and sickle should be hated and reviled just as much as the sawstika.
—
The hammer and sickle is the iconic symbol of communism, particularly associated with the Soviet Union and Marxist-Leninist movements. It represents the unity (or “alliance”) between the industrial working class (proletariat) and the agricultural peasants (farmers). 
Breakdown of the Symbol
- The hammer stands for the industrial workers — factory laborers, blacksmiths, and urban proletariat who drive production in a modern, industrialized society. The hammer was already a common motif in labor and socialist iconography before the Russian Revolution.
- The sickle (a curved blade for harvesting grain) represents the peasants or rural agricultural workers who form the backbone of food production in agrarian societies like early 20th-century Russia.
Together, the crossed tools symbolize the revolutionary alliance between these two groups, which communists saw as essential to overthrowing capitalism and building socialism. The design emphasizes solidarity across urban and rural laborers against the bourgeoisie (capitalist class).
Historical Origin
The symbol emerged during the Russian Revolution era: - It was designed in 1918 by artist Yevgeny Kamzolkin for May Day celebrations in Moscow’s Zamoskvorechye District. An early version included a sword, but Vladimir Lenin reportedly objected to its militaristic tone, so it was removed.
- It was officially adopted as part of the Soviet state emblem in 1923 by the Central Executive Committee.
- The design drew on existing socialist and labor symbols but became standardized on the Soviet flag (red field with the gold hammer and sickle, often with a star above representing the Communist Party or the “leading role” of the vanguard).
It quickly spread as the global emblem of communism, appearing on flags, banners, and propaganda for communist parties worldwide. The red background traditionally symbolizes the blood of workers and revolutionaries.
Broader Context
This imagery fit Marxist theory, which viewed the proletariat as the revolutionary class but recognized the need to mobilize the much larger peasant population in places like Russia (where most people were rural farmers at the time). The symbol was meant to convey strength, labor, productivity, and class solidarity.
Today, it remains a potent (and often controversial) emblem — used by some as a sign of anti-capitalist resistance or nostalgia for the USSR, and by others as a reminder of authoritarian regimes. Variations exist, but the core meaning of worker-peasant unity has stayed consistent.
—
The Nixon renaissance is mostly good, but it should not overlook his major failing. Nixons biggest flaw was not Watergate. It was allying with Communist China.
—
“Most of the time you can take David French’s advice and just do the opposite.”
— Rick Appleton
—
A collection of quotations on free markets and socialism:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
— Frédéric Bastiat
“My people are enslaved
because they are ignorant.“
— Isaiah 5:13
”What has always made the state
a hell on Earth is that men have tried
to make it their heaven.”
― Friedrich Hölderlin
“There are two and only two ways that any economy can be organized. One is by freedom and voluntary choice – the way of the market. The other is by force and dictation – the way of the State.”
― Murray N. Rothbard
“The State has always one purpose: to limit, control, subordinate the individual… Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hope on ‘institutions’.”
— Max Stirner
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern… And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.”
— Lord Acton
“When a private enterprise fails, it is closed down; when a government enterprise fails, it is expanded.”
–Milton Friedman
“The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power.”
— Albert Jay Nock
”We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
― Ayn Rand
“Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American… Let your suspicion look to both sides… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”
— Patrick Henry
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive… It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong… The intelligentsia pay no price for being wrong… [That’s] the secret of their influence. If you come up with a lot of wrong ideas and pay a price for it, you’re forced to think about it and to change your ways, or else get eliminated. But there’s no such test. The only test for most intellectuals is whether other intellectuals go along with them, and if they all have a wrong idea it becomes invincible… The ignorance, prejudices, and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice, and groupthink — and for those with one percent of the knowledge in a society to be guiding or controlling those with the other 99 percent is as perilous as it is absurd… It is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge. That is why so much social engineering backfires and why so many despots have led their countries into disasters… Many intellectuals and their followers have been unduly impressed by the fact that highly educated elites like themselves have far more knowledge per capita — in the sense of special knowledge — than does the population at large. From this it is a short step to considering the educated elites to be superior guides to what should and should not be done in a society… As George J. Stigler said of some of his fellow Nobel Laureates, they ‘issue stern ultimata to the public on almost a monthly basis, and sometimes on no other basis.’… [To] many among the intelligentsia, transferring decisions from the masses to people like themselves is transferring decisions from where there is less knowledge to where there is more knowledge. That is the fatal fallacy behind much that is said and done by intellectuals, including the repeated failures of central planning and other forms of social engineering which concentrate power in the hands of people with less total knowledge but more presumptions, based on their greater average knowledge of a special kind… Reality does not go away when it is ignored… Intellect is not wisdom.”
― Thomas Sowell
“The vain arrogance of the literati and the Bohemian artists dismisses the activities of the businessmen as unintellectual money-making. The truth is that the entrepreneurs and promoters display more intellectual faculties and intuition than the average writer and painter. The inferiority of many self-styled intellectuals manifests itself precisely in the fact that they fail to recognize what capacity and reasoning power are required to develop and to operate successfully a business enterprise… Under capitalism the common man enjoys amenities which in ages gone by were unknown and therefore inaccessible even to the richest people… Today the apologists of socialism are forced to distort facts and to misrepresent the manifest meaning of words when they want to make people believe in the compatibility of socialism and freedom… Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created. Since a socialist order of society cannot exist unless it be as a fragment of socialism within an economic order resting otherwise on private property, each step leading towards socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.”
— Ludwig von Mises
“[T]he State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.”
— Albert Jay Nock
“Only individuals have ends and can act to attain them. There are no such things as ends of or actions by ‘groups’, ‘collectives’, or ‘States’ which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals. ‘Societies’ or ‘groups’ have no independent existence aside from the actions of their individual members. Thus, to say that ‘governments’ act is merely a metaphor; actually, certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and the other individuals recognized as governmental. The metaphor must not be taken to mean that the collective institution itself has any reality apart from the acts of various individuals… Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.”
― Murray N. Rothbard
“All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts… The worship of the state is the worship of force… Many who are self-taught far excel the doctors, masters, and bachelors of the most renowned universities… [Intellectuals] coined most of the slogans that guided the butcheries of Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazism. Intellectuals extolling the delights of murder, writers advocating censorship,… Nobody ever recommended a dictatorship aiming at ends other than those he himself approved. He who advocates dictatorship always advocates the unrestricted rule of his own will… Every socialist is a disguised dictator… The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.”
— Ludwig von Mises
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”
― Friedrich Hayek
“The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations. [By] pursuing his own interest [every individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good… The man of system [is] apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.”
— Adam Smith
“While an equality of rights under a limited government is possible and an essential condition of individual freedom, a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers… The rise of fascism [was] not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies… If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists… To split or decentralize power is necessarily to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize by decentralization the power exercised by man over man… It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil.”
— Friedrich August von Hayek
“The champions of socialism [call] themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.”
— Ludwig von Mises
“It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off – than on any positive task. The contrast between the ‘we’ and the ‘they’, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action… [The] desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority [therefore] his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes it seems the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group… To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.”
— Friedrich August von Hayek
“No government knows any limit to its power except for the endurance of the people.”
— Lysander Spooner
“If this be treason, make the most of it. For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.”
— Patrick Henry
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
but the honor of kings is to search it out.”
— Proverbs 25:2
“I’m on your side, but you’re not.”
— Milton Friedman
From:
https://x.com/stephenvalus/status/2079442179978670144?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw
—
When godly men don’t lead in family, church, and state, Satan takes over:
“Whatever God creates, Satan tries to commandeer…
In Genesis 2, God establishes the first family. In Genesis 3, Satan attacks it. Adam is passive. And so, Satan essentially says, “Hey, man, you won’t lead your family. I’d be happy to.”…
God also establishes a church. Well, fast forward to Revelation 2 and 3 when Jesus rebukes the elders who were passive elders and refused to wield their God-given authority and lead their church. Jesus rebukes them, “This I have against you. You tolerate that woman Jezebel who teaches and seduces people to practice sexual immorality.” Satan said, “Well if you won’t lead your church I’d be happy to.”…
Let’s take it to the third sphere…The same thing happens…In 1956, 96% of our country identified as Christian. If 96% of the country at one point at least acknowledged the Christian worldview [to some degree], over the course of 70 years, how did the other 4% drag the other 96% into what we see now? Here’s what happened: if godly people won’t influence the state, godless people will.”
— Josh Howerton, on Kuyperianism
—
When godly men do not lead, ungodly men will fill the vacuum.
—
“The Bible is the Word of God in such a way that when the Bible speaks, God speaks.”
— B. B. Warfield
—
“But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression…
The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it. Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid…
The Word, as I said, being Himself incapable of death, assumed a mortal body, that He might offer it as His own in place of all, and suffering for the sake of all through His union with it, might bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who all their lifetime were enslaved by the fear of death…
He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled…
He had come to bear the curse that lay on us; and how could He ‘become a curse’ otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the cross, for it is written ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on tree.’ … The death of the Lord is the ransom of all, and by it ‘the middle wall of partition’ is broken down…”
— Athanasius
—
Weather significantly influenced several key battles and campaigns in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), often providing critical advantages (or disadvantages) through fog, storms, freezing temperatures, or mud. Here are some of the most notable examples, drawn from historical accounts. 
- Battle of Long Island (Brooklyn Heights, August 27–30, 1776) • Fog enabled a miraculous escape. After British forces under General Howe outmaneuvered and trapped Washington’s Continental Army on Long Island, the Americans faced potential annihilation or capture. • On the night of August 29–30, a dense fog (following rain and shifting winds) rolled in, concealing the evacuation of ~9,000 troops across the East River to Manhattan using boats. Washington was reportedly among the last to leave. By the time the fog lifted, the British discovered the Americans had slipped away. • This saved the army to fight another day and is often called one of the most consequential weather events of the war.
- Crossing of the Delaware and Battle of Trenton (December 25–26, 1776) • A nor’easter provided cover for a surprise attack. Washington’s desperate plan involved crossing the ice-choked Delaware River on Christmas night with ~2,400 men (part of a larger failed three-pronged effort) to strike Hessian mercenaries at Trenton, New Jersey. • A violent storm of rain, sleet, hail, snow, and high winds (a nor’easter) made the crossing extremely hazardous—soldiers described it as brutal, with delays and two columns turning back—but it also concealed the approach. The Hessians, not expecting an attack in such conditions, were caught off guard. Washington’s forces achieved a stunning victory with minimal losses. • This morale-boosting win helped reinvigorate the faltering Revolution and is a classic example of weather as a “secret weapon.”
- Battle of Princeton (January 3, 1777) • An overnight freeze enabled a daring night march. Following Trenton, British forces under Cornwallis advanced on Washington’s position near Trenton. Mild weather had turned roads to mud, slowing the British. • On the night of January 2–3, temperatures plummeted, freezing the muddy roads solid. This allowed Washington’s army to slip away quietly (leaving decoy campfires), march ~12–18 miles overnight, and surprise British troops at Princeton for another victory. The clear, frosty conditions (around 20–21°F) aided mobility on what would otherwise have been impassable ground.
- Battle of Germantown (October 4, 1777) • Fog (and smoke) caused confusion and friendly fire. Washington launched a complex multi-column night attack on British forces near Philadelphia. A thick morning fog, combined with gun smoke, severely limited visibility. • This led to disorientation, Americans firing on each other by mistake, and disrupted coordination. What started promisingly for the Continentals turned into a British victory as the fog hampered their assault.
- Siege of Yorktown (September–October 1781) • Storms and overcast conditions aided siege operations. During the decisive Franco-American siege that led to Cornwallis’s surrender, stormy weather (including a powerful storm with strong winds) and overcast skies helped cover troop movements and trench-digging at night. One account notes a storm hindering British naval reinforcement or resupply efforts. • Broader weather patterns in the campaign favored the allies. Other instances include general campaign challenges like muddy roads hindering marches/supplies in wet conditions or winter hardships (e.g., Valley Forge), but the above stand out for direct battlefield impact. Weather was unpredictable and often favored the Americans in pivotal moments—sometimes interpreted providentially by contemporaries—highlighting how environmental factors could outweigh numbers or plans in 18th-century warfare.
—
“People without agency basically don’t believe they can do anything. Things just “happen” to them. So, when very good things keep “happening” to a particular person, it’s evidence of a conspiracy rather than a competent person replicating success in different environments.
Obviously, this resonates quite strongly with the Third World mind. And as the American mind becomes increasingly polluted by the Third World, it too.
The Abuelafication of the discourse.”
— John Doyle
—
Religious liberty must always be ordered and therefore limited. Inevitably, the state will have to choose one religion over another when religions clash; there is no religious neutrality, which means even tolerance is circumscribed.
If your religion requires you put an idol up and my religion requires me to tear idols down, we cannot both exercise religious liberty.
This is why it’s so important to know the historical context of the 1A. When the founders enshrined the “free exercise of religion” in the Bill of Rights, they did not intend for religion to be used as justification for anything and everything. By “religion,” they meant the denominational varieties of Christian faith. Americans might decide to tolerate other faiths in the citizenry, but those other faiths cannot seek shelter under the 1A, properly understood.
—
A note on 2 Samuel 9:
The Christian is to Jesus as Mephibosheth is to David. What David does for Meohibosheth images what Jesus does for the believer.
—
Every classroom has a God. Send your kids to a school where the God of the classroom is the Lord Jesus Christ. Christian education is a necessity, not a luxury, for Christian families.
—
“Failure at a crucial moment may mar the entire outcome of a life. A man who has enjoyed special light is made bold to follow in the way of the Lord, and is anointed to guide others therein. He rises into a place of love and esteem among the godly, and this promotes his advancement among men. What then? The temptation comes to be careful of the position he has gained, and to do nothing to endanger it. The man, so lately a faithful man of God, compromises with worldlings, and to quiet his own conscience invents a theory by which such compromises are justified and even commended. He receives the praises of “the judicious”; he has, in truth, gone over to the enemy. The whole force of his former life now tells upon the wrong side…. To avoid such an end it becomes us ever to stand fast.”
— Charles Spurgeon, from The Forgotten Spurgeon, 161-162
—
Pat Buchanan on what America used to be like:
“We shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans. We spoke the same language, learned the same history, celebrated the same heroes, observed the same holy days and holidays, went to the same films, rooted for the same teams, read the same newspapers, watched the same TV shows on the same three channels, danced to the same music, ate the same foods, recited the same prayers at church, the same pledge of allegiance at school, and were taught the same truths about right and wrong, good and evil, God and country.”
—
Russell Kirk defined conservatism’s mission as preserving a particular people, living in a particular place during a particular time.
—
“When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and then the people die.”
— Pat Buchanan
—
“5 Thomas Sowell Lessons the West Refuses to Learn
- Poverty is not evidence of injustice
- There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs
- Decision makers must face consequences
- It’s not greed to keep what you earn
- Don’t replace what works with what sounds good”
—
“Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them.
His mother may well have been a Jewess.
Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews.
Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possi bilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves.
It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the élite, the masters and those in dominant authority.
The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today…
Bormann intervened: “Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up theplebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather. Everywhere theyfan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.
The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole ofits strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect andare designedfor the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.”
The Fuehrer concluded :
Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.”
— From Hitler’s Table Talk, p 722f
—
Good article from Ron Dodson:
https://open.substack.com/pub/rondodson/p/spenglers-blindness-to-christianity
Spengler was not only one to make a crazy connection between Christian faith and communism. Hitler did as well. Hitler also linked Christianity and Bolshevism, seeing them as essentially the same thing (and of course saw both as offshoots of Jewishness).
—
“Christianity teaches the universality of sin and salvation. It does not teach the equality of all men in authority, ability, vocation, property, or political condition. It recognizes hierarchy, office, inheritance, private possession, and the permanent necessity of political rule in a fallen world…
More importantly, Christianity is profoundly anti-utopian. Man cannot abolish sin by reconstructing society. No institutional arrangement can overcome the corruption of the human heart. The final restoration of creation is the work of God, not the achievement of a revolutionary class within history.”
— Ron Dodson
—
“Meekness…is not weakness, but the willing submission of strength to a higher authority. Meekness is power under control.”
— Chase Davis
—
From the Dissenter, on the left’s envy:
“They do not build. They occupy what others built. They do not cultivate. They consume. They do not plant orchards whose fruit they will never taste. They inherit, redistribute, regulate, and dismantle.
Their genius is not creation but acquisition.
And you wonder why they hate your life.
The leftist is not a reformer and, despite his claims, is not a seeker after justice. Those are just the masks they wear, the costumes they pull from the rack when the cameras are rolling. Strip away the jargon, the academic scaffolding, the endless appeals to compassion, and what remains is something far older and far darker than politics. It is the ancient sin that looked upon another man’s blessing and whispered:
“Why should he have what I do not?”
It is envy—the corrosive, soul-devouring vice Scripture condemns because it cannot rejoice in what is good until that good has first been destroyed.”
—
I don’t agree with every angle this article by Kurtz takes, but it still makes an important point: The “affordability crisis” is more about social capital than financial capital. The price point to “buy into” a decent life has gone up because so much of society is dysfunctional. You have to have enough money to live in a place that isn’t overrun with crime or other anti-social behavior. That was not the case a couple generations ago the way it is now.
This means the answer is not just a change in economic policy. Yes, we do need better policies (eg, lower regulation that can allow more entry level housing to be built – the affordability crisis on housing is largely due to artificial constraints on supply and artificial inflation of demand; deporting illegals would help with the supply/demand problem, but so would an ease in the regulatory burden; etc.). Beyond policy changes, we need to mend the torn social fabric. And underneath that torn social fabric is our torn spiritual fabric. The younger generation’s misery has many causes, some self-inflicted, but the reality is that the social inheritance they should have received has largely been squandered. The financial squeeze is largely due to the social and spiritual liquidation of American culture.
This is the key claim:
“My argument is that previous generations received an enormous stock of social capital: trusted neighbors, functional public schools, a productive courtship culture, predictable career arcs, and a public square in which children could roam and adults could be relied upon. That stock, once given for free, has now been substantially liquidated. Instead, the young must now buy back, item by item and at retail prices, what their grandparents received as a bounty of prior civilizational investments.”
This is why there is no political or economic solution to our mess. Yes, we do need political and economic reforms. But rebuilding social capital depends on the character of the people, the kinds of lives they live, and the kinds of communities they form. A high trust, morally coherent society (like America once had) cannot be legislated or monetized into existence. The problems run much deeper than policy.
—
“Clarence Thomas: “I’d rather die than withdraw. If they’re gonna kill me, they’re gonna kill me.”
Amy Coney Barrett: “I’m scared for my life.”
Women should not be justices.”
— Kangmin Lee
—
“The rise of women to power in a civilization is very often the mark of its decline.”
— Pat Buchanan
—
One of the most important things a family can do together is sing, especially psalms and hymns.
—
I often say the goal for men is “Be a good man who is good at being a men.”
I think there is a biblical term: the Hebrew word “gibbor.”
An example of a “gibbor” man is Boaz. When we first meet Boaz in Ruth 2, he is called a “gibbor of a man.” The word is translated variously as “mighty man” or “wealthy man.” I would translate it “a hero of a man.”
Boaz is a man of means and might. He is a man of character and competence. He is a a man who is probably very accomplished on the battlefield and a man who has stature/gravitas in the community. He is a good man who is good at being a man.
I discussed this a bit years ago in my podcast with Eric Conn:
—
“Make every song your favorite tune.”
— Mick Jagger, from “Shine a Light”
Jagger doesn’t give much advice worth listening to, but he says something here that Christians can use. When you go to worship this Lord’s Day, sing every hymn as if it were your favorite.
For encouragement, Brian Moats @brianpmoats preached a really good sermon last Sunday at TPC on singing in worship:
trinitypresbham.com/wp-content/upl…
—
At least where I live in the Deep South, a lot of political candidates use Christian faith to get elected instead of getting elected in order to govern in a Christian way. We need to change this. The South not nearly as “Christian” or “conservative” as most Southerners think.
—
“The Science Behind the Crazy Liberal Woman
The data is now unmistakable. Among young adults, liberal women report poor mental health at nearly twice the rate of conservative women. A majority now say they’ve been diagnosed.
This is not a mystery.
It is a result.
Progressivism hands young women a creed built for misery: that the world is rigged against them, that their suffering is someone else’s fault, and that they are powerless to fix it.
Teach a generation that they have no control, and you should not be shocked when they feel they have none.
Then the left went further. It mocked the church, sneered at marriage, and called the family a cage. The very institutions that gave women meaning, belonging, and a way through grief were torn down in the name of liberation.
Researchers find faith and marriage explain about half the happiness gap.
Conservative women aren’t lucky.
We’re anchored.
The progressives ran the experiment on their own daughters.
The results are in.”
— Sovey
—
“The manliest thing you can do when folks taunt you is to laugh.”
— Bob Childress
—
“[T]he Mosaic law was not horribly complicated or impossible to keep. Of course, in the New Covenant we are not under the Mosaic law. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ replaces all the sacrifices of Moses. Christ has cleansed the world once and for all in His Resurrection, and so the laws of uncleanness no longer apply to us. That is, they no Ionger apply as laws. In terms of their symbolism, they still provide wisdom.
That does not mean that the law is irrelevant, however, which is [a] common misconception. The Mosaic law has been ignored by the Church for a couple of centuries. In reaction against this, some have taken up the Mosaic social laws as a virtual blueprint for modern society. The proper middle ground is to understand the topological nature of the Mosaic economy.
The Old Covenant is a type of the New, and the Mosaic establishment, like the other establishments we are looking at, is a type of the Kingdom of Christ. As a type, it is filled with wisdom for us.
A proper approach to the Mosaic law asks four questions.
First, it asks what this law meant in the Old Covenant. Second, it asks how this law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Third, it asks how this law is to be fulfilled in the Church, which is in union with Christ. And fourth, it asks what relevance this law may have in shaping wider society outside the Church. If we keep such a procedure in mind, the Mosaic laws can be of great value to us; and we can avoid the dangers of legalism on the one side, and antinomianism on the other.”
— James Jordan
—
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
—
When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
— C.S. Lewis
—
“When women are the majority in an organization, the values of the organization shift away from meritocracy and toward group consensus, the suppression of dissent, and protection of the vulnerable.
These trends strongly suggest that women are not likely, as a group, to uphold and maintain the traditional foundations of civilizational flourishing: equality before the law, free speech, truth-seeking, competitive excellence, and rigorous debate. All of these, in fact, are already in evident decline—undermined, attacked, flouted and fought against by feminist lawyers, advocates, academics, judges, journalists, teachers, social workers, political leaders, legislators, and CEOs.
The concerns raised by Andrews and others are important, but behind that discussion lies a more fundamental question about women’s role in civilization, namely: do women build civilization?
Do women as a sex—leaving aside a relatively small number of extraordinary individuals—have it in them to compete and innovate at the same level as men?
Are women driven to master nature and solve intricate technical, logistical, structural or methodological problems?
Are they obsessed with the minutiae of numbers, systems, and abstract ideas to the extent that many men are?
Are they willing to sacrifice decades of their lives in order to become the first or the best in a scientific, philosophical, or artistic endeavor?
The answer is no.”
— Janice Fiamengo
—
“Men are the foot soldiers of civilization as well as its leaders. They are the ones who make things work or make new things.
Men are the ones who must prove their utility to society. Their drive to be useful has powered centuries of back-breaking work, risk-taking, tool-building, self-sacrifice, and outstanding performance of a sort that has never been expected of women (and still isn’t).
Women in the main tend not to work as hard as men to succeed because they don’t have to. Women developed different strengths and tendencies.
Women’s strength, for good and ill, is in the inter-personal arena: not only in caring for those who are weaker but also in being cared for by those who are stronger. Women are good at reading people’s emotions and desires, and at expressing their own.
Men are not rewarded for expressing emotions and desires; men are oriented to acting, often under pressure to perform competently, in large groups and systems.”
— Janice Fiamengo
—
“Women’s main contribution in the male civilizational sphere has been to lobby for admission and then to complain about, and work to undermine, the male culture of competitive excellence.”
— Janice Fiamengo
—
“The female brain tends to be geared toward empathy, which includes emotional sensitivity to other people and deep interest in understanding them and their feelings. In contrast, the male brain is oriented toward understanding systems, which means figuring out general principles of how things operate and function together, and this applies to inanimate objects as much as social systems.”
— Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men?, p. 85
—
“A society that is willing to forego the ingenuity and obsessive pursuit of excellence that have been the primary domains of men is a society that will steadily lose its competitiveness. It will collapse under the weight of non-productivity and exploitation.
For centuries, women were assumed to be the nurturers of the world, praised for their tenderness and ability to create spaces of emotional comfort and renewal. These enabled men to do their work well. Now, large numbers of women have withdrawn these qualities from the home, attempting to apply them to the outer worlds of business, politics, social work, academic research, and the law. They lavish care on those that feminism deems worthy while withholding it from those deemed privileged or oppressive.
Many feminist women’s indifference to the achievements of western civilization and outright preference, in some cases, for the west’s enemies may be an intuitive recognition of the civilizational vulnerability that their sex exploited and furthered.
Whether those who love the west will have the will and wherewithal to curtail the damage remains to be seen. But let us at least stop deluding ourselves.”
— Janice Fiamengo
—
“Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.”
— Chesterton
—
“Faerie contains many things besides elves and fays, and besides dwarfs, witches, trolls, giants, or dragons: it holds the seas, the sun, the moon, the sky; and the earth, and all things that are in it: tree and bird, water and stone, wine and bread, and ourselves, mortal men, when we are enchanted.”
— Tolkien (?)
—
“Arrested development consists not in refusing to lose old things but in failing to add new things. I now enjoy Tolstoy and Jane Austen and Trollope as well as fairy tales and I call that growth: if I had had to lose the fairy tales in order to acquire the novelists, I would not say that I had grown but only that I had changed. A tree grows because it adds rings: a train doesn’t grow by leaving one station behind and puffing on to the next.”
— C. S. Lewis
—
“I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story.”
— Lewis
—
If white Americans are innocent pawns in a Jewish game there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: whites are the dumbest people on the planet, probably incapable of self-governance. Why do we continually let Jews steer us any way they want us to go? Why let Jews manipulate us and control us? It only makes sense if whites are just plain dumb.
It’s far more plausible to see white American elites as accomplices with the Jews rather than victims of the Jews. Jewish conspiracies give Jews way too much credit for the rise of progressivism/leftism and absolve whites of far too much blame.
—
“Yet in other ways, Hitler’s commonplace beliefs have been less easy to shake off. He was convinced that the twentieth century was somehow different from all previous centuries, that the human race had come of age, that, having thrown off the shackles of religion, humanity was now different. “The man of today, who is formed by the disciplines of science, has ceased taking the teaching of religion very seriously’… ‘Christianity is the worst of regressions that mankind can ever have undergone … Since the age of fourteen I have felt liberated from the superstition that the priests used to teach…’
It was clear from Table Talk that, just as he believed he had achieved a bloodless revolution in Germany, so, in some strange way, National Socialism was the natural consequence of the Enlightenment. He believed in a crude Darwinism as do nearly all scientists today, and as do almost all ‘sensible’ sociologists, political commentators and journalistic wise-acres. He thought that humanity in its history was to be explained by the idea of struggle, by the survival of the fittest, by the stronger species overcoming the weaker. Unlike the Darwinians of today, Hitler merely took this belief to its logical conclusion.
Hitler’s crude belief in science fed his unhesitating belief in modernity. He abolished the old black-letter Gothic typeface in which Germans had been producing books since they invented printing, and replaced it with a typeface in conformity with the rest of the Western world. He liked the idea of every family possessing a car. He built a system of motorways all over Germany. The mechanized age was one which he assumed to be good. In this respect, Hitler was like almost Darwinians of today, Hitler merely took this beliet to its logical conclusion.
Hitler’s crude belief in science fed his unhesitating belief in modernity. He abolished the old black-letter Gothic typeface in which Germans had been producing books since they invented printing, and replaced it with a typeface in conformity with the rest of the Western world. He liked the idea of every family possessing a car. He built a system of motorways all over Germany. The mechanized age was one which he assumed to be good. In this respect, Hitler was like almost every politician of influence since. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, he called for every child in every British primary school to be given a laptop computer. He was echoing, almost exactly, Hitler’s view – ‘I find it a real absurdity that even today a typewriter costs several hundred marks. One can’t imagine the time wasted daily in deciphering everybody’s scribbles. Why not give lessons in typewriting at primary school? Instead of religious instruction, for example.’
Hitler’s zest for the modern, his belief that humanity would become more reasonable when it had cast off the shackles of the past – olde-tyme handwriting, religion, and so forth – and embraced science and modern roads, was a belief shared with almost all forward-thinking people at the time, and it continues to be the underlying belief-system of the liberal intelligentsia who control the West. His belief led directly to genocide and devastating war. At the same time, he believed himself to be enlightened and forward-looking, non-smoking, vegetarian, opposed to hunting, in favour of abortion and euthanasia.
Have we asked ourselves the right questions about Hitler’s ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ beliefs? By eliminating some of his more grotesque prejudices from our moral vocabulary, have we really cast off his legacy? Do not the politicians in today’s Western world, when they wish to impose their values on some other nation or group of peoples, still feel themselves entitled to employ war as the ultimate weapon? Far from having cast off Hitler’s legacy, many of the world’s politicians, and especially those who consider themselves most enlightened, are in fact his heirs. For that reason, we will perhaps always be compelled to think about his life – and the chilling fact that in all his world-outlook and his views, Hitler was an embodiment, albeit an exaggerated embodiment, of the beliefs of the average modern person.”
— A. N. Wilson
—
“Hitler suffered acutely from meteorism; perhaps he did not suffer so acutely as those around him, since meteorism is uncontrolled farting, a condition exacerbated by Hitler’s strictly vegetarian diet.”
— A. N. Wilson
—
You were lied to about Hitler. He was more leftwing than rightwing, more radical than conservative. Hitler hated Christianity and like all leftists, he devalued human life.
A couple Hitlerisms:
“Christianity is the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity.”
“[Christians] harp on and on that God died on the cross out of pity for the weak, the sick, and the sinners. They then demand that the genetically diseased be kept alive in the name of a doctrine of pity that goes against nature and of a misconceived notion of humanity.”
Good interview: https://youtu.be/4WSEChQHslA?is=HqgCZxkKxVXOwc9E
—
“The leftist justifies this violence to himself by saying that they alone are the arbiters of what is right or wrong. Not the law, not history, not civilization, not public opinion, and certainly not God. The leftist assumes for himself judge, jury, executioner.
The leftist is fundamentally motivated by envy, by hatred, by jealousy. The leftist looks at what is beautiful and what is good and what is natural and is filled with envy and hatred.
Every one of them, through the course of their life and their decisions, has scarred their body and their appearance in many different ways to the point in which their outer appearance becomes a manifestation their inner hatred.”
— Stephen Miller
—
“This is a distinctive and unique evil. It has always been driven by a hatred, above all else, for civilization itself.
It is a revolt of the worst against the best; of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, cannot create, cannot achieve great things – and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can.
This is what radical leftism is. It may wear various different slogans and ideologies across place and time – anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, communist, anarchist, Marxist – but the fundamental character is always the same.
It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality, justice, liberation; an overwhelming need to tear down what greater men have built, to wreck what is beautiful and right, on behalf of people who are only filled with ugliness, and have nothing else to offer the world.
Through violence and terror, they once again seek to impose their ugliness on all of us. The old dogma was wrong. None of this is driven by “idealism.” It is not “utopian” – quite the opposite, in fact.
One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is: “It sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.” But that’s not true. It doesn’t sound good in theory.
The world it envisions for all of us is small, flat and gray – leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul. It is a world without courage, creativity, or ambition; without heroes or glory or great causes to strive towards. Without miracles.
Without myths. Without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things. Without God.
For these architects of revolutionary violence, the towering achievements of our civilization are an unbearable humiliation – a reminder of what they cannot do or be.
So they choose to destroy. They attack pipelines, railroads, laboratories, power grids: the physical, embodied symbols of power, invention and achievement. This is the nature of the terrorism we face today. They despise the West because the West is great.”
— Marco Rubio, who understands the ethical and worldview issues involved in the battle against leftism/progressivism/Marxism
—
“Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”
— Joe Sobran
—
“Twenty years ago, your average farmer, trucker, or tradesman was mainlining industrial doses of FM radio all day. Now they’re devouring podcasts and audiobooks for eight to ten hours straight — and they’ve quietly become the most educated, best-informed cohort in the country.”
— Andy Hauter
—
Europe is under judgment. The West has gone insane.
—
“It clearly appears that there was but one Author of both the Old and the New Law, from the fact that Christ condemned traditions and customs repugnant to the former, while he confirmed its most important precepts, and taught that he was himself the end of the Mosaic Law.”
— Irenaeus
—
Take away the evolutionary non-sense, and there’s a lot of good stuff here. Instead of using technology to enhance nature/creational design, we have used technology to deny and negate that design. We have tried to escape God’s sexual design since the rise of the sexual revolution, birth control, the legalization of abortion, Obergefell, etc. Now, people want to use AI to escape God’s design for work. We are rejecting the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply, to work and take dominion. The results are and will continue to be disastrous. (I am not so certain that AI will have the effect Elon thinks, but if it does, the AI revolution combined with the sexual revolution will deeply dehumanize those who go along with them. The problem is not technology per se; the problem is using technology in ways that go against the grain of human nature rather than with it.):
“Bret Weinstein said something that won’t leave my head:
For the first time in 300,000 years of human evolution, we removed the cost from the single biggest reward nature ever invented — sex and pair-bonding.
Reliable birth control + abortion = you can now cash the evolutionary lottery ticket without paying the 20-year mortgage of pregnancy, diapers, sleepless nights, and college funds.
Result? An entire generation of 18–35-year-olds walking around with the energy, libido, hormones, and protective instincts that evolution spent millions of years calibrating for child-rearing… but with zero actual children. That energy didn’t disappear. It got redirected.
Heather Heying’s observation is brutal: young women especially began treating ideologies the exact way evolution wired them to treat babies. Climate change, social justice, whatever the cause of the month is — it gets defended with literal mama-bear ferocity, the same neurochemistry that once guarded a toddler from predators now guards an abstract idea from wrong think.
And now Elon is promising the second shoe is about to drop: AI-driven abundance will make money as “free” as sex became in the 1970s. Both of evolution’s primary carrots — mating and resource acquisition suddenly cost almost nothing.
Weinstein’s ice-cold question: When producing and protecting actual children is no longer the central organizing principle of adult life… and when creating wealth is no longer required for status, security, or attracting a mate…What is left to give a human life direction, meaning, and structure?
Are we about to become a species that invents bigger and bigger dragons to slay just to feel alive? Or do we drift into total listlessness? This 3:52 clip is genuinely haunting.
Watch it all the way through, then tell me — honestly — does this explain the absolute intensity we’re seeing in culture right now, or is Bret completely missing something?
Real answers only. Quote-post if it hits you in the chest like it hit me.”
ADDENDUM: AI can be a great tool if used to create, if it’s used to enhance work. But it’s not good if it’s used as a substitute for work. Man was made to work and should never seek to escape that mandate.
—
“Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. . . Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end of the book…
I think it is possible that by confining your child to blameless stories of child life in which nothing at all alarming ever happens, you would fail to banish the terrors and would succeed in banishing all that can ennoble them or make them endurable. For in the fairy tales, side by side with the terrible figures, we find the immemorial comforters and protectors, the radiant ones. . . It would be nice if no little boy in bed, hearing, or thinking he hears a sound, were ever at all frightened. But if he is going to be frightened, I think it better that he should think of giants and dragons than merely of burglars. And I think St. George, or any bright champion in armour, is a better comfort than the idea of the police.”
— Lewis
—
“The claim of the plaintiff, who is a married woman, to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law is based upon the supposed right of every person, man or woman, to engage in any lawful employment for a livelihood. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied the application on the ground that, by the common law, which is the basis of the laws of Illinois, only men were admitted to the bar, and the legislature had not made any change in this respect, but had simply provided that no person should be admitted to practice as attorney or counselor without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from two justices of the Supreme Court, and that no person should receive a license without first obtaining a certificate from the court of some county of his good moral character. In other respects, it was left to the discretion of the court to establish the rules by which admission to the profession should be determined. The court, however, regarded itself as bound by at least two limitations. One was that it should establish such terms of admission as would promote the proper administration of justice, and the other that it should not admit any persons, or class of persons, not intended by the legislature to be admitted, even though not expressly excluded by statute. In view of this latter limitation the court felt compelled to deny the application of females to be admitted as members of the bar. Being contrary to the rules of the common law and the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial, it could not be supposed that the legislature had intended to adopt any different rule.
The claim that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the statute law of Illinois, or the common law prevailing in that state, can no longer be set up as a barrier against the right of females to pursue any lawful employment for a livelihood (the practice of law included), assumes that it is one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens to engage in any and every profession, occupation, or employment in civil life. It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband’s consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.
It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.
The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman’s advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things, it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the state, and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.
For these reasons, I think that the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.”
— SCOTUS Justice Joseph B. Bradley, opinion in Bradwell vs Illinois case
Grok’s Summary of the case:
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case addressing whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause protected a woman’s right to practice law. 
Background and Facts
Myra Bradwell (1831–1894), a Chicago legal journalist, publisher of the Chicago Legal News, and advocate for women’s rights, passed the Illinois bar exam in 1869. The Illinois Supreme Court denied her a license to practice law solely because she was a woman (and married). Illinois law at the time did not explicitly bar women, but the court interpreted common-law traditions and its discretion to exclude them. 
Bradwell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the denial violated her rights as a U.S. citizen under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868). Her counsel contended that the right to pursue a lawful profession, including law, was a fundamental privilege of citizenship protected against state interference. 
This case came one day after the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), in which the Court had narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, limiting it to a small set of national rights and leaving most economic and professional regulations to the states. 
The Decision
In an 8-1 decision on April 15, 1873, the Supreme Court upheld Illinois’s denial. 
- Majority Opinion (Justice Samuel F. Miller): The right to practice law in state courts was not one of the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. States retained authority to set qualifications for admission to their bars. The Court relied heavily on its recent Slaughter-House ruling.
- Concurrence (Justice Joseph P. Bradley, joined by Justices Swayne and Field): This opinion is often quoted for its articulation of 19th-century views on gender roles. Bradley wrote: “The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.” He argued that the “natural and proper” differences between the sexes justified states in limiting women’s professional opportunities, particularly in roles involving public life or conflict.
- Dissent: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dissented without opinion (the only dissenter).
Significance and Aftermath
The decision reflected the era’s limited view of the Fourteenth Amendment and prevailing social norms about women’s “sphere.” It was one of the early post-Civil War cases narrowing Reconstruction-era protections.
Myra Bradwell never practiced law during the litigation, but in 1890 the Illinois Supreme Court admitted her to the bar (retroactively making her the first woman licensed in the state). She was also admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court bar in 1892.
The ruling no longer reflects current law. Modern equal protection doctrine (under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, developed in the 20th century) and statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit sex discrimination in licensing and employment.
Historical and Broader Context
Bradwell is often paired with Minor v. Happersett (1875), which similarly held that voting was not a privilege of U.S. citizenship. Together, they illustrate the slow pace of incorporating women into full civic participation through constitutional interpretation rather than amendment or legislation. From a historical perspective relevant to Reformed and classical Christian thought (e.g., household roles, natural law distinctions between sexes, and civil order), the case highlights tensions between traditional understandings of family and vocation versus emerging claims of individual professional rights.
—
From a 9/2/25 post on socialism and civil government:
Civil magistrates are fathers to their people. But what kind of fathers are they?
If the citizenry is irresponsible and undisciplined, he has to be a controlling father – usually some kind of tyrant, because they people cannot govern themselves. The citizens are like little children who need someone to do everything for them. Think of Joseph, who had to tax the people of Egypt exorbitantly because they could not be trusted to be future-oriented and make preparations for the famine to come. A childish, immature citizenry always results in some kind of socialist/welfare “nanny state” or some kind of Marxist state. The state has to grow ever larger, with more and more laws regulating more and more areas of life, in order to cover for the irresponsibility of the citizens. There is a negative feedback loop in this kind of system; by subsidizing irresponsibility, the society gets more and more irresponsibility, until finally there are more consumers than producers and society grinds to a halt. The citizenry becomes functional slaves, often without knowing it, of the state. This kind of magistrate is a curse – but usually a well-deserved curse.
By contrast, if the citizenry is capable of self-government, the magistrate can act like a father relating to grownup, responsible children. He can give them freedom because they can be trusted to take care of themselves; indeed, one of the main tasks of the fatherly magistrate in this kind of society is protecting the freedoms of the citizens. The people will plan for their own futures. The magistrate doesn’t have to control their lives or tax them heavily because they will take ownership of their own lives. The nation might not even have to have much of a standing army because the citizenry are prepared and willing to defend the nation as needed. The government can be small and the liberties large because the people handle most needs, even care of the poor, through private channels. Because personal responsibility is encouraged, families are strong and healthy, so the need for state services is minimal. With freedom, more people prosper. There is no fear of competition in the marketplace because everyone knows their hard work and ingenuity will be rewarded; people are encouraged to produce more than they consume. This kind of magistrate is a great blessing – and this kind of society is almost always prosperous.
—
Notes on James Baird’s book, “King of Kings,” from 10/22/25:
This is a very solid book – an excellent introduction to the basics of Christian (Reformed) political theology. I’d put it right up there with Doug Kelly’s historical study, “The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World” as primer on these issues.
The book doesn’t really develop an ecclesiocentric perspective, but it’s only about 75 pages. If state has a duty to promote the true religion, that includes some kind of positive relationship with the church – and he points out how that worked in American history, with a proper understanding of 1A and state-level establishments, religious test oaths, etc. But the Spiritual authority of the church, the political aspects of the Great Commission, the politics of the gospel message and of the sacraments, ways in which the church’s government interacts with and overlaps with civil society, etc., is left out. The book’s thesis is narrow – it focuses on the state’s obligation to acknowledge God – and that’s a good starting point. You really can’t get a state that acknowledges God without a church (mainly pastors) calling for it to happen.
The book brackets out questions of theonomy, natural law, etc. You have to go elsewhere for those discussions. But the book makes a compelling case that the state has a duty to promote the true religion as a way of promoting the public good. That was the aim of the book, and it succeeds. If we can get agreement of that, we can do a lot. Much more could be said about the use of biblical law, the role of the church, etc., but it’s a short, succinct intro, and for people who are just getting into these questions, it’s a helpful read.
I think a Christian politics will default to some kind of “general equity theonomy” – it pretty much always has in the past. I think a lot of Christians today have accidentally become fairly theonomic, without having ever heard of “theonomy,” just out of instinct (and because it’s the most obvious alternative to progressive craziness).
Christians would get to a general equity theonomy position a lot faster if pastors would actually preach OT law, showing the wisdom of its principles. Vern Poythress’ book The Shadow of Christ in a law of Moses is helpful, along with all the classic sources. Constantine, Theodosius, Alfred, Calvin’s Geneva, Gladstone, the New England Puritans, etc. all used principles from Torah to shape policy and penology, so becoming acquainted with history is also helpful.
I did appreciate Baird’s emphasis on prudence. Following Althusius, he points out that a Christian magistrate might have to permit for a season what he cannot prevent. Even if we have an ideal Christian republic in mind, politics remains “the art of the possible,” and much of that ideal will be unrealized until the people are primed for it. The most dedicated theonomic magistrate in America today still has to work within the constraints of the system and character deficiencies of the people he governs.
—
True humility is God-oriented. False humility is man-oriented. True humility aims to please God. False humility aims to please man (and look good in man’s sight).
—
From 5/18/25:
The Christian goal is not “religious freedom” (whatever that is). The Christian goal is a discipled nation.
True civil liberty must be an ordered liberty. In a discipled nation, the framework for liberty, religious or otherwise, is provided by the Christian faith. The religiously neutral version of religious liberty that so many subscribe to is unworkable and contradictory.
For example, one religious group is polygamous, another religious group has the conviction that polygamy should be outlawed. They cannot both have freedom.
Molech worshippers want to sacrifice babies. Christian’s say that is murder and should be outlawed. They cannot both be free in the same way. Etc.
The reality is that in any society some particular religion will have hegemony. True neutrality is impossible.
I fear the myth of religious liberty (as commonly held) has undercut Christians from advocating for a public morality that would serve the common good and conform the nation to God’s will for social ethics.
I actually think my understanding of liberty is much closer to the original intent of 1A (which was compatible with established churches at the state level, blasphemy laws, anti-sodomy laws, etc.).
—
““Funny thing is, I’ve delivered a million passengers over 40 years in the air and in the end I’ll be judged on 208 seconds.”
Brothers, this is perhaps one of the most poignant lines in the film, Sully. The movie chronicles one of the greatest almost airplane disasters in US history, known as the Miracle on the Hudson… a near miss, averted by the almost miraculous skill of captain Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger.
The line is meant to evoke sympathy for Sully.
He found himself in a horrible situation not of his own making. What tough luck after such a long and distinguished career!
But it shouldn’t.
Like it or not, brothers, you will not be judged on the totality of your life.
You will be judged on how you handle the key and crucial moments and situations that God in His providence sends your way.
The 208 seconds.
“If you faint in the day of adversity, how small is your strength?” Proverbs 24.10
“Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him”
A natural disaster causes a sudden evac for your family. A cancer diagnosis for you, your wife, or a child. The loss of a child. A major financial setback. A hard to bear injury that takes many, many months or more of recovery.
Sometimes it will be a smaller 208 seconds, like five minutes before church starts being told that everything you planned and practiced for a week has to be scrapped, and hundreds and hundreds of people still want to sing and praise God. Or getting lost in the mountains hiking with a few of your kids. Other times, they will be larger.
But they will be. There is no avoiding them.
And here is the rub. How you perform in your 208 seconds is almost completely determined by “the million passengers and 40 years.”
Those 208 seconds are the greatest evidence as to what your 40 years was really, actually like, what you really, actually were doing, who you were really, actually becoming, what skills and presence you were actually developing.
How are you spending your forty years, brothers?
Sully had spent a life cultivating skill, excellence, good judgment, ability to execute under pressure, and more.
So when his 208 seconds came, he was ready. And it saved 155 plus lives (in reality, a great deal more, as if he had tried to land anywhere else, hundreds and hundreds more would have died in the population dense urban area).
When yours does, will you?”
— John Moody
—
I hate to hear that Amy Coney Barrett has received death threats and how it has affected her family. But what I’d also like to know is how those threats might have impacted her rulings (even if unself-consciously). The left is certainly willing to resort to violence as we have seen. The left will intimidate and threaten. But the right has to stand firm.
—
Grok, how did Schilder view Nazism?
Klaas Schilder (1890–1952), a prominent Dutch Reformed theologian, professor at the Theological University of Kampen, and editor of the weekly De Reformatie (The Reformation), was a vocal and consistent opponent of Nazism both before and during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II. 
He viewed National Socialism as a pagan, anti-Christian ideology rooted in philosophical errors that undermined the lordship of Christ over every aspect of life. His resistance led to his arrest by the Nazis in August 1940, several months in prison, and then years in hiding until the liberation. 
Pre-War Critique
In the 1930s, as Nazism gained traction (including among some Dutch Reformed circles influenced by cultural pro-German sentiments or admiration for strong leadership), Schilder actively warned against it. He wrote a brochure titled Not One Square Inch! (echoing Abraham Kuyper’s famous assertion of Christ’s dominion over all creation) as a direct response to Dutch Nazi propaganda leaflets. 
In it, he described National Socialism as:
“in a good measure inspired by the same philosophical paganism which seized hold of Marx and Engels at the beginning of their development, the consequence of which is now seen in Russia.” 
He lectured widely on the threat and emphasized Calvinist roots in places like Scotland and America rather than turning eastward toward Germany. Schilder rejected any compromise, seeing Nazism as incompatible with the antithesis between Christ and unbelief. 
During the Occupation
After the German invasion in May 1940, Schilder used De Reformatie to continue his critique, pointing out the anti-Christian nature of Nazi ideology even as the magazine faced censorship risks. He refused to submit passively under Romans 13 in a way that ignored tyranny or usurpation, instead appealing to principles of international law and biblical authority. 
One of his boldest pieces (August 1940), headlined something like “Leave your hiding-place. Don your uniform,” called for faithful resistance. A key quotation from that article reads:
“Authority and power, fortunately, remain two different things. Eventually the antichrist shall keep the latter and the church the former. And after that, the day of the great harvest comes. Come, Lord of the harvest, yes come quickly, come over the English Channel and over the Brenner Pass, come via Malta and Japan, yes, come from the ends of the earth, and bring along your pruning-knife, and be merciful to your people; it is well authorised, but only through you, through you alone, at your eternal good pleasure.” 
This prayerful defiance—invoking Christ’s ultimate victory over antichrist forces—led to his arrest. After release, he went underground but continued to encourage resistance, including solidarity with Jews and refusal to collaborate. 
Theological Context
Schilder’s opposition fit his broader theology in works like Christ and Culture (English translation of Christus en Cultuur), where he stressed Christ’s kingship over all spheres of life and rejected any cultural or political totalitarianism that subordinated the gospel or church to state ideology. He saw Nazism as an idolatrous claim on total allegiance. 
His stance was courageous amid widespread sympathy or accommodation in parts of Dutch society and even some church circles. It cost him personally but strengthened Reformed resistance. 
For deeper reading, sources include Rudolf Van Reest’s biography Schilder’s Struggle for the Unity of the Church, the Klaas Schilder Reader (which covers his Nazi opposition writings), and historical accounts in Reformed journals. His example remains a model of public theology confronting tyranny with biblical fidelity and cultural engagement under Christ’s lordship.
Grok, compare Schilder to Bonhoeffer:
Klaas Schilder (1890–1952) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) were two of the most significant Protestant theologians of the 20th century who actively resisted Nazi totalitarianism on explicitly Christian grounds. Both paid high personal costs for their stands—Schilder through arrest, imprisonment, and years in hiding; Bonhoeffer through conspiracy involvement and eventual martyrdom by hanging in 1945. 
While they shared a commitment to Christ’s lordship over against Nazi idolatry and paganism, their backgrounds, theological frameworks, methods of resistance, and legacies differ in important ways. Direct scholarly comparisons are uncommon, but their stories illuminate distinct Reformed and Lutheran approaches to faith, culture, church, and resistance in crisis.
Backgrounds
Schilder was a Dutch Neo-Calvinist in the Reformed tradition (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, later the Liberated Churches). He served as a pastor in several congregations and became professor of systematic theology at the Theological University of Kampen in 1934. He was also longtime editor of the influential church weekly De Reformatie (The Reformation). His work drew on Kuyperian themes but critiqued aspects of common grace and emphasized covenant theology and the history of redemption.
Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran theologian from a prominent, cultured family. He earned doctorates, taught at Berlin University, served as a pastor, and became deeply involved in the ecumenical movement. He helped lead the Confessing Church against the Nazi-aligned “German Christians.”
Theological Emphases
Schilder stressed the cosmic lordship of Christ (“not one square inch” of creation outside Christ’s dominion) and a strong antithesis between Christian faith and unbelieving culture/ideology. He wrote Christ and Culture (1948) and engaged public theology, covenant, and the church as the new Israel. He was polemical against subjectivism, Barthianism (in certain respects), and any weakening of biblical authority or church distinctiveness. His theology supported cultural engagement under Christ while maintaining sharp distinctions. 
Bonhoeffer is famous for the contrast between “cheap grace” (forgiveness without repentance or discipleship) and “costly grace” in The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolge, 1937):
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance… Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again… It is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”
His later prison writings explored “religionless Christianity” in a “world come of age,” ethics as conformation to Christ, and responsible action in a secularized context. He drew on Barth but developed a more existential, community-oriented, and incarnational emphasis (Sanctorum Communio, Life Together, unfinished Ethics). 
Similarities: Both rejected privatized or accommodated faith and insisted on concrete obedience to Christ amid cultural and political evil. Both critiqued aspects of their own traditions’ tendencies toward cultural compromise.
Differences: Schilder’s framework was more covenantal, systematic, and worldview-oriented (Reformed/Neo-Calvinist). Bonhoeffer’s was more focused on personal discipleship, ecclesial community, and ethical responsibility in extreme historical situations (with Lutheran and Barthian influences).
Resistance to Nazism
Both recognized Nazism early as philosophically pagan and incompatible with Christianity (anti-Semitic, totalitarian, idolatrous). 
Schilder opposed it through his pen and pulpit before and during the occupation. He wrote the brochure Not One Square Inch! (responding to Dutch Nazi propaganda), describing National Socialism as sharing “the same philosophical paganism which seized hold of Marx and Engels.” In De Reformatie (especially May–August 1940), he critiqued its anti-Christian ideology, appealed to international law, distinguished authority from raw power, and urged spiritual resistance (praying for Jews, refusing collaboration, addressing Nazi errors from the pulpit when relevant, e.g., the first commandment). One striking article (headline evoking “Leave your hiding-place. Don your uniform”) included this prayerful defiance:
“Authority and power, fortunately, remain two different things. Eventually the antichrist shall keep the latter and the church the former… Come, Lord of the harvest, yes come quickly… bring along your pruning-knife, and be merciful to your people…”
He rejected passive submission under Romans 13 (unlike some other Dutch churches) but did not advocate or join violent plots; resistance was primarily prophetic, principled, and non-violent in method. Arrested in August 1940, imprisoned for months, then forced into hiding for years. 
Bonhoeffer moved from early public critique (radio address against Hitler in 1933, work on the Bethel Confession, leadership in the Confessing Church and Barmen Declaration) to active conspiracy. He ran an underground seminary, helped Jews escape, and joined the Abwehr (military intelligence) resistance circle. He participated in plots to assassinate Hitler, viewing responsible action—including taking guilt upon oneself in extreme necessity—as a Christian duty when legal and peaceful means failed. He was arrested in 1943 and executed in April 1945. 
Key Difference in Resistance: Schilder embodied prophetic, institutional, and ideological resistance through writing, teaching, and encouraging non-collaboration and spiritual weapons. Bonhoeffer combined theological resistance with active political conspiracy, including willingness to use violence against tyranny in extremis. Schilder survived the war (though he faced later church deposition/suspension in 1944 amid the Liberated Churches schism); Bonhoeffer became a martyr.
Legacy
- Schilder: Influenced the post-1944 Liberated Reformed Churches (including in North America). His emphasis on covenant, antithesis, and comprehensive Christian worldview continues in certain Reformed circles. He modeled public theology and resistance without compromising church distinctiveness.
- Bonhoeffer: Icon of costly discipleship and Christian resistance. His prison letters and ethics profoundly shaped 20th-century theology, political ethics, and martyrdom narratives across traditions. He is widely studied for how faith engages (or must confront) secular power.
In summary, both men refused to let Christianity accommodate or be co-opted by Nazism, demonstrating that faithful theology has public and political implications. Schilder represents a robust Reformed emphasis on Christ’s total lordship and antithesis expressed through prophetic voice and principled non-collaboration. Bonhoeffer represents a call to costly, obedient discipleship that can involve responsible (even conspiratorial) action when confronting radical evil. Their examples complement each other: one highlighting comprehensive worldview resistance, the other highlighting personal and communal costly obedience in the face of tyranny. Together they challenge comfortable or privatized Christianity in any age.
—
Grok, how did Nazis and Kuyperians view one another when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands?
The relationship between Hitler/Nazism and Kuyperians (neo-Calvinists influenced by Abraham Kuyper) in the Netherlands during the WWII era is complex, marked by both resistance rooted in Kuyperian principles and some unfortunate collaboration or sympathy. 
Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), the towering Dutch Reformed figure—pastor, theologian, journalist, university founder (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), and Prime Minister—developed key ideas like sphere sovereignty (distinct God-ordained spheres of life like church, state, family, and education, each directly accountable to God rather than the state) and the antithesis (the fundamental divide between Christian and non-Christian worldviews). These shaped “Kuyperians” who sought comprehensive Christian cultural engagement without theocracy. 
Pre-War Context and Sympathies
Kuyper himself was pro-German in some senses due to anti-British sentiment from the Boer Wars (he sided with the Boers against Britain and favored Germany as a counterweight during WWI, while the Netherlands stayed neutral). This cultural tilt lingered in parts of Dutch Reformed circles. 
In the 1930s, as Nazism rose, there was division:
- Some Reformed members (estimates around 8,000 confessing members of the Gereformeerde Kerken in 1936) joined or sympathized with the Dutch Nazi movement (NSB). A grandson of Kuyper, Elisa Willem (Willem) Kuyper, joined the Waffen-SS as a propagandist and died on the Eastern Front in 1944. Abraham Kuyper’s son H.H. Kuyper showed some openness to certain ideas.
- Pro-German cultural leanings, resentment over the Boer Wars, and anti-communism sometimes led to initial naivety or sympathy toward aspects of National Socialism among a minority. Some saw parallels in strong leadership or anti-modernism, though this proved illusory.
However, the official stance of key Reformed bodies, like the 1936 Synod, rejected Nazism as incompatible with church membership.
During the Occupation (1940–1945)
The Nazi invasion and occupation of the neutral Netherlands was brutal, with heavy persecution of Jews (about 75% of Dutch Jews were murdered) and suppression of resistance. Kuyperian responses varied but often drew on sphere sovereignty to resist totalitarian overreach.
Strong Resistance Examples: - Klaas Schilder (prominent neo-Calvinist theologian, professor at Kampen, editor of De Reformatie): A fierce opponent. He critiqued Nazism as pagan ideology akin to Marxism, rooted in the same anti-Christian ground motives. He wrote pamphlets like Not One Square Inch! (invoking Kuyper’s famous declaration of Christ’s lordship over every area of life) against Dutch Nazi propaganda. Arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis in 1940, he spent much of the war in hiding. His stand contributed to the 1944 church “Liberation” (Vrijmaking) amid broader tensions.
- Herman Dooyeweerd (key Kuyperian philosopher at the Free University, developer of Reformational philosophy): His home sheltered Jews and those evading forced labor. Nazis recognized Kuyperian thought as a threat to their ideology.
- Broader church actions: The Dutch Reformed churches protested Jewish deportations (especially for “baptized Jews” or Jewish Christians), sheltered many, and some leaders engaged in underground resistance. Kuyper’s granddaughter Johtje Vos and her husband sheltered Jews.
- Many ordinary Kuyperians participated in the resistance, viewing Nazi totalitarianism as a violation of sphere sovereignty and Christ’s kingship.
Church Resistance Overall: Dutch Protestant churches (including Reformed) showed significant opposition, forming united fronts and issuing protests, though not without internal compromises or collaboration by some.
Theological and Historical Lessons
Kuyperian thought provided strong resources against totalitarianism: Christ’s lordship (“no square inch” outside His authority) directly challenged Hitler’s Führerprinzip and state idolatry. Sphere sovereignty defended institutional pluralism against Nazi coordination (Gleichschaltung). The antithesis framed Nazism’s racial paganism and statism as fundamentally anti-Christian.
Yet the story reveals human frailty—even in confessional Reformed circles influenced by Kuyper, sin, cultural biases (e.g., pro-German sentiment), and poor discernment allowed some compromise. This echoes broader European Christian failures under fascism/communism and underscores the need for vigilance, as your own work on church security and just war theology highlights.
—
Grok, did Hitler target certain Kuyperians in the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands?
The Nazis targeted certain prominent Kuyperians (neo-Calvinists) and institutions associated with Abraham Kuyper’s legacy, particularly those who actively opposed the occupation, though not the broader movement in a singular, systematic “Kuyperian hunt.” Targeting was driven by resistance activities, ideological threats, and general suppression of Dutch institutions rather than Kuyper’s name alone. 
Key Examples of Targeting
- Klaas Schilder: A leading Kuyperian theologian and editor, he was one of the sharpest critics. The Nazis blacklisted his magazine De Reformatie pre-invasion. After the 1940 occupation, he was arrested and imprisoned in August 1940 for his writings denouncing National Socialism as pagan and anti-Christian. Released later but forced into hiding for much of the war, he continued underground opposition. His bold use of Kuyper’s “no square inch” principle directly challenged Nazi totalitarianism.
- Herman Dooyeweerd and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Kuyper’s Free University): This key neo-Calvinist intellectual center faced closure or severe restrictions. Dooyeweerd and associates sheltered Jews and evaders; Nazis viewed Reformational/Kuyperian philosophy as undermining their worldview. The university was a hub of anti-Nazi thought.
- Broader actions against Reformed circles: The occupiers monitored sermons, closed youth organizations, restricted church activities, and arrested clergy who preached against the regime or aided Jews (including Jewish Christians in Reformed congregations). Protests by Dutch churches were ignored or led to reprisals. Some Reformed pastors and leaders were imprisoned or killed for resistance.
Context of Nazi Strategy in the Netherlands
The Nazis (under Hitler’s broader direction, with Arthur Seyss-Inquart as Reichskommissar) sought to “Germanize” or pacify the Dutch, whom they saw as fellow “Aryans.” They tolerated or co-opted collaborators (including some in Reformed circles) while crushing opposition. Universities required loyalty oaths; many students and faculty resisted, halting education. Jewish persecution was ruthless, and churches faced pressure when they protested deportations.
One perspective notes that Hitler “feared and opposed” much of what Kuyper stood for (comprehensive Christian cultural engagement and sphere sovereignty, which rejected state idolatry). The occupation reportedly wiped out or drove off many of Kuyper’s followers and students, weakening the movement’s influence postwar. However, this was part of wider repression of potential dissenters, not a personalized vendetta against Kuyper’s heirs.
Not all Kuyperians were targeted—some sympathized with or collaborated with Nazis early on (e.g., certain family members or NSB supporters), highlighting the internal divisions. The regime exploited these fractures.
In summary, outspoken Kuyperian resisters like Schilder faced direct persecution (arrest, imprisonment, surveillance), and Kuyperian institutions were disrupted because they embodied an alternative Christian worldview incompatible with Nazism. This aligns with the broader Kirchenkampf (church struggle) pattern seen in Germany and occupied Europe, where faithful confession often invited suffering.
—
Is Islam actually matriarchal? Very interesting (and somewhat crass) post on how Muslim culture is longhoused:
—
Good post on Adam Smith and free markets:
Also this:
https://twitter.com/emmma_camp_/status/2076755393976381458/video/1?s=46
—
2 Corinthians 3:18 teaches these basic truths:
In the new covenant, the veil, like the one Moses wore after being in God’s presence, has been removed.
We now behold God’s glory in Christ.
We now reflect that glory to others.
And we now see that glory in other Christians who reflect it to us.
As we behold Christ’s glory in our fellow Christians, and as they behold his glory in us, we are all transformed from one degree of glory to another.
—
“Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called “being in love” usually does not last. If the old fairytale ending “They lived happily ever after” is taken to mean “They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,” then it says what probably never was nor ever could be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were…
People get from books the idea that if you have married the right person you may expect to go on “being in love” for ever. As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they have made a mistake and are entitled to a change — not realising that, when they have changed, the glamour will presently go out of the new love just as it went out of the old one…
But, of course, ceasing to be “in love” need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from “being in love” is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both parents ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself.They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be “in love” with someone else. “Being in love” first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it…
The thrill you feel on first seeing some delightful place dies away when you really go to live there. Does this mean it would be better not to learn to fly and not to live in the beautiful place? By no means. In both cases, if you go through with it, the dying away of the first thrill will be compensated for by a quieter and more lasting kind of interest. What is more (and I can hardly find words to tell you how important I think this), it is just the people who are ready to submit to the loss of the thrill and settle down to the sober interest, who are then most likely to meet new thrills in some quite different direction. The man who has learned to fly and becomes a good pilot will suddenly discover music; the man who has settled down to live in the beauty spot will discover gardening.”
— C.S. Lewis, on marriage, from Mere Christianity
—
“The basic opposition of Luther and Calvin to scholasticism is often confined to late medieval nominalism in its semipelagian form….
It is arguable that Luther in fact opposed a new strand of thought in his immediate predecessors and contemporaries. If this line of argument is correct, Luther was in fact a defender of the genuine, medieval Augustinian position against a ‘modern’ paradigm. In addition, we could point at the way in which Roman catholic theologians like Suarez were widely read by the Protestant scholastics and were taken over in matters about which there was no significant dispute.”
— Richard A. Muller, et al., editors. Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Baker Academic, 2001), 36–37
—
“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 charge that Luther was a philosophical nominalist has some plausibility. The link comes from Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith: God “names” us righteous, even though we are still sinners. We are simultaneously righteous (by God’s declaration) even while we are still sinners. This doctrine was set in opposition to the medieval Roman doctrine that we can only be declared righteous when we actually are righteous.
But there is plenty of counter-evidence, which either refutes the claim that Luther was a nominal ist or at least complicates the link between Luther and nominalism.
First, Luther was notoriously un-philosophical, even anti-philosophical in certain respects. Luther’s main concern was that philosophy easily exalts human reason over Scripture. The gospel is foolishness to the philosophical mind (1 Cor. 1). Luther did not oppose reason but believed reason should be subordinated to faith/Scripture. He believed the foolishness of the gospel had been subjected to and misshapen by the wisdom of man.
In his 1517 Disputation Against Scholastic Theology (97 Theses, a precursor to the 95 Theses), Luther directly targeted the integration of Aristotelian philosophy into theology. Key theses include:
• Thesis 41: “Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace.”
• Thesis 43: “It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle.”
• Thesis 50: “Briefly, the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light.”
In his Table Talk, Luther attacked the concept of autonomous reason:
- “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
• “Philosophy is the Devil’s Whore.”
Of course, Luther was not anti-reason, problvided reason was used as a tool of faith rather than an autonomous weapon against it. The “foolish” message of a crucified God humbles reason.
Second, many strains of Luther’s theology are definitely anti-nominalist. He held to natural law, which presupposes creational design and fixed human nature. He held that there are real essences and real universals:
“All men have a certain natural knowledge implanted in their minds … whereby they naturally perceive that they ought to do unto others as they would have others do unto them (and this and other such opinions, which we call the natural law, are the foundation of human right and of all good works).”
Likewise, Luther’s theology of the Lord’s Supper was decidedly realist rather than nominalist. He held to a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. The bread and wine are not merely named “body” and “blood,” as if they were mere symbols; rather they really are Christ’s body and blood in some way. Luther rejected transubstantiation, with its dependence on an Aristotelian metaphysic but he still affirmed the real presence.
Third, and most importantly, when Luther’s doctrine of justification is stated in full, it is not a nominalist doctrine. Neither is it a legal fiction in the sense many claim. Yes, it is true that for Luther, believers are “named” righteous by faith in Christ even while they are still sinners. But in making this claim Luther was just echoing the Scripture: “God justified the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). I would not deny that Luther made use of nominalism, and had been shaped by the nominalist tradition in various ways, which certainly aided his formulation of the doctrine of justification. But Luther also reacted against his nominalist education, especially the nominalism of Gabriel Biel (and with it, his semi-Pelagianism).
But here’s the most important point: God’s declaration of the believer as righteous is not a mere name, nor a legal fiction, but a reality rooted in the believer’s faith-wrought union with Christ:
“And so, faith not only justifies, it unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. At this point, a contest of happy exchanges takes place. Is that not a happy household, when Christ, the rich, noble and good bridegroom takes the poor despised, wicked little harlot in marriage, sets her free from the devil and all evil, and decks her out with all sorts of good things?”
For Luther, faith justifies because faith unites the sinner to Christ. And in our union with Christ, we share in all that it his – including his right legal standing with the Father. The righteousness by which we are justified is alien in the sense that it is not our own personal righteousness. And yet it really is our righteousness because in possessing Christ by faith, we possess all that belongs to him. We really are righteous, legally speaking, because Christ is our righteousness.
While Luther’s formulation of justification did break with the late medieval church, it certainly had patristic precedent to a large degree. Even Augustine, while not having a fully developed legal/declarative understanding of justification, could certainly distinguish forgiveness from regeneration/transformation, while still holding them together.
—
“Popularity has killed more prophets than persecution.”
— Vance Havner
—
The Church does not determine what the Bible teaches, it is the Bible that determines what the Church must teach.
—
“The American woman is the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth, and to tell them that they are victims of an oppressive, unjust patriarchy is just a grievous lie.”
— Phyllis Schlafly
—
“If wokeness is indeed a new religion, then it may take an old religion to defeat it. If the advance of LGBT causes means the queering of all society, then we may need to privilege normality. If people are not mere individuals but members of particular communities, then we need well-ordered loyalties.”
— Matthew Schmitz
—
“Wisdom is knowledge of God’s world and a knack for fitting oneself into it.”
— Cornelius Plantinga
—
I’m starting to think John Knox knew what he was talking about when he spoke of the “monstrous regiment of women.”
—
“If you’re an American, you owe your freedom to Presbyterians with guns.”
— C. R. Wiley
—
A note on 1 Peter 3:1-7:
1 Peter 3:1-7 is applying the basic principles of marriage to a situation where a wife is married to an unbeliever. If her husband is not a Christian, that is no excuse for refusing to submit to him and serve him.
In fact, the best way she can be a faithful witness to her husband is to obey her husband because in obeying her husband she is obeying her God. Her trust in God will show itself in how she honors God’s design for marriage, which means honoring and respecting her husband.
No, she should not follow her husband into sin, but she should be submissive, even calling him lord/sir.
Men are attracted to femininity, which is not merely outward adornment, but her posture of submission towards her husband and responsiveness to his leadership.
A man will do most anything for a woman who respects him and gives him peace – including converting to faith in Jesus, if he’s not a Christian.
Typically, a man will run through a brick wall for a wife who is feminine in relation to him. He will want to lay the whole world at her feet. It’s just masculine nature to do so. He will take notice of why she brings him peace instead of drama, fights, etc.
Peter is reminding the wife that the inner beauty of her Christian femininity might soften her husband’s heart to the gospel, and so win him to the word. Peter’s evangelistic strategy for the wife is simple: Be a good Christian wife. Obey God’s commands given to you as a wife. Respect your husband. Obey him. Give him peace. Submission to her husband is effective as an evangelistic tool because it will resonate with husband’s created nature, a reminder of “how things really ought to be.”
If Christian wives are supposed to be submissive to non-Christian husbands, how much more should they submit to Christian husbands?
Why would a non-Christian husband be drawn to faith in her God if she is violating her God’s design for marriage? If she doesn’t obey God’s Word, as a professing Christian, why should he come to obey it? It is only as she hopes in God and thus obeys her husband that he can be won over.
—
Nick Fuentes makes a really good point: The Candace Owens/Charlie Kirk conspiracy, which has now been exploded, shows that alternative media can lie too. Alternative media gained traction because legacy media was lying about everything. The alternative media filled a gap. But now alternative media has taken a big credibility hit. The bubble has popped. This time, the mainstream media narrative was right. In other words, they do not lie about EVERYTHING – and alt media is just as capable of telling lies.
The solution to this is not pitting alternative media vs legacy media. It’s to keep a healthy dose of skepticism about everything, be discerning, and keep in mind how human nature works.
Also remember which alternative media figures criticized Candace and her crackpot theories – those voices should be given credit for resisting the conspiracy.
https://twitter.com/RobV59/status/2076100515067306300/video/1?s=46
—
The most miserable wives are those whose husbands let them do whatever they want without ever giving any pushback or direction.
The happiest wives are those whose husbands lead them well so they can lean into their femininity and submit to his leadership with confidence.
—
Michael Clary, explaining how Zionism and dispensationalism drive anti-Semitism:
“In Romans 9-11, for example, Paul is not writing a foreign policy manual. He is not telling Gentile Christians to write checks to the Israeli government or vote for politicians who promise to defend Israel. He is also not dismissing the Jewish people as just another ethnic group with no particular significance in God’s redemptive purposes. He is doing something more careful and more interesting than either of those things.
Scripture consistently forbids the sin of partiality, whether it be against or in favor of someone. James 2:9 says, “but if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (cf 2:1, Rom 2:11).
Christian Zionism is the sin of partiality in favor of the Jews, extending it outward to encompass the entire national entity. In Romans 9, Paul’s anguish over the Jews was not regarding the nation of Israel as we know it today, but of the Jews as his “kinsmen according to the flesh.” He was talking about people who share a common ancestry and religion.
Antisemitism is partiality against the Jews, whether it be towards individual Jews or the nation of Israel. Same principle, opposite posture, also wicked. We must not show contempt for people based on a group they belong to without respect to their individual actions.
In either case, partiality is forbidden. It is a sin.
Ironically, as people begin to realize “Christian Zionism” is an unbiblical position foisted upon them, largely under the influence of dispensational theology, and as they begin to notice instances where Jews truly have done very evil things, they suddenly feel justified ascribing wickedness to Jews as a whole, showing unnecessary contempt for people who don’t deserve such unfair characterization. Thus, as people abandon the Christian Zionism of the dispensationalists, the pendulum swings hard in the other direction and people end up in the ditch of antisemitism, showing partiality against them instead…
Remember, Romans 11 is not about foreign policy, it simply exhorts Gentile Christians to not be arrogant towards the Jews. It says maintain humility about your position as a wild olive shoot grafted into a tree you did not plant. None of that translates into a requirement to support any particular nation’s foreign policy. The only concrete obligation the book of Romans places on Gentile Christians toward Jewish people is to share the gospel with them, which is the same obligation we have toward every other lost people group (cf Rom 10:14-21).
The antisemitism ditch assumes the Jews are a uniquely wicked people since they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ. As people realize that Christians have been poorly taught a Christian Zionist position, and that this doctrinal position has been exploited to manipulate people into supporting a foreign government even at the expense of our own people, they get radicalized and end up in the antisemitism ditch.
The path from “I was told I had a theological obligation to support Israel” to “the Jews are uniquely destructive and I’m angry about it” is pretty short, and a lot of people are walking it right now. Again, we should not overlook or excuse the sins committed by Jewish people, but it is also unjust to falsely accuse them of sins they didn’t actually commit.
In short, Christians do not owe Israel uncritical political support. We are not obligated to show deference to any particular Israeli government or policy. Whether or not America supports Israel politically should be determined by what is in America’s national interests, not determined by an unbiblical, misguided, and easily-exploited theological doctrine.
As Christians, we should maintain a posture of genuine humility and gratitude, acknowledging that we are the wild olive branch that inherited Jewish blessings, promises, scriptures, and worship. We now claim a Jewish patriarch as our own and are living in a spiritual house we did not build…
God has been doing something in history that few would have anticipated. He used the Jewish people to bring the Messiah into the world. He allowed their rejection of their Messiah to open the door for the Gentile nations to come in, from which he is gathering a people from every tribe and tongue. And he has promised that before it is all over, large numbers of Jewish people will receive their Messiah by faith and be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Our job is not to manage that process through foreign policy. Our job is to simply to proclaim the gospel to everyone, Jews included, and leave the results with the God whose ways are unsearchable and whose gifts and calling are irrevocable.
So, don’t be arrogant toward the branches. Also, don’t let anyone tell you that humility requires you to write them a check.”
Clary also does a good job explaining what it means for Gentile Christians to be incorporated into the Israel of God:
“To understand that text [Romans 9-11], you have to feel the weight of the Jew/Gentile reversal that is key to Paul’s argument. It is one of the most stunning plot twists in all of Scripture.
In the Old Testament, God’s people were the Jews who descended from Abraham. The Gentiles were outside the covenant. By definition, they were pagans and unbelievers. Thus, Israel occupied a position of extraordinary blessing and privilege. God gave them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, and the promises (Rom 9:4). Everything God was doing in redemptive history, he was doing through them.
By the time Paul wrote Romans, the picture had completely flipped. The Jews had largely rejected their Messiah while the Gentiles were more receptive to the gospel. The Jews who rejected their Messiah now found themselves in the position the Gentiles once occupied: outside the covenant, cut off from the promises, and under God’s judgment. It’s difficult to overstate the significance of this. Further, Gentile Christians, who previously would have been considered “dogs” and pagans, had now inherited everything that once belonged to Israel(see Paul’s olive tree illustration in Rom 11:17-24, cf Jer 11:16, Ps 52:8, John 15:2)…
Now, think about what we Gentile Christians have inherited: the Old Testament scriptures, the covenants, the promises, the law, the worship, and even the very concept of the one true God. Further, we Gentiles can now claim Abraham as our spiritual father, though we are not physically descended from him. Abraham is the father of everyone who believes. He’s now our spiritual great-great-great-grandfather, while his own physical descendants are now considered outsiders to the covenant. Every promise that sustains us as Christians came first to the Jewish people. We are reading their mail, worshiping their God, and claiming their patriarch as our own.
Think of it this way. Imagine you’re away on a long trip, and someone moves into your home, settles in, and invokes squatter’s rights. They’re not just living in your house, they’re claiming your home as their own.
Now, imagine further that they claim the family photos on your wall as theirfamily. They say, “that’s my mom and dad, that’s my wedding, those are my kids” in those pictures. They claim all your vacation memories, the food in the refrigerator, the car in the garage. All of it. That’s what it’s like for Gentile Christians to have inherited the promises of Abraham. We didn’t build this spiritual house, yet we’re living in it…
If that happened to you, you would feel something. Probably a mix of indignation, outrage, and grief. That feeling is what Paul is deliberately trying to provoke in the Jewish people. He wants them to feel the weight of what they lost by rejecting their Messiah. By his reasoning, that sense of jealousymight be what brings some of them back. “Inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles,” he writes in Rom 11:13, “I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” In other words, they can come back home if they simply repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s the dynamic Paul is describing. Now, what is his point to the Gentiles in all this? Paul’s message to Gentile Christians is to not take for granted how incredibly blessed we are to granted in to the cultivated olive tree of God. It’s as thought Paul is telling us, “this isn’t the spiritual house your Gentile ancestors built. They were pagans. You have been invited to live here and claim the promises originally given to the Jewish people because they rejected their Messiah. It’s yours now only because God has graciously given it to you, not because you earned it. Don’t be arrogant about that fact.”
In Romans 11:18, Paul says, “it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.” The wild olive shoot doesn’t get to look down with arrogance on the cultivated tree…
Now, the biggest challenge is not so much the doctrine presented here, but the application of it in our day. Here’s what I mean.
We should not automatically assume the Jews of our day are exactly the same as the Jews in Paul’s day without serious theological reflection. It matters that we get this right because it’s so easy to see the word “Israel” in our Bibles and assume it means the same thing as the modern nation state led by Bibi Netanyahu. Not so.
Paul’s affection for his kinsmen rested on two foundations. First, Paul had genuine genealogical connection to them. This was his own blood andfamily. He was from the tribe of Benjamin, and every Jew of his day could trace their tribal ancestry back to Abraham. The careful maintenance of genealogical records was central to Jewish identity because Abraham’s bloodline was theologically significant.
Modern Jewish identity, by contrast, is primarily ethnic and cultural. There are no genealogical records linking contemporary Jewish people to Abraham’s specific line. This doesn’t mean there’s no connection, it just means the connection cannot be verified the way it could in Paul’s day.
Second, and more importantly, Paul could say the Jews of his day had a genuine zeal for God. Romans 10:2 plainly says, “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” In other words, they believed in the God of Israel and were seeking righteousness. And for the most part, they rejected Jesus out of ignorance, not contempt. Their zeal was “not according to knowledge.” Jesus said something similar when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Paul’s grief was the grief of a man watching his devout family members miss the very thing their whole religion pointed toward.
I point this out to highlight the fact that what we know as modern Judaism is quite different from ancient Judaism of the New Testament. By most estimates, 60 to 80% of contemporary Jewish people do not significantly observe Jewish religious practice. For the majority of modern Jews, Jewish identity is not primarily religious, it is more ethnic and cultural. For the most part, modern Jews don’t worship the God of Abraham or follow the Torah at all. Many (if not most) of them are secular atheists who happen to share an ethnic heritage.
Further, modern Jewish identity, as it has developed through Rabbinic Judaism, shaped substantially by the Talmud, is not characterized by an ignorant zeal for God. Rather, they are quite informed about who Jesus is. Modern Talmudic Judaism is primarily characterized by an explicit and informed rejection and contempt for Jesus Christ. The Jews of Paul’s day didn’t know what or who they were rejecting. That doesn’t excuse them, but it is a notable difference between them and the Jews of today. Modern Judaism, as it is codified in the Talmud, knows exactly who Jesus was and regards him with disdain.
Simply put, the religious profile of ancient Jews is very different from modern Jews. Paul wept over the lostness of ancient Jews because they sought after God but didn’t recognize his Son. I doubt Paul would weep over modern, Talmudic Judaism the way he wept over the ignorant zeal of his kinsmen.
That said, none of this means Gentile Christians should be hostile towards the Jews without respect for their individual beliefs or behaviors. I point this out so we can be more careful about which Romans 11 promises we attach to which people.”
This is precisely what I mean by my claim that “Gentile Christians have been Israelized and unbelieving Jews have been Gentilized.”
—
“My countrymen, you are about to set out on an expedition which is full of hardships and dangers, but one in which the Almighty will attend you. The Mother Country has her hands upon you, these American colonies, and takes that for which our fathers planted their homes in the wilderness—our liberty.
Taxation without representation and the quartering of soldiers in the homes of our people without their consent are evidence that the Crown of England would take from its American subjects the last vestige of freedom. Your brethren across the mountains are crying like Macedonia unto your help. God forbid that you shall refuse to hear and answer their call—but the call of your brethren is not all. The enemy is marching hither to destroy your homes.
Brave men, you are not unacquainted with battle. Your hands have already been taught to war and your fingers to fight. You have wrested these beautiful valleys of the Holston and Watauga from the savage hand. Will you tarry now until the other enemy carries fire and sword to your very doors? No, it shall not be. Go forth then in the strength of your manhood to the aid of your brethren, the defense of your liberty and the protection of your homes. And may the God of justice be with you and give you victory.”
— Samuel Doak, preaching to the Tennessee militia on September 26, 1780, just before the Battle of Kings Mountain
—
“It ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest people; the assured and experienced truths that are put first to the baby. But in a school today the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself. The flopping infant of four actually has more experience, and has weathered the world longer, than the dogma to which he is made to submit.”
— Chesterton
—
“Socialism aims to completely redesign our traditional morals, law, and language, stamping out the old order and the supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom, and justice.”
— Friedrich Hayek
—
“The idea of Christianity and the meaning of reality belong together like lock and key: they make sense together.”
— Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview
—
“The more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild.”
— Chesterton
—
“Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.”
— Bonhoeffer, Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible
—
“Those who orbit around the institution are not necessarily those who orbit around Christ…. Institutional continuity with Abraham at the expense of a faith-based continuity becomes wickedness, becomes diabolical, and the holiest looking men on earth picked up stones in order to kill God. That’s the story of the Bible. It’s the institutional authorities that hand Jesus over to be crucified. It is the institution that orbits itself around only the institution that ends up being so diabolical, it kills God when it has the chance. Now, I am not saying that all institutions are wrong. And I’m certainly not saying that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are kcrucifying Christ all over again and all those sorts of things. But I am saying the message of the Bible, if you go deeply into history, the message of history is to be suspicious of those who would privilege institutional continuity over all other kinds of continuity. I’m not saying that the institutional doesn’t matter. And I’m not saying that the constant splintering of Protestant denominations doesn’t matter. That really does matter. And you can see my former video all about that. But the privileging of institutional unity over all other forms is a very dangerous move. And it forgets the most important kind of continuity we’re meant to have.”
— Glen Scrivener
—
“When we looked at God’s wisdom, we saw something of His mind; wien we thought of His power, we saw something of His hand and His arm; when we considered His word, we learned about His mouth; but now, contemplating His love, we are to look into His heart.”
— J. I. Packer, Knowing God
—
“Lord, help me to do great things as though they were little, since I do them with your power, and little things as though they were great, since I do them in your name.”
— Blaise Pascal, Pensées
—
Grok on Adam Smith and slavery:
Adam Smith strongly opposed slavery on both moral and economic grounds, though he was pessimistic about its abolition. 
Moral Condemnation
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759, with later editions), Smith expressed deep revulsion at the institution. He described the enslavement of conquered peoples—particularly in the context of the transatlantic slave trade—as one of the greatest barbarities:
“Fortune never exerted more cruelly her empire over mankind, than when she subjected those nations of heroes to the refuse of the jails of Europe, to wretches who possess the virtues neither of the countries which they come from, nor of those which they go to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness, so justly expose them to the contempt of the vanquished.” 
He called domestic slavery “the vilest of all states” and highlighted the misery of slaves, whose lives, property, and liberty were entirely at the mercy of their masters.  These passages influenced early abolitionists and were quoted in anti-slavery pamphlets. 
Smith rooted his moral critique in sympathy and the impartial spectator: slavery dehumanizes both the enslaved (robbing them of liberty and dignity) and the enslavers (corrupting their humanity through domination). 
Economic Critique
In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith argued that slave labor is fundamentally less productive and more expensive than free labor. Slaves lack personal incentive, leading to laziness, resistance, and little innovation or care for tools/land. Free workers, motivated by self-interest and wages, work more efficiently. 
Key points from Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter VIII and elsewhere):
- The “wear and tear” of a slave is borne by the master but costs more overall than paying free servants adequate wages.
- “It appears… from the experience of all ages and nations… that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves.” He noted this held even in high-wage places like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.
- Slavery distorts the “invisible hand”: in slave societies, wealth accrues to masters through coercion rather than mutual benefit, harming overall prosperity and free laborers.
In his Lectures on Jurisprudence, he elaborated that masters have no economic reason to treat slaves well, and slaves have no motive to improve productivity.
Pessimism About Abolition
Despite his opposition, Smith was realistic (or pessimistic) about ending slavery. He noted it was nearly universal in early societies due to humanity’s “tyrannic disposition” and that wealth often enabled more slavery, as the rich could afford the luxury of domination. - Even republics or Christian societies often failed to abolish it, as lawmakers were typically slaveowners.
- He doubted pure economic self-interest would suffice, given the psychological appeal of power.
Slavery had declined in parts of Western Europe due to historical and institutional factors, but he saw it persisting in colonies under mercantilist systems.
Context and Legacy
Smith’s views aligned with his broader advocacy for natural liberty, free markets, and moral sympathy. His economic arguments against slavery became influential in “free labor ideology,” while his moral passages inspired abolitionists. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in its empire in 1833—developments some linked to Smithian ideas.
He was not an activist but a philosopher-economist whose analysis showed slavery as both unjust and inefficient. Modern interpretations sometimes oversimplify this (e.g., claiming he saw it as “inevitable” without noting his condemnations), but his writings clearly reject it.
For primary sources, see The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Wealth of Nations (esp. Book III on feudalism/colonial slavery), and his Lectures on Jurisprudence.
—
Most nations in the world today have a mixed economy. But it should be noted that when more capitalist countries mix in socialism, their prosperity usually declines, and when socialist or communist countries mix in capitalism their prosperity increases
—
Nancy Pearcey on Rousseau:
“Every Christian should understand the impact of Rousseau on our own day:
“Most of the ideologies that bloodied the twentieth century were influenced by Rousseau. His writings inspired Robespierre in the French Revolution, as well as Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao. Even Pol Pot, who massacred a quarter of the population in Cambodia, was educated in Paris and read his Rousseau.
So if you get a grip on Rousseau’s thinking, you have a key to understanding much of the modern world.
What exactly was it that made his worldview so revolutionary? Rousseau said the way to grasp the essence of human nature was to hypothesize what we would be like if we were stripped of all social relationships, morals, laws, customs, traditions—of civilization itself.
This original, pre-social condition he called the “state of nature.” In it, all that exists are lone, disconnected, autonomous individuals, whose sole motivating force is the desire for selfpreservation—what Rousseau called self-love (amour de soi). Social relationships are not ultimately real; instead they are secondary or derivative, created by individual choice.
What did that mean for Rousseau’s view of society? If our true nature is to be autonomous individuals, then society is contrary to our nature: It is artificial, confining, oppressive. That’s why Rousseau’s most influential work, The Social Contract, opens with the famous line, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
He did not mean chains of political oppression, as we Americans might think: For Rousseau, the really oppressive relationships were personal ones like marriage, family, church, and workplace.
This line of thought represented a stark break from traditional Christian social theory, which takes the Trinity as the model of social life. The picture of ultimate origins given in the Bible is not one of disconnected solitary individuals wandering under the trees in a state of nature. Instead, the picture is one of a couple—male and female—related from the beginning in the social institution of marriage, forming the foundation of social life.
The implication of the doctrine of the Trinity is that relationships are just as ultimate or real as individuals; they are not the creation of autonomous individuals, who can make or break them at will. Relationships are part of the created order and thus are ontologically real and good. The moral requirements they make on us are not impositions on our freedom but rather expressions of our true nature.
By participating in the civilizing institutions of family, church, state, and society, each with its own “common good,” we fulfill our social nature and develop the moral virtues that prepare us for our ultimate purpose, which is to become citizens of the Heavenly City.
This explains why it was so revolutionary when Rousseau proposed that individuals are the sole ultimate reality. He denounced civilization, with its social conventions, as artificial and oppressive.
And what would liberate us from this oppression?
The state.
The state would destroy all social ties, releasing the individual from loyalty to anything except itself. Rousseau spelled out his vision with startling clarity: “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men, and absolutely dependent on the state.”
No wonder his philosophy inspired so many totalitarian systems.”
—
Repost from 1/8/26:
Overview on the immigration issue, identity politics, and the “Christian nationalist” way forward:
- Combining open borders with a welfare state is a disaster — all the more so when welfare fraud allowed, and even encouraged by one political party (which is incentivized to keep the borders open because it adds to their voting block). Biden and other Democrats who opened the border are traitors. They won’t be punished for what they did, but the reality is that they could never be punished severely enough. They rejected the rule of law, and intentionally tried to destroy their own country. The immigration laws we had in place were not great – but they were written by elected legislators and signed into law by elected executives. The complete refusal to abide by those laws was the real “war on democracy.” It is rampant lawlessness.
- The Great Replacement is real – but it’s important to understand that it is not merely people with white skin who are being replaced. The real target is the remaining vestiges of Christendom. While it is true that whites are being replaced by people with other skin colors in their own nations, the more fundamental “replacement” is Christian civilization being replaced with globo-homo secularism. The culture war might seem like a race war on the surface, but its actually a religious war.
- Leftists hate the Bible and have no intention of ever submitting to it, but they will appeal to it when they think it will score them political points, which they can accomplish by taking texts out of context, putting forth half truths as if they were the whole, etc. Nowhere is this more evident than on the immigration issue. Leftists will cite passages from the Torah about kindness to immigrants, loving the alien, etc. But they leave out other factors, such as, (a) the same Torah required immigrants to assimilate to Israel’s law and way of life; (b) the Torah forbade proselytizing for false gods; (c) some people groups with a history of hostility to Israel were not allowed to become citizens for multiple generations because they could not be trusted to assimilate quickly. In short: There is absolutely nothing in biblical law that endorses open borders or would forbid a nation from deporting those who entered its territory illegally. The leftists do not have the moral high ground on the immigration issue – just the opposite. Leftists are not driven by compassion but by a desire to increase their power through expanding their voting base. Voters ensnared by suicidal empathy may think the leftwing position on immigration is kind and loving, but those voters are moral idiots. They’ve been duped into suiciding their own civilization.
- Nations, as sovereign entities, can decide for themselves how to handle the immigration issue. America has generally been hospitable to immigrants, but the immigrants were expected to assimilate and generally came from similar enough nations that assimilation could happen within a reasonable timeframe. In the second half of the 20th century that changed, –and then the change really accelerated in the 21st century. Some of this is a function of growing liberalism, some of it is due to the rise of an anti-Christian spirit of self-loathing, some of it is due to missteps in American foreign policy. But none of it has been good for America. It is reasonable to expect a civil magistrate to act in the best interests of his own people, just as a father seeks the good of his own family. But we can no longer count on our magistrates to do what is best for their citizens — and that gets at the heart of our problem. Progressive American politicians, in particular, clearly hate the nation and people over whom they rule. Conservatives may have good talking points but have generally been too “nice” or fearful to stop the progressive freight train barreling down the tracks. Progressives have done a much better job using power to impose their ideology on the nation than conservatives have. That has to change.
- I do not think white identity politics is the answer. In fact, I do not think anyone should be doing racial identity politics. Race is never a healthy fixation. It is true, in the abstract, that if a particular group is attacked as a group, that group can fight back as a group. But in the case of white Americans, this simply won’t work because (a) a lot of the anti-whiteness/anti-white discrimination in our culture actually comes from whites; (b) whites are ideologically divided between conservatism and progressivism, and ideology always trumps identity; (c) white identity politics is not a “winning strategy” because conservative whites already vote as a block and adding race to a conservative platform will not expand the coalition we already have (and might actually shrink it); (d) identity politics has a terrible track record of actually improving conditions for the identity group in question in the long run, e.g., the gender identity politics of feminism has not made women happier or better off; black identity politics has backfired by destroying the black family, murdering black babies in the womb, etc. There is no reason to think a white identity politics will actually lead to the greater flourishing of whites. A fixation on identity almost always seems to make the identity group lazy, entitled, etc.
- Racial identity politics is always a distraction from the core issues. Worldview, or ideology, always trumps identity. Just look at how blacks in general treat black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas. Blacks in general don’t celebrate their achievements despite shared skin color because of their politics. It’s not enough to be black to be considered black. It’s the same with feminism, which is a form of gender-based identity politics. For feminists, it’s not enough to simply be a woman. She must be a woman who makes the right choices (e.g., prioritizing career over motherhood; pro-abortion; etc.) to be included in “the club.” Feminists say they are pro-woman, but will viciously attack other women who do not share their ideology. They will criticize women who make different lifestyle choices, even as they claim to be pro-woman. It’s not really about the identity, it’s about the ideology. Only the right kind of woman can be considered part of “Team Woman.” Some say, “Everyone else is doing identity politics — why can’t whites?” But I think this misdiagnoses what’s actually going on.
- The best treatment of anti-whiteness is Jeremy Carl’s book The Unprotected Class, but when Carl proposes solutions, he does not go the white identity politics route. The reality is that DEI, open borders, etc. are not just bad for white Americans, they hurt all Americans, including blacks and Hispanics. There are more electorally effective strategies than white identity politics to deal with the problems we face. Trump got elected two (or three) times without going the white identity politics route, so I cannot see that adding racial identity politics to a conservative political platform is going to increase power or influence for those on the right. The problem conservatives have is not getting elected; its having the guts and determination to use power for good once they have it.
- Mass immigration is always destabilizing, especially when those immigrants come from a wildly different culture than their new host culture. The problem is exacerbated when there is no incentive (much less requirement) to assimilate. It’s not surprising, then, that groups of immigrants from the same place begin to function in a tribal way in their new nation, creating social balkanization, unrest, division, conflict, etc. The left can use the mantra “Diversity is our strength,” “The Somalis are just as American as you,” etc., but these are just lies — politically calculated lies. Sadly, in America and much of Europe, irreparable harm has already been done. But we must use all the political power we can muster to reverse and forever end mass immigration. American culture is worth preserving. The American way of life is worth fighting for.
- Finally, there is one way of looking at identity that can provide a thick enough sense of who we are and enough political/ethical content to fix what ails us: a Christian identity politics. This is what Christian nationalism, as I understand it, is really about. The Christian faith not only provides a theology of nations and national identity that can underwrite strong borders (Acts 17:26), it provides the kind of policy content we need to solve our other problems as well, e.g., the disintegration of the family, drug and porn addiction, abortion, gay “marriage,” transgenderism, etc. It is impossible to make America great without making America Christian — so we should do the kind of thing Charlie Kirk was famous for doing, namely, move seamlessly between evangelism/apologetics for the faith, and application of the faith to the public square.
—
We must put anti-whiteness in its historical, civilizational, and theological context. Anti-whiteness did not come from nowhere. The anti-whiteness is actually about something much deeper – and it’s more spiritual than political.
A lot of anti-whiteness comes from white people who are full of unresolved guilt over what “their people” have done (or what they think “their people” have done). White guilt drives most anti-whiteness. The solution to that guilt (insofar as it is real) is forgiveness found in the gospel and (insofar as it is false) it is getting the history right. Those things will not be solved by a “white identity politics” (whatever that means).
For example, I advocate for undoing at least parts of the civil rights regime. I’m for free association. But as things stand, civil rights legislation actually makes it illegal to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race in hiring practices. (Remember, Jeremy Carl suggests lawfare as one answer to the problem.) As things stand right now, whites might fare even worse without civil rights laws. Many whites are trying to atone for past “sins” by prioritizing “diversity” in who they hire. But why and how did “diversity” become such a priority? Yes, there was some legal/political encouragement to it (affirmative action, race and gender quotas, etc.) but A LOT of it is voluntary.
I don’t think you’re going to solve the anti-white discrimination problem merely through political means because it’s much more than a political problem. We are talking about the metanarrative within which people think they are living.
In Jacob Savag’s article on anti-whiteness, the people who denied him opportunity were older white men. Adding pro-whiteness to a conservative political platform is not going to change the minds of those older white men. They’re not conservative anyway and they really think they’re being virtuous by discriminating against other whites.
By analogy, hatred of monogamous marriage is a thing in itself, but it’s very much driven by an underlying hatred of Christ and the gospel, which is obvious since marriage was patterned after it’s archetype of Christ’s union with his bride the church. Attempts to reject or redefine or destroy marriage are, at the deepest level, motivated by a hatred for Christ and his bride. The gospel is marital and marriage depicts the gospel.
—
Repost from 8/6/24:
Immigration policy is not a “gospel issue” in that the gospel does not dictate any particular stance a nation or citizen should take towards border security
The gospel does announce all nations and people groups can be reconciled to one another in Christ, so the strife and enmity that so often characterizes this world (and especially characterized the world before the Advent of Christ) can be overcome
The church reconciled different people groups in the Roman Empire in ways that were previously unthinkable
But the gospel not destroy natural and providential allegiances to one’s people and place
It does not destroy natural affections, but reinforces and enlarges them
Immigration policy is a matter of prudence, given the purpose of civil government, which is to serve the best interests of its citizens in accordance with with God’s justice
The Torah, of course, provides wisdom in this as it does on all other matters of civil rule
For example, Torah teaches the importance of assimilation – someone who immigrates to another nation must be prepared to give up certain aspects of their own heritage in order to fit into their new nation (eg, immigrants in ancient Israel would not have been permitted to proselytize for their false gods)
Torah teaches that some immigrants might need to be denied citizenship for generations so that assimilation can fully happen, especially if the immigrant came from an ethnic group less compatible with his new nation
Nothing in Torah suggests a nation should be willing to have its own way of life, customs, and identity obliterated by immigration; indeed Torah teaches that we should honor mother, father, and other ancestors
Torah would also teach us to love immigrants who become neighbors
But insisting that immigrants obey a nation’s laws, including laws pertaining to the process of immigration and citizenship, is also perfectly reasonable, loving, and prudent
—
Biblically, when immigrants enter a new land, they are always expected to assimilate, and assimilation is measured in two keys ways: language and laws.
First, if your nation comes to be filled with people speaking another language, it is a sign of God’s judgment (Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 28:11). National identity in the Bible has a linguistic core.
Second, Torah required immigrants to live as guests. They had to abide by the religion and way of life of the land they entered (Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:29; cf. Deuteronomy 13:1ff). There was to be one law for the homeborn and the stranger in the land. There were other restrictions in certain cases. For example, in the case of immigrants coming from nations that had a history of enmity with Israel, various citizenship rights could be restricted or withheld for several generations to allow time for the immigrant to prove he was assimilating (cf. Dueteronomy 23:3-4).
These are wise principles that any coherent and self-respecting nation would take seriously and apply. Most nations do. Only Western progressives reject these principles — and of course, they reject all kinds of other wise and natural principles found in Biblical law as well, including God’s design for sexuality and family, work and prosperity, etc. This is because for progressives, rejecting God’s truth is their whole project. Progressivism is just the mirror image of God’s law. Progressivism is really just humanism — the inversion of all that is good, true, and beautiful. What to know what progressives will do about an issue? Look what God says about it, and be assured they will do the exact opposite.
ADDENDUM: Of course, we cannot simply apply the law God gave to old covenant Israel to nations today since Israel was God’s special priestly people. At the same time, we must recognize that it’s not that difficult to make the necessary redemptive-historical adjustments to Torah and then derive “general equity” principles for wise civil governance in the new covenant. While old covenant Israel was unique in many respects, she was also designed to be the model nation (Deut. 4).
—
The biblical categories of sojourner and stranger presuppose national borders. If there were no national borders, there could not be a sojourner or stranger. A nation cannot implement biblical principles of immigration without having strongly defined borders.
—
Love for enemies does not mean appeasing them or letting them have what they want. It may mean we have to stand up to their evil with tough love. It certainly means speaking the truth to them about their evil. It might include violent confrontation.
Love for enemies does not cancel out our even greater duty to love others who are not enemies. The Ordo Amoris is crucial to properly practicing love of enemies. For example: Did David love his enemy Goliath? Yes, but he loved his God (whom Goliath blasphemed) and his people (to whom he had a much greater duty to protect) more than he loved Goliath. This was good and proper.
—
In the ancient world, somewhere between 25 and 40% of people died a violent death from warfare, raids, ambushes, etc. Approximately 95% of societies engaged in warfare, and many of them did so constantly. The ancient world was cruel and barbaric. Man in his “natural” (fallen) state is deeply wicked.
By comparison, in America today, still heavily leavened by the gospel, though also considered a relatively violent society, less than 1% of deaths are due to violence. We’ve come a long way. Christian culture is a tremendous blessing to the world.
ADDENDUM: What about abortion, since nearly a quarter of American women are child-murderers and we have killed 60 million babies in the last 50+ years in America?
The percentage of people who murdered their children in the ancient world was probably even higher.
I’m drawing from Lawrence H. Keeley’s 1996 book War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. The ancient pagan world was far, far more cruel than the modern West, even taking into account the horrors of abortion in America since 1973. Of course, since abortion is a sign the Western world is re-paganizing, we should expect to see a return to the violence and cruelty that characterized virtually all ancient societies. But it’s almost impossible for moderns to conceive how wicked and barbaric the ancient world in general really was.
—
“Transgenderism is an uncontrolled society-scaled experiment in conformity and obedience: a test of how far you can make people parrot absurdities, inflict cruelties, collude with unrealities, and ostracize and punish people for things they do not themselves believe.
It is a test of whether the moral self-abasements and routine betrayals that occurred in the Soviet Bloc with its secret police and political prisons and armies of informants could be replicated in liberal, democratic, and pluralistic societies that lacked this formal apparatus of repression: whether minor rewards and punishments could force people to punish people for stating the most self-evident of all truths and inspire them to cheer on the chemical castration and dismemberment of their own children. It is a test of whether civil liberties organization could be twisted into instruments of state repression and human rights groups instruments of defamation and violence against women.
It is a test that most of the Western world is failing.”
— Wesley Yang
—
Freya India on girls and social media:
““Since the rise of social media, girls have really seen themselves as nothing but objects in a marketplace.”
Freya India says social media has fundamentally changed how many young women view themselves, relationships, and their future.
“That is the aim of their life.”
“To sell themselves online and to become almost the perfect product.”
“I think that affects not only young women’s happiness, because it’s a miserable existence to chase likes and followers and these online metrics, but it also affects how they treat men.”
“Often they see men as just accessories for their online profiles.”
“A lot of young women no longer value getting married or having children.”
“The pull of social media is so strong.”
“Their view of themselves is that they are literally just an object to be sold.”
—
Very true:
—
John Doyle is usually right but this time he’s wrong (well, sort of):
At least for more Reformed people, to call someone or their behavior “demonic” is not absolving them of their responsibility. It’s pointing out that their behavior is so intensely evil, the person is choosing to worship and/or cooperate with the Satanic realm in an extreme way. That’s kind of where Doyle ends up, and I appreciated his emphasis on original sin (though he needs to brush up on his understanding of Calvinism/Augustinianism). He’s right that people are already evil, so Satan doesn’t have to try to make good people bad (and, yes, Satan spends as much or more time going after the righteous as he does inciting the unrighteous). But Satan and his demons really are active in human affairs and we need to acknowledge that. Our deepest battle is not with flesh and blood.
—
Teddy Roosevelt understood the connection between sexual revolution and economic revolution, between free love and free stuff:
“It is not accident that makes thoroughgoing and radical Socialists adopt the principles of free love as a necessary sequence to insisting that no man shall have the right to what he earns. When Socialism of this really advanced and logical type is tried as it was in France in 1792, and again under the Commune in 1871, it is inevitable that the movement, ushered in with every kind of highsounding phrase, should rapidly spread so as to include, not merely the forcible acquisition of the property of others, but every conceivable form of monetary corruption, immorality, licentiousness, and murderous violence.”
Socialism and sexual licentiousness always go together because they are both predicated on taking what you do not have a right to possess. By contrast, private property and monogamous marriage respect economic and sexual boundaries. Socialism always destroys the family, not just by draining its economic resources but by undermining the moral order on which it rests.
The full speech: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Where_We_Cannot_Work_With_Socialists
—
“Socialism is the gospel of envy and the creed of ignorance.”
— Winston Churchill
—
Seth Gruber on why history matters:
“We study the past so that we can understand what’s happening now.”
—
“Punch right, coddle left” often translates into “punch males, coddle females.”
—
The main villains in the downfall of white Euro-American Christian civilization are white Euro-Americans. Many people point the finger at Jews, and many Jews have certainly been accomplices. But Jews aren’t special, they aren’t omnipotent, and they aren’t uniquely evil. Whites have no one to blame for the loss of their civilization but themselves.
When I see footage of pride parades, antifa mobs, Democratic socialists openly calling for Marxism, and so on, the participants are overwhelmingly whites. Sure, they’ll put forward a Mamdani or AOC as the “face” of their movement. But whites are driving this – whites who hate God, hates God’s image, hate their country, and hate themselves.
The main architects of our downfall have been white Gentiles: Roman Catholic popes and Roman Catholic social services; Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Alfred Kinsey, and John Money, all Gentiles who promoted porn, obscenity, sodomy, and transgenderism; Gentile feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, Simone DeBeauvoir, and Kate Millet; Darwin, with his attack on the history and structure of creation, and with it, biblical authority; Rousseau and others who inspired the revolution in France; and numerous mostly white progressive politicians in the US, the UK, Germany, etc., the majority of whom are not Jewish (Obama, Biden, the Clintons, Starmer, Merkle, etc.).
What we are seeing is the West is a playing out of the principle Jesus taught in Matthew 12:43-45. Western paganism was exorcized as the gospel spread into Europe. European peoples were Christianized. They built a glorious Christian civilization that was exported to America and took new form in the new world. But now Europe and (to a lesser degree) America have fallen. We have apostatized. We squandered our glorious inheritance. We turned away from the Triune God and his gospel. The demons who were driven out have been welcomed back in. Trying to assess this apostasy in terms of ethnicity as a way of apportioning blame (eg, “the Jews made us do it”) is to miss the whole point of what’s happening. We were once discipled; now we are demonized. We were once a Christian people; we have now apostatized – and being an apostate civilization is very different and, in some ways much worse, than being a pagan civilization. We are sinning against much greater light. We once had the general favor and blessing of God; now we are experiencing his judgment as he gives us over to our sins. The only way out is repentance and reconversion.
—
Just a reminder that virtually none of the black slaves brought to America were actually enslaved by white people. They had already been enslaved by other blacks in Africa. White slave traders did not go into Africa and round up free blacks. They bought black slaves from black slavers. If you condemn the British and American slave trade, you have to condemn the sellers as well as the buyers. And remember as well that most of the slaves purchased in Africa did not end up in the US but in other parts of the world, especially Brazil and the Middle East.
Further, while it’s common to point out that our nation’s founding fathers did not apply the words of the Declaration to black slaves and thus were caught in a contradiction, it should be kept in mind that (a) most of the founding fathers, including Jefferson, did want to eradicate slavery and looked into ways of doing so, (b) America legally ended the slave trade in 1807/1808, same as Britain under Wilberforce, and much earlier than most other nations, (c) most other nations in the world had slavery at the time of America’s founding and America was one of the first nations in the modern world to eradicate slavery as an institution, and (d) so far from creating American wealth, slavery actually held much of America back from even greater prosperity because, as Adam Smith argued, slavery is anti-capitalist and therefore anti-prosperity (eg, by the time of the Civil War, the South was much poorer than the North largely because slavery prevented industrialization, innovation, etc.). To treat America as somehow uniquely evil because of slavery is unhistorical and unjust. America is getting singled out for a practice that was common amongst most nations for much of history. This is not to negate the horrors that accompanied slavery in America and elsewhere (eg, enslavers/slave traders are worthy of death according to biblical law), but it is to put American slavery in its historical context.
—
The controversy over data centers baffles me a bit. We all need data centers. If you text or use social media or bank online, all of that requires data centers. Yes, government also need them for nefarious purposes, like sureveilsnce. But data centers are just going to be part of modern life going forward. Opposing them is like opposing Amazon warehouses while still shopping at Amazon.
Now, there are obviously good and bad ways to develop data centers. Location and utility usage are legitimate concerns. But to oppose the centers themselves doesn’t make much sense unless you’re Amish.
—
Conservatives all too often take their social and political cues from progressives. This is far more true of older conservatives than younger conservatives, who are more resistant to name calling and don’t need leftwing approval, but it’s still an issue.
—
A “white knight” is a man who defends women when they do not deserve to be defended and (like feminists) blames men for things that are not their fault. The white knight coddles women when they need to be convicted, challenged, and held accountable. Women are justified at all cost. The white knight is always making excuses for women as a way of shielding them from hearing hard truths, all out of a false sense of chivalry.
A “simp” is a man who makes pleasing a woman his main mission in life. He tries to win a woman’s favor by being a “nice guy” and orbiting around her. He enters into a woman’s frame. He fears women and is desperate for their approval. He is effeminate.
—
“Frédéric Bastiat captured the essence of modern politics in a single sentence: “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Once the state becomes the primary mechanism for distributing resources, politics stops being about protecting rights or creating the conditions for voluntary cooperation. It becomes a contest in which every group attempts to extract wealth from others through taxation, subsidies, regulation and welfare.
Farmers demand agricultural subsidies. Pensioners demand higher benefits. Students demand free tuition. Corporations demand bailouts and protection from competition. Each group frames its demands as a matter of justice or necessity, while ignoring that the money must come from someone else’s labour and property.
This creates a deeply corrosive dynamic. Instead of producing value through trade and innovation, people invest time and resources in political activity designed to redistribute existing wealth. The result is not greater prosperity, but higher taxes, expanding bureaucracy and a culture of dependency, victimhood and resentment.
The state transforms society into a zero-sum game. When everyone is encouraged to view government as a source of unearned benefits, the moral and practical foundations of a free society are steadily undermined. The fiction eventually collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.”
—
“It’s only in believing in God that we can ever criticize the Government. Once abolish…God, and the Government becomes the god. The fact is written all across human history…The truth is that Irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world.”
— Chesterton
—
Groen van Prinsterer:
“We are living in a condition of permanent revolution. The threat of tyranny will grow much worse in scope and intensity unless men can be persuaded to return to Christianity, to practice its precepts and to obey the Gospel in its full implications for human life and society. Barring such a revival, the future surely belongs to Socialism which is but the most consistent sect of the new secular religion.”
—
If abortion is Molech worship, transgenderism is worship of Baphomet. (Baphomet is an ancient androgynous idol/demon who is claimed to have been able to change a person’s gender.)
—
Laurence Vance writes the following at https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/conservatives-want-the-federal-government-to-ban-pornography/:
“Writing for the Heritage Foundation, the premier conservative think tank, Scott Yenor and Caleb Pirc have issued a new Heritage Foundation backgrounder, “Is General Obscenity Still Illegal? A Postmortem on the Bush Obscenity Prosecution Task Force,” that “examines the last serious federal effort to deal with the scourge of pornography and charts a path forward.” Read their report here. I am no defender of pornography, and agree with many of the negative things that Yenor and Pirc say about porn, but a government with the power to ban pornography is a government with the power to ban anything, including things that conservatives like. Are Yenor and Pirc really that stupid?”
Sorry, but Vance is the stupid one here – and the moral imbecile. Does anyone really think progressives are going to say, “You know we really want to ban x, y, and z, but conservatives wanted to ban porn and chose not to. We will exercise the same restraint.”? No, of course progressives won’t do that. This kind of amoral libertarian crap is what got us into the mess we are currently in. Laws are not neutral. All law is imposed morality or immorality. Conservatives banning porn would not somehow grant progressives to ban, say, conversion therapy or pro-life marches. There is no moral equivalence between the smut conservatives would want to ban and the virtuous speech progressives would want to ban. Vance speaks as if conservatives cannot do good because then progressives might do something bad. But progressives will do bad things either way, when they have power to do them. Vance would keep conservatives completely impotent. This kind of thinking id why conservatives keep losing.
—
“The Charlie Kirk murder case is putting “the Jews did it” under oath for maybe the first time in history.
This matters, because if “the Jews” didn’t kill Charlie Kirk, then “the Jews” aren’t behind everything. And if “the Jews” aren’t behind everything, then maybe, like we’ve all been saying, the Jews aren’t behind everything.”
— Will Spencer
—
The kind of equality the American founders believed in is the kind of equality found in the Bible – equality before the law without partiality.
This is totally different than Marxist/socialist and egalitarian notions of equality – namely equality of outcomes (which requires inequal treatment before the law) and equality of all cultures (as in multiculturalism).
If we believe in equality of outcomes, we end up with a double standard, or a tiered system of justice that punishes the successful and perceived oppressors harshly, while coddling real criminals.
Ironically, the more we hear about equality today, the less we get real equality (as in equality of all before the law).
Likewise, the multicultural lie is easy to expose. Does anyone think Nazi Germany was equal to America in the 1940s? Or that a nation with race based slavery is culturally equal to a nation without it?
America’s founders were not committed to the idea that all individuals are equal. Individuals have different strengths and weaknesses, different talents and abilities, even different privileges assigned to them by God’s providence.
Nor were they committed to the idea that all people groups or nations are equal to one another, which is another absurd notion that can be easily disproven both morally and empirically.
—
A question for those who favor propositional nationhood for America: Can we deport people who do not believe the propositions, like Muslims and Marxists? If America is defined by the ideas of the founders, those who reject their core ideas do not belong here and can never be Americans. Free speech, private property, equality before the law – anyone who rejects these notions needs to go somewhere else.
[I don’t believe propositional nationhood is sufficient to define America or any other people group. But I’m just playing along.]
—
“There is precious treasure and oil in the home of the wise, But a foolish person swallows it up.”
Proverbs 21:20
—
Marks of a nation:
Law
Love
Loyalty
Liberty
Land
Liturgy
Lineage
No one of these can be absolutized, but every nation will be defined by each one to some degree. Each one contributes in some way to a nation’s distinctive culture. Each one is important ti preserving national identity, dealing with immigration, etc.
—
America was founded by Americans. It was built by Americans for Americans.
There is a unique American identity and heritage. That identity has always been broad and permeable. But it is still real and ought to be preserved.
—
Somalians are made in the image of God but that does not mean they have the right to become Americans. Nor does it change the fact that the average Somalian IQ is 75.
—
“The fundamental defect of the female character is that it has no sense of justice.”
— Schopenhauer
—
Classical liberalism was always a mixed bag. It was a mixture of Christian and secular influence. It was an attempt to deal with a post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment context in which there was religious and philosophical diversity unheard of in the medieval period. The purest real-world expression of classical liberalism was the American founding. In America, a predominantly Christian people sought to create Christian-shaped institutions, which they did, but there were inherent weaknesses.
Classical liberalism was naïve about religion. Classical liberals wanted to found society on a covenant, but leave God implicit rather than make him explicit in the covenant. They wanted religion to be free, but at the price of making it private.
If you want a sense of the knots that classical liberalism could tie itself into, consider that Locke argued Muslims could be tolerated in his ideal society but Roman Catholics generally could not be. Muslims would be easier to assimilate into a Protestant nation. It’s hard to gauge how much Locke actually knew about Islam but so long as they could keep civil peace (essentially privatize their religion), they could be accommodated. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, could not be trusted because they would have a divided allegiance, partly to the nation, partly to the papacy. In war with a Catholic country, they might be pressured to side with their religious kin rather than national kin.
The whole problem stems from the idea that religion ought to be privatized and society essentially religiously neutral. in reality, classic Reformed Protestantism is just as much a political, public religion as Roman Catholicism. And religions like Islam are always political as well.
Or consider this conundrum: The classical liberalism of the American founding included blasphemy laws at the state level but the federal constitution forbade religious test oath for political offeice. So politicians running for a federal office did not have to believe in the triune God, but they could not blaspheme him either. The classical liberal settlement included Sabbath laws and strict regulations about marriage and divorce, but all of this was supposed to be combined with some kind of religious freedom. Lock made it clear that certain things could not be tolerated in the name of religious liberty, like polygamy, sodomy, or child sacrifice. But the limiting principle on religious freedom was never made as explicit as it should’ve been. For Locke, it seems to be a kind of political pragmatism grounded in the social contract – but what if the people change their minds over time? What if the character and faith of the people changes?
Liberalism had no means of defending and preserving the very principles that made it work because society had no grounding in permanent, fixed truths.
The men who architected classical liberalism had noble intentions and were seeking to deal with the reality of the on the ground situation. No doubt they would be appalled into how their classical liberalism has morphed into modern liberalism with all its perversions. But they also left the door wide open to all these perversions.
—
Regulation without representation:
“The US Constitution is superior because it lets We the People limit government instead of government granting privileges.
Reagan warned we reversed that order through endless rules and taxes that steadily took our freedom.
Agencies issued thousands of binding rules while Congress passed far fewer, creating the exact dynamic he said would contract liberty as government grew.
We must keep fighting back by slashing regulations, cutting the federal workforce, and reasserting elected control over agencies, in the face of the machine’s resistance as it built decades of unaccountable power.
Because government expansion always shrinks liberty.
If we don’t keep We the People driving then the reversal wins, the car takes the wheel, and America becomes just another nation where citizens need permission instead of owning their freedom.”
—
John Locke on sodomy:
“John Locke (1632–1704) did not write a dedicated treatise on homosexuality (or “sodomy,” the term more common in his era), but he addressed related sexual conduct briefly in the context of natural law, marriage, and procreation. 
Key Direct Reference
In his First Treatise of Government (1689/1690), §59, while critiquing Sir Robert Filmer’s patriarchal absolutism and discussing the purposes of marriage and family under natural law, Locke states:
“Adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of Nature, which willeth the increase of Mankind, and the continuation of the Species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of Families, with the Security of the Marriage Bed, as necessary thereunto.”
Locke viewed these acts as violations of natural law because they undermined the primary natural purposes of sexual relations and marriage: procreation, the continuation and perfection of the human species, stable family lineages, and the security of the marital bond. This was framed in terms of reason-accessible natural law (aligned with but not solely derived from biblical revelation), not just positive civil or ecclesiastical law. 
Context in Locke’s Thought
- Natural Law and Toleration: Locke strongly advocated religious toleration in works like A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), but he explicitly excluded acts like sodomy, adultery, debauchery, and promiscuity from toleration. He argued that government could (and should) regulate such behaviors for the public good, as they were not purely private or conscience matters but harmed societal order rooted in natural law. He rejected the idea that religious assemblies could shield “heinous enormities” like promiscuous uncleanness.
- Marriage and Procreation: Locke saw conjugal society as oriented toward procreation and child-rearing. In his political theory (e.g., Second Treatise), marriage is a voluntary contract, but its natural foundation ties to generation and family. This underpins his rejection of practices that “cross” nature’s intent for increase and ordered families.
- Biblical Interpretation: In his later Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (published posthumously), Locke interpreted Paul’s discussions of sexuality (e.g., in Romans or Corinthians) as primarily addressing idolatry and temple prostitution rather than a broad, trans-generational sexual ethic in all cases. Some modern scholars argue this, combined with his empirical interests in diverse cultural practices (e.g., from travel literature), suggests a more nuanced or qualified view of “unnatural lusts” than strict traditional natural law theorists. However, this does not overturn his explicit condemnation in the First Treatise.
Modern Interpretations
Locke’s sparse comments have led to divergent readings: - Traditional/Conservative: His natural law framework supports morals legislation against sodomy and provides no basis for redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, as it would contradict the procreative intent tied to natural law and family security.
- Liberal/Revisionist: Some argue Locke’s emphasis on individual consent, reason, pursuit of happiness (removal of uneasiness), and limits on government over private life could be extended to support same-sex marriage or intimacy, especially given his toleration principles and observations of non-European customs. His own close male friendships have also been speculated upon.
These extensions are anachronistic projections; Locke operated in a 17th-century Christian context where sodomy was widely criminalized (e.g., under English buggery laws), and he showed no interest in advocating decriminalization or equivalence to heterosexual marriage.
In summary, Locke’s clearest statement treats sodomy as a sin against natural law due to its opposition to procreation and family order. He saw government as having a role in restraining it, consistent with his broader views on natural law, limited but not minimalist government, and the purposes of society. For deeper reading, consult the First Treatise §59 and analyses in secondary sources on his natural law theory.
Further, Locke supported the criminalization (or at least governmental prohibition and punishment) of sodomy.
Evidence from His Works
In the First Treatise of Government (§59), Locke identifies sodomy (alongside adultery and incest) as a violation of natural law that “cross[es] the main intention of Nature” regarding procreation, species continuation, family distinction, and the security of marriage. He treats it as a moral wrong accessible to reason, not merely a religious prohibition.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke explicitly argues that religious toleration does not extend to such acts. Responding to the objection that limited government power over religion might allow immoral practices, he writes:
“If some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or, as the primitive Christians were falsely accused, lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer, No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting.”
This makes clear that sodomy (understood broadly in the era as non-procreative or same-sex acts) falls outside toleration. The magistrate (civil authority) has a role in restraining it because it is unlawful in ordinary civil life, not just in religious contexts. Locke distinguishes between private religious beliefs/opinions (which should be tolerated) and actions that harm society or violate natural law (which government may punish).
Broader Context - Locke was not an extreme libertarian on morals. While he limited government’s role in purely speculative religious matters or private conscience, he endorsed the state’s authority to enforce natural law prohibitions on behaviors like sodomy, adultery, and promiscuity for the preservation of society, families, and public order.
- In his time (late 17th century England), sodomy was a serious criminal offense under common law (often capital). Locke did not call for decriminalization; his writings align with maintaining such restraints.
- Some modern scholars debate nuances in his views (e.g., his biblical paraphrases or interest in cultural diversity), but the primary texts show he viewed sodomy as punishable by civil authorities, not a protected private liberty.
Locke’s position fits his overall framework: government exists to protect natural rights and enforce the law of nature (reason-derived rules for human flourishing), which includes regulating conduct contrary to procreation and family stability. He did not advocate for private “victimless” sexual liberty in this area.
—
Locke on the problems with Roman Catholic immigration to Protestant nations:
John Locke did not write a systematic treatise on immigration as understood today (e.g., border control, quotas, or refugee policy), but he addressed related issues including naturalization of foreigners/aliens, the economic and political value of immigration (“transmigration”), and the admission/toleration of specific groups like Roman Catholics. 
General Views on Naturalization and Foreigners
Locke generally favored encouraging immigration and naturalization for economic and national strength reasons. In his unpublished essay “For a General Naturalisation” (c. 1693, during debates over Huguenot refugees), he argued:
- “People are the strength of any country or government.”
- More hands (labor) mean more wealth, especially through trade rather than just land.
- He supported broad naturalization of Protestant immigrants (e.g., French Huguenots fleeing persecution) to boost population, industry, and power.
In his political philosophy (Two Treatises), Locke distinguished between citizens (full members via consent) and aliens/foreigners. Friendly aliens could enjoy protections and tacit consent through residence, but the state retained authority over entry and terms of stay. He saw government as having power to regulate foreigners for the common good, without an absolute “open borders” right.
Locke viewed territory and membership pragmatically: nations could benefit from selective admission, but sovereignty allowed exclusion where it threatened security or the social compact.
Particularly on Roman Catholics
Locke’s position was cautious and restrictive due to political concerns, not purely religious ones. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), he famously advocated broad religious toleration but excluded Roman Catholics (often called “Papists”) from full civil toleration: - Catholics owed ultimate allegiance to a foreign power (the Pope), creating a divided loyalty incompatible with full membership in a Protestant commonwealth. This made them a potential threat to civil government, as they might prioritize papal authority or foreign Catholic monarchs (e.g., France, Spain) over the magistrate.
- He argued that tolerating groups with such “foreign jurisdiction” could undermine the state, akin to allowing internal subversion.
Locke did not oppose Catholicism purely on doctrinal grounds (e.g., transubstantiation); he was willing to tolerate speculative beliefs if they posed no civil danger. A newly discovered manuscript (“Reasons for tolerateing Papists equally with others,” 1667–68) shows he considered arguments for Catholic toleration early on but ultimately rejected them in favor of exclusion in the Letter.
In practice, this meant: - Catholics should not enjoy the same civil rights or public offices (consistent with English Test Acts, which Locke supported in context).
- Immigration or naturalization of Catholics would be problematic if it imported divided loyalties or threats to Protestant settlement. Locke supported Protestant immigration (e.g., Huguenots) but was wary of Catholic influx amid 17th-century European conflicts (e.g., fears of French influence or Stuart Catholic sympathies).
Summary of Locke’s Approach - Pro-immigration for compatible groups: Favoring naturalization of productive, loyal (Protestant) foreigners to strengthen the nation.
- Restrictions based on security: Government could and should limit entry or rights for those posing political threats, with Catholics as the prime example due to perceived foreign allegiance.
- This fits his broader natural law/social contract framework: the state exists to protect life, liberty, and property via consent, so it may regulate membership to preserve that compact.
Locke’s views were shaped by his era’s religious wars, English politics (post-Glorious Revolution), and empiricism—he prioritized practical civil peace over abstract universalism. Modern applications vary widely, but Locke was no advocate of unrestricted immigration or automatic toleration for groups he saw as existential risks to ordered liberty. For primary sources, see A Letter Concerning Toleration and his economic/naturalization writings.
On Naturalization and Immigration (“For a General Naturalisation,” c. 1693)
Locke wrote this short essay amid debates over naturalizing Protestant refugees (e.g., French Huguenots). He strongly favored encouraging immigration for national strength:
“People are the strength of any country or government, this is too visible to need proof.” - ’Tis the number of people that make the riches of any country…
- That most can be made where are most hands needs no proof… If we look into the reason of this, we shall not think it strange. The riches of the world do not lie as formerly in having large tracts of land… but in trade.”
- He argued that more people (via naturalization) drive trade, industry, and power, rejecting fears that immigrants would burden the nation.
- On Roman Catholics and Toleration (A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)
- Locke advocated broad religious toleration but carved out a major exception for Catholics due to perceived political threats (divided loyalty to the Pope as a foreign prince):
- “That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the Magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the Protection and Service of another Prince. For by this means, the Magistrate would make room for a foreign Jurisdiction in his own Territory, and… allow his own People to be enlisted as Soldiers against his own Government.”
- This is widely interpreted as referring to Roman Catholics, who owed allegiance to the Pope (a “foreign jurisdiction”) and could be seen as enlisting against Protestant rulers.
- Additional context from the Letter on exclusions:
- “Neither Pagan, nor Mahumetan [Muslim], nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of his religion.” (Locke includes these groups but excludes Catholics and atheists on political grounds.)
- With regard to the practical danger, Locke emphasized that Catholics’ “dangerous & factious tenets in reference to the state… blended with & make a part of their religion” justified exclusion, not mere speculative doctrines like transubstantiation.
- An early manuscript (“Reasons for tolerateing Papists equally with others,” 1667–68) shows Locke wrestling with the issue, noting arguments for toleration but ultimately prioritizing civil security.
- These reflect Locke’s 17th-century context: religious wars, fears of Catholic monarchs (e.g., Louis XIV, James II), and emphasis on civil peace under natural law. He supported Protestant immigration but restricted groups posing loyalty risks. For full texts, consult editions of Locke’s Political Essays or Letter Concerning Toleration.
—
Locke on Islam, tolerance, and immigration:
John Locke (1632–1704) did not write extensively or systematically on Islam (which he and his contemporaries often referred to as the “Mahometan” or “Mahumetan” religion), but he addressed it primarily in the context of religious toleration. His references are generally positive or neutral regarding civil rights for Muslims, using them as an example of non-Christians who should not be excluded from society on religious grounds. 
Key Quotation from A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)
This is Locke’s most famous and direct statement:
“Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim], nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.” 
Context: Locke argues for a separation between church and state. The magistrate’s role is civil (protecting life, liberty, and property), not spiritual. Purely religious opinions or worship should not lead to civil discrimination. He includes Muslims (along with pagans and Jews) to emphasize that toleration extends beyond Christians, contrasting with his exclusion of Roman Catholics (due to perceived political allegiance to a foreign power, the Pope) and atheists (whom he saw as undermining oaths and society).
He further illustrates:
“Thus if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sort of professors [believers], all these things ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty. Nay… neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded…” 
Locke uses hypothetical examples of a Muslim subject under a Christian ruler to show that religious worship alone does not justify coercion, provided it does not threaten civil peace.
Other References and Context
- Early writings: In his Two Tracts on Government (1660s), Locke made passing references to Muslim customs (e.g., “eastern and turbaned nations”) in discussions of indifferent matters in worship, showing some awareness of Islamic practices without deep hostility.
- Toleration limits: Like Catholics, if Muslims held doctrines that made them politically dangerous (e.g., allegiance to a foreign power or calls to overthrow rulers), they could be restricted. However, Locke did not apply this blanket exclusion to Islam as he did to certain Catholic political claims. He viewed Muslims as capable of sincere truth-seeking and civil loyalty in principle.
- Broader influences: Locke engaged with Islamic thought indirectly (e.g., via translations or philosophers like Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy ibn Yaqzan, which influenced his empiricism and ideas on natural reason). He appreciated Ottoman tolerance of non-Muslims in some contexts as a pragmatic model.
Locke’s stance was progressive for his time: he advocated civil equality for Muslims in a Christian commonwealth, focusing on behavior and civil order rather than creedal conformity. This influenced later thinkers like Thomas Jefferson. His knowledge of Islam was limited and sometimes mediated by European sources, but he treated it as a legitimate religion deserving toleration in civil matters. For the full context, see A Letter Concerning Toleration.
—
If you want a sense of the knots that classical liberalism could tie itself into, consider that Locke argued Muslims could be tolerated in his ideal society but Roman Catholics generally could not be. It’s hard to gauge how much Locke actually knew about Islam but so long as they could keep civil peace (essentially privatize their religion), they could be accommodated. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, could not be trusted because they would have a divided allegiance, partly to the nation, partly to the papacy. in war with a Catholic country, they might be pressured to side with their religious kin rather than national kin.
The whole problem stems from the idea that religion ought to be privatized and society essentially religiously neutral. There are two problems with this: Classic Reformed Protestantism is just as much a political, public religion as Roman Catholicism. And religions like Islam are always political as well.
—
Jeff Meyers makes a valiant effort to exegete the infamous headcovering passage in 1 Corinthians 11:
I’m not convinced v 4-9 is the Corinthian position. And I’m not convinced “nature” means “custom” rather than something like “creational design.” But I agree with his conclusion, of course, especially that 11:15b should settle the matter. There is simply no way that the text requires women to wear an artificial covering over their hair in all times and places in Christian worship assemblies. Meyers is correct that there is no way the rest of the Bible would be silent on this. Numbers 5 teaches the opposite view. 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3 prove headcoverings were not universally worn by worn by Christian women inside or outside of the assembly. 1 Corinthians 11 does teach men and women are naturally different and those differences should be manifest in what they wear, how they speak, how they act, and what roles they fulfill.
The woman presumably had long hair when she was created but she did not have an artificial cover over her hair, even when she and Adam entered the Edenic sanctuary. The law put no such requirement on women. The rest of NT suggests it was not necessary. And so it would be wrong of women to require such today. The only veils women wore in the OT are connected to the “unveiling” of the woman to her husband when they marry.
The most insightful piece of the essay was this on v. 10 – that the expression indicates a women has authority over (and thus responsibility for) her own head/hair:
“Whenever this verbal combination (“to have authority over”) is used, it always refers to the authority that person possesses and neverto someone else’s authority. An accurate translation should read “the woman ought to have authority over her head,” or even “the woman ought to have liberty/power over her own head.”
Every commentator who is careful with the Greek text acknowledges that there is no known case anywherein biblical (LXX or NT) or classical Greek literature that would justify a translation that would mean the woman is recognizing someone else’s authority (like Jesus’ or her husband’s). Some copyists in the post-apostolic church had such a problem with the plain meaning of Paul’s sentence that they audaciously substituted the word “veil” for “authority”: “The woman ought to have a veil on her head.” Again, if you assume you know the logic of Paul’s argument, then you must do some interpretive contortions to make the logic of the passage flow.
There are more than a hundred uses of ἐξουσία (“authority”) in the New Testament, and they are all about the subject’s authority. X has authority over Y. To list just a few examples:
- But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. (Matt 9:6; cf. Lk 5:24)
- The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. (Rev 2:26)
- [T]hey have authority/power over the watersto turn them into blood. (Rev 11:6b).
- And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire. (Rev 14:18a)
- For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Cor 7:4)
In 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul does not say that the woman has “a symbol” or “a sign” of someone else’s authority on her head. Rather, she herself possesses authority over her own head. That means she has the power, the right, to do with her head/hair what she wants.
If the woman has authority over and will one day judge the angels, as will all the saints (1 Cor 6:3), she can certainly judge for herself what’s on her head or how her hair looks.
Just a brief side note before moving on. There’s no reason to exaggerate what Paul is saying here. He’s talking about the woman’s liberty with regard to her head and hair. He’s not saying that she has some sort of absolute authority apart from her husband’s involvement. Paul’s statement in verse 10 must be taken with the other New Testament passages that talk about the husband’s authority and the wife’s submission. Here Paul is simply saying the woman has the right to make decisions about her hair and head.
This is no different than Paul or Peter speaking directly to women in other places about how they wear their hair and dress. For example, Peter addresses the women: “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing” (1 Pet 3:3). He’s not talking to fathers or husbands, but to the women themselves. This kind of direct address assumes these Christian women have the agency and the authority/liberty to make the correct decisions.
Someone will ask. “What, then, do we do with the beginning of verse 10? How does the authority of women over their own head follow from what comes before?” Perhaps it doesn’t follow. Some English translations say, “Therefore.” The ESV has, “This is why.” Both those translations seem to be pointing back to what came before, which makes verse 10 the conclusion of an argument (verses 4–9). The Greek is “because of this” or “for this [reason]” (διὰ τοῦτο). When these two words are used in an argument, they can either point backwards, “for the reason(s) just given,” or they can point forward, “for the following reason(s).” The phrase is used about 70 times in the New Testament. A few examples where it points forward include these: - The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 Jn 3:1).
- For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. (Eph 1:15–16).
- For this reason, I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down (2 Cor 13:10).”
—
“It is a lie that problems in the black community are attributed to the legacy of slavery.
Black married couples were more prevalent in the 20’s than today. Black unemployment rate was lower in the 1930’s than today.
The decline began in the 1960’s with the welfare state.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
Liberia explodes the notion of America as a propositional nation. They have a constitution that is essentially the same as ours. They even have a relatively high number of processing Christians. But their cultural results are completely different than ours. Yes, American identity is shaped by certain propositions. But America is not just an idea. It’s a people, with a heritage, a history, and a culture.
—
The open society = “diversity is our strength” = gay race communism
—
Grok on transgender/androgynous deities in ancient paganism:
“Several ancient pagan (polytheistic) mythologies feature deities with gender-fluid, androgynous, intersex, or shape-shifting traits that modern interpreters often associate with transgender or non-binary concepts. 
Ancient cultures didn’t use modern psychological or medical terms like “transgender” (which involves a persistent mismatch between one’s experienced gender and biological sex). Instead, myths frequently depicted gods/goddesses who embodied both male and female aspects, changed forms/genders, blurred boundaries, or had cults involving gender-variant priests. These reflect cultural views of divinity transcending human norms, often tied to fertility, transformation, war, or liminality. 
Notable Examples
- Inanna/Ishtar (Mesopotamian/Sumerian-Babylonian): A major goddess of love, sex, war, and justice, often described as gender-ambiguous or fluid. Hymns (e.g., by Enheduanna, ~23rd century BCE) credit her with the power “to turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man.” She had masculine traits in war and could assign or transform gender. Her cult included gender-nonconforming priests like the gala, kurgarrū, and assinnu, who cross-dressed, used feminine speech, or engaged in rituals inverting gender norms.
- Hermaphroditus (Greek): Son of Hermes and Aphrodite. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the handsome youth merged with the nymph Salmacis after she prayed for eternal union, becoming a being “neither man nor woman, but both.” He was worshipped as a deity of androgyny, effeminates, and those with mixed sex characteristics (intersex).
- Dionysus/Bacchus (Greek/Roman): God of wine, ecstasy, and theater, often androgynous or effeminate in depictions. Raised as a girl at one point, associated with gender inversion, ritual madness, and boundary-crossing. His cult involved ecstatic practices that could blur gender roles.
- Ardhanarishvara (Hindu): Composite form of Shiva (male) and Parvati (female), depicted as half-man, half-woman—symbolizing the inseparability of masculine (purusha) and feminine (prakriti) principles. Other Hindu examples include Vishnu’s Mohini avatar (female form) and various androgynous creator deities.
- Loki (Norse): Trickster god and shapeshifter who frequently changed gender and form (e.g., becoming a mare to give birth to Sleipnir). Often seen as genderfluid.
Other examples appear in West African (e.g., Mawu-Lisa, intersex or changing gender), Egyptian (e.g., Hapi with breasts and beard), Aztec, Australian Aboriginal (Rainbow Serpent deities), and Philippine traditions.
Context and Interpretation
These figures highlight that many ancient societies recognized gender variance, third genders, or ritual inversion (e.g., galli priests of Cybele, who were often eunuchs or transgender in modern terms). Myths served symbolic, theological, or explanatory roles—explaining creation, fertility, chaos, or divine power—rather than mirroring everyday human identity in a literal sense. Intersex conditions (like Hermaphroditus) were sometimes conflated with gender fluidity in art and story.
Modern LGBTQ+ pagans or scholars often draw inspiration from these for affirmation, but ancient views varied widely by culture and weren’t uniformly “celebratory” in the contemporary sense—some involved reverence, others ritual roles or stigma.
In short, ancient pagan pantheons were full of gender-transcending deities, reflecting humanity’s long fascination with fluidity in the divine realm. This contrasts with more binary emphases in some other traditions. For deeper reading, primary sources like Ovid, Enheduanna’s hymns, or the Epic of Erra are excellent starting points.”
—
Over the last 50 years, American women have killed 10x as many human lives as Hitler. Obviously, not all women who got abortions wanted them; some were forced or coerced into it. But the vast majority chose it. Most American single women have made abortion their single highest political priority. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that many, many modern American women are deeply evil.
—
The housing affordability crisis has many causes but immigration is at the heart of it. The data is now out, showing that housing prices were driven up significantly by Biden’s open borders policy. If the needed deportations happen, real estate will inevitably become more affordable. Prices have also been artificially elevated by regulations that hold down supply by making new construction onerous and expensive in many places. The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates is also a factor in all kinds of ways. But the immigration issue has made everything a whole lot worse.
—
Immigration has essentially become a form of colonization: we are allowing foreign nations to colonize Western nations.
—
Third-world immigration is socialism. They come here and vote for the candidates that will give them and their group the most stuff (Democrats). This is often true even of Hispanic Roman Catholics, who might be culturally and socially conservative but still tend to vote for leftist, progressive candidates.
—
Grok summarizing Communist Control Act:
The Communist Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-637, 68 Stat. 775, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 841–844) is a U.S. federal law signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 24, 1954. 
Key Provisions
- It declared the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) not a legitimate political party but “an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States” and “an agency of a hostile foreign power” (referring to the Soviet Union).
- It outlawed the Communist Party and criminalized membership in or support for the Party or “Communist-action organizations.”
- It prohibited members of such organizations from holding certain offices (e.g., in labor unions) and serving in representative capacities.
- It created a new category of “Communist-infiltrated organizations” and provided mechanisms for addressing infiltration, particularly in unions.
- It included findings of fact about the Party’s subversive aims and defined evidence for juries to determine involvement in communist activities.
The Act was passed amid the Second Red Scare and anticommunist sentiment during the early Cold War, following the Korean War, revelations about Soviet espionage, and figures like Senator Joseph McCarthy. It built on the Internal Security Act of 1950 (McCarran Act), which required registration of communist organizations.
Legislative History - Introduced in the Senate as S. 3706 by Sen. John Marshall Butler (R-MD).
- Passed the Senate 85–0 (August 12, 1954), the House overwhelmingly (with very few nays), and was signed into law quickly.
- Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) played a notable role in its development, partly to counter accusations of being “soft on communism” and to help labor unions purge communist influence without broader penalties.
Impact and Legal Status
The Act’s practical effect was more symbolic than fully enforceable. It did not lead to mass prosecutions or a complete shutdown of the CPUSA (which continued to exist, albeit weakened). Courts later limited its application on First Amendment grounds, protecting political association and speech rights. Many provisions remain on the books but are largely dormant or have been narrowed by subsequent rulings.
It reflected the era’s view that communism posed an existential threat due to its ties to a foreign adversary and its goal of overthrowing democratic government, even if pursued through seemingly peaceful means.
Historical Context
This was part of broader anticommunist measures in the 1940s–1950s, including loyalty oaths, investigations, and blacklists. Supporters saw it as necessary national security legislation; critics viewed it as an overreach that risked chilling political dissent.
—
Grok summarizing 1924 Immigration Act:
The Immigration Act of 1924 (also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act) was a landmark U.S. federal law signed by President Calvin Coolidge on May 26, 1924. It dramatically restricted immigration, ending the era of relatively open borders that had characterized much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 
Key Provisions
- National Origins Quota System: It set annual immigration quotas at 2% of the number of people from each nationality already living in the U.S. as of the 1890 census (later shifting toward a fuller “national origins” formula based on the 1920 census, fully effective in 1929). This heavily favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe (e.g., Britain, Germany, Scandinavia) while sharply limiting those from Southern and Eastern Europe (e.g., Italy, Poland, Russia, Greece).
- Overall Cap: Roughly 150,000–165,000 immigrants per year from the Eastern Hemisphere (a massive reduction from pre-WWI peaks of 800,000+ annually).
- Asian Exclusion: It effectively banned most immigration from Asia by barring those ineligible for naturalization (building on earlier laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act). Japan protested strongly.
- Other Features: It established the U.S. Border Patrol, required visas from U.S. consulates abroad (creating “remote control” enforcement), and exempted the Western Hemisphere (e.g., Mexico, Canada) from quotas initially, though other restrictions applied.
The law was driven by post-WWI nativism, economic concerns (job competition), fears of radicalism (e.g., anarchism, communism), and eugenics-influenced ideas about preserving the existing ethnic/racial composition of the U.S. (often framed as maintaining an Anglo-Saxon Protestant character).
Historical Context and Impacts - Immediate Effects: Immigration dropped sharply—from ~700,000 in 1924 to under 300,000 by 1925. It succeeded in shifting the sources of immigration back toward Northern/Western Europe.
- Long-Term: The foreign-born population share fell dramatically (from ~14.8% in 1890 to ~4.7% by 1970). It limited diversity for decades and contributed to denying entry to many European Jews and others fleeing Nazism in the 1930s (though the Depression also played a role).
- Legacy: The quota system lasted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished national origins preferences in favor of family reunification, skills, and other criteria. Elements like numerical caps, visa requirements, and border enforcement remain foundational today.
Broader Perspectives
Supporters at the time (including many in Congress) saw it as essential for cultural cohesion, assimilation, and protecting American wages and institutions amid rapid industrialization and urbanization. Critics viewed (and still view) it as xenophobic or racially motivated, particularly in its targeting of Catholics, Jews, Slavs, and Asians.
From a Reformed or biblical-historical viewpoint, the Act can be discussed in terms of prudence in governance: nations as distinct peoples under God’s providence, the role of borders in ordered liberty, and balancing hospitality to the stranger (e.g., Leviticus 19, Hebrews 13) with wisdom in maintaining a society’s moral and cultural fabric (drawing from Puritan and colonial examples of selective settlement). Debates over immigration often intersect with theology of the nation, just war/self-defense analogies for sovereignty, and critiques of both open-border utopianism and nativist idolatry. Historians note parallels to earlier colonial patterns and later shifts post-1965.
—
“Once you go communist, you don’t go back.
You die in squalor. You die a horrible death. You die in squalor. And it gets very evil and very nasty.”
— Donald Trump
—
“Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever, that revolution of the wheel of future, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
— Thomas Jefferson
—
“Most academic intellectuals have no serious experience outside the academy.
“They have every incentive to believe that they’re brighter and know more than other people, because they’ve been told that all their lives.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“American citizenship is a lot more than just being born on magic dirt. It means you have rights and responsibilities— the ability to influence our system of government. That’s not something we just hand out to the rest of the world.”
— Brandon Gill
—
“Larger companies in 2026 that don’t fund right of center stuff out of fear and habit while funding all manner of left of center stuff think they are avoiding risk – but they are actually taking it on.
The midterms aren’t the issue.
2024 was a generational election.
The young leaders on the right in business, culture, and politics – who they should be seeking to influence – are not going to be forgiving as they come into power.”
— Matthew J. Peterson
Time will tell if this is an accurate prediction.
—
“White men were on top of the world and decided to share their power with women and minorities. Everything is a humiliation ritual for White men. And it gets worse every year. This is a powerful lesson in power dynamics. The lion that loses it teeth is laughed at by the jungle. Feminists mock straight White men because the lion is only respected when it is feared.”
— Jerr
—
Many Western women are advocating for an ideology that will get them killed.
—
Most of the problems young feminist women complain about with regard to men and dating did not exist when we had a functional patriarchy with dads involved. Feminists threw off the protection and discernment of fathers – and now they feel unprotected and cannot figure out how to vet men so they avoid the bad ones. There is no way to fix the problem without returning to the old paths, that is, a social order that respects the role of the father.
—
You are the 5th gospel:
https://youtube.com/shorts/UwciDAjXGmg?is=_7U-avDMIjVAgTMo
—
“America was founded upon “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and so she became the greatest country and civilization to have ever existed, bringing life and liberty to millions. Conversely, the French Republic [after the French Revolution] was founded by declaring war against the laws of nature and prodaiming nature to be god, literally. One found the blessings of God in the boundaries He established. The other flouted those boundaries, made man the measure of all things, and discovered that tyranny is what awaits all societies that forget God.
Marx described religion as “the opiate of the people,” but “the new revolutionary faith might well be called the amphetamine of the intel-lectuals.” These full-time revolutionaries are part of a larger conspiracy that is as old as apples growing in a garden. Today, they worship in the halls of academia, under the domes of Capitol buildings, and in corporate boardrooms around the globe. What Paris experienced in 1789, America is experiencing now. Sexual liberation and political revolution have once again merged:
- pornographic sex ed in schools;
- drag queens in libraries and parks;
- abortion as a sacrament;
- gender mutilation of minors;
- state-backed coercion against dissenters;
- the redefinition of family, marriage, and identity; and
- the worship of desire as the highest law.
Just as the Jacobins demonized the church, our cultural elites demonize Christians who refuse to bow. The “strategy of the robes” – capture the courts, the clergy, the universities, the scientific institutions – has succeeded. And just like France, America is learning that the price of sexual liberation is political tyranny. Paris forgot God, and the guillotine followed.
If the American church forgets the signs of history from long-lost civilizations-Rome, Paris, and more-we will repeat their collapse. The question today is the same as in Eden: Will the church continue to believe what God has said, or will it join the revolution that promises freedom but delivers bondage?
The Marquis de Sade died in obscurity, but his disciples inherited the world. His belief that sexual freedom requires the destruction of Christianity has become the operating system of the modern Left. His insistence that passion defines morality has shaped everything from pornography to abortion to gender ideology. His conviction that the self must dominate other people still lives on in every cultural revolution.
The French Revolution did not end; it metastasized – into Marx, Freud, and the Frankfurt School. Darwin, Kinsey, Hefner, and Sanger…the sexual revolution…the abortion wars… the spirit of 1973… the madness of 2020…and our present crisis.
Every revolution is simply Eden repeated. Every generation must answer the same question: “Did God really say?” Yes, He did. And the church must once again stand against the lie, or it will go the way of the church in France during the time of the French Revolution, either beheaded or stowed away to another country.”
— Seth Gruber
—
From Michael Foster on X:
“Regarding Eph 6:4, A.W. Pink says:
“It is to be noted that the “fathers” are here specifically addressed, and this for two reasons: (1) because they are the heads of their families and their government is especially committed to them; and (2) because they are prone to transfer this duty to their wives.”
This duty falls upon us, men.
It is not the responsibility of the church or the state to bring up your children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
It’s not even the primary responsibility of your wife.
Yes, she plays an essential role in raising your children. Mothers have their own special power and influence. However, you cannot transfer this duty onto her through absence or abdication.
You are the one who must lead the way. Now, how do you lead the way? Well, our text provides a “don’t” and a “do.”
Let’s begin with the “don’t.”
Paul writes, “fathers, do not provoke your children to anger” or, as several other translations render it, “fathers, do not exasperate your children.”
The Greek word for exasperate means to stir someone to anger, to provoke in a way that “really pushes someone’s buttons.”
According to the old Webster’s dictionary, it means “to anger; to irritate to a high degree; to provoke to rage.” In Colossians 3:21, we find the same command with a rationale attached to it.
It reads, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”
The NIV translates the verse as, “Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.”
There is a type of exasperating fatherhood that will fill children with rage and bitterness.
Sometimes it is evident on the surface, such as a wild child prone to angry outbursts or a defiant child who disobeys authority and is unkind to others.
Sometimes it lies beneath the surface, manifesting in depressive, repressed children or children burdened with fears and compulsions.
It can take many forms but all of which are a manifestation of discouragement.
John Calvin writes, “Kind and liberal treatment has rather a tendency to cherish reverence for their parents, and to increase the cheerfulness and activity of their obedience, while a harsh and unkind manner rouses them to be obstinate and destroys the natural affections.”
It is natural for your child to love you and seek your approval. However, if you consistently deny them that approval, you will embitter them and lose their affection.
We mustn’t lose our children’s hearts.
Discipline without love doesn’t drive foolishness from the heart of a child.
It only drives the child’s heart from the father.”
—
“When I contemplate the horrid and systematic massacres of the Jacobins…when I find the doctrines of Atheism openly advanced in the convention and heard with loud applause…when I behold the hand of rapacity outstretched to prostrate and ravish the monuments of religious worship erected by those citizens and their ancestors; when I perceive passion, tumult, and violence usurping those seats where reason and cool deliberation ought to prevail, I acknowledge that I am glad to believe there is no real resemblance between what was the cause of America and what is the cause of France; that the difference is no less great than the difference between liberty and licentiousness.”
— Alexander Hamilton
—
This is correct: men are inspired to work by women. Woman is the glory of man, but when the supply of marriageable women dries up, male ambition and the masculine drive to dominion do as well.
—
C. Jay Engle on economic nationalism:
“Economic nationalism is the economic system that allows for the flourishing dynamics of the market process and private ownership of the means of production and the ingenuity and genius that characterizes Western European peoples. At the same time it makes economics subservient to the needs of the social order, and the cultural well being of the Nation.
It refuses to make the Capitalists sovereigns—by granting them unchecked power over the state’s interests. It allows the state to protect the integrity of its people, prevent foreigners from subverting the national culture, and intervenes when morally, politically, or culturally necessary. It avoids the bureaucratic nightmares of 20th century American managerialism, the cultural liquidation inherent in globalism, the moral bankruptcy of absolute laissez-faire, the debilitating regressions of communism, and the disincentives of permanent fascism.
It is the market economy, but constrained within the purview of cultural integrity and moral order, with enough flexibility for the state to make adjustments as necessary in accordance with political phenomena. It gives leeway for creativity and innovation inasmuch as these energies serve the interests of the nation itself. It is an economy that exists for a particular people, considered together as a people with a shared past, and a shared future.
It was championed by nationalists like Friedrich List, Alexander Hamilton, and Patrick Buchanan.”
I largely agree with this: a free market within the nation that encourages competition and innovation, selective trading with other like-minded nations playing by the same rules that serves the national interest, and all within a moral framework that respects God’s design for human life. Of course, we also need to abolish the Fed and return to sane immigration policies.
—
Progressive Jews often try to take credit for the modern left, but a proper genealogy of Western radicalism traces back primarily to Rousseau and the French Revolution. Marx and every other significant architect of modern radicalism is rooted in the Revolution of 1789. There’s a reason why Abraham Kuyper called his political party the “Anti-Revolutionary Party.” He understood the enemy of Christendom. Groen Van Prinsterer, who mentored Kuyper, used the rallying cry, “Against the Revolution! For the Gospel!” John Quincy Adams and the other more astute founding fathers recognized the French Revolution posed the single biggest threat to the American experiment in ordered liberty and self-governance. Burke saw it as well. The Jacobins unleashed the demonic spirit that infected the West with egalitarianism, feminism, and socialism. Radical youth movements in the West can be traced back directly to the French Revolution.
It’s popular today in some quarters to blame the Jews for high jacking the West. And yes, many Jews have been subversive of Christian civilization, no doubt. But the French are the real culprits.
—
Alexander Hamilton’s economics according to Grok:
Alexander Hamilton’s economics centered on building a strong, unified national government with a robust financial system, diversified economy (including manufacturing), and active federal role in promoting prosperity. As the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington (1789–1795), he outlined his vision in key reports to Congress, drawing on mercantilist ideas while adapting them to the new republic. His policies laid foundations for American capitalism, public credit, and industrial growth, though they sparked fierce debates with figures like Thomas Jefferson. 
Core Principles
Hamilton viewed a well-managed national debt as a “national blessing” that could drive investment and stability, rather than a burden. He believed government should actively support economic development through credit, infrastructure, and protection for “infant industries” to reduce dependence on Europe (especially Britain). He favored a mixed economy with agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing, seeing the latter as key to independence, employment, and technological progress. 
His approach contrasted with more agrarian, laissez-faire, or states’-rights visions: Hamilton emphasized implied constitutional powers, national institutions, and economic nationalism. 
Key Reports and Policies
Hamilton delivered four major reports (1790–1791), forming the Hamiltonian economic program:
- First Report on the Public Credit (1790): Addressed the massive Revolutionary War debt (federal and state). Hamilton proposed: • Full funding of the debt at face value (not depreciated market value) to restore credibility. • Federal assumption of state debts to bind wealthy creditors to the national government and promote unity. • Refinancing with new Treasury bonds at lower interest, funded by tariffs and excise taxes (e.g., on whiskey). This established U.S. public credit, attracted European investment, and was enacted after a compromise with Jefferson (placing the capital on the Potomac).
- Second Report on Public Credit / National Bank (1790): Proposed the Bank of the United States (chartered 1791), modeled on the Bank of England. It would: • Manage government funds. • Issue stable paper currency. • Provide loans to business and government. • Create a uniform currency and credit system. Hamilton defended it via the “necessary and proper” clause (implied powers). It faced opposition as unconstitutional and elitist but helped stabilize finances.
- Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1791): His most visionary and ambitious. Hamilton argued for government support of manufacturing to diversify beyond agriculture: • Protective tariffs (moderate, to raise revenue and shield new industries). • Bounties/subsidies for key sectors. • Infrastructure investments (internal improvements). • Encouragement of immigration, technology, and inventions. Congress did not fully implement it at the time, but ideas influenced later “American System” policies (e.g., Henry Clay, tariffs, infrastructure).
- Additional measures included excise taxes, a patent system, and infrastructure (e.g., lighthouses). Outcomes and Legacy • Successes: U.S. credit soared; foreign capital flowed in; a financial infrastructure emerged (banks, securities markets); the economy grew toward industrialization. Hamilton’s system helped the U.S. become a major power. • Controversies: Opponents (Jeffersonians, later Democrats) saw it as favoring the wealthy, creating monopoly power, and overreaching federal authority. The whiskey tax sparked the Whiskey Rebellion. It contributed to the first party system (Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans). • Long-term influence: Shaped American economic policy for generations—protective tariffs, national banking (precursor to the Fed), internal improvements, and active government in development. Lincoln and others drew on Hamiltonian ideas. Hamilton was pragmatic: He supported free trade in principle but protectionism in practice given European barriers. He drew from Adam Smith but rejected pure laissez-faire where national interests required intervention. For deeper reading, primary sources like the Report on Manufactures or biographies (e.g., Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton) provide rich detail. His economics prioritized strength, creditworthiness, and diversification to secure the young republic’s independence and prosperity.
—
“America is not a government.
America is your family, America’s your faith, your community, that’s America.”
— Marco Rubio
—
“William Ames (1576-1633) said it’s a sin for pastors to not apply doctrine in their sermons.
“Each doctrine when sufficiently explained should immediately be applied to its use.”
For “the chief purpose of the sermon…is the edification of the hearers.”
“They sin, therefore, who stick to the naked finding and explanation of the truth, neglecting the use and practice in which religion and blessedness consist. Such preachers edify the conscience little or not at all.”
— William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 1.35.29-30
From Zach Garris.
—
“Anti-natalism doesn’t always show up as someone saying “I hate babies.” Most of the time it sounds much more soft. It sounds like “I’m not ready. Kids ruin your life. Pregnancy destroys your body. The world is too evil. Motherhood is unpaid labor. I choose myself.” This is how anti-natalism becomes normalized. It becomes the assumption underneath dating, education, careers, birth control, abortion, therapy, culture, climate anxiety, and modern feminism. And this is how the devil works. He sells the lie as liberation. And then the trap closes. And all of a sudden, women are too old for kids. They miss the opportunity for motherhood. They give away their virginity like it’s worthless. And when they regret it, the devil laughs. And this is why men should really not be laughing at women’s collapse. It isn’t funny. It’s not some sort of a dunk. It’s not some great victory when women are bitter, lonely, masculinized, childless, and displaced by the very ideologies they embraced.
Christianity says, “Woman is most exalted not when she becomes a goddess, but when she becomes holy through theosis; the highest image of womanhood is not the witch, the priestess, the girl boss, the seductress, or the autonomous woman who belongs to no one. It is the Theotokos. Mary does not become great by rejecting God’s order. She becomes great by receiving it. She does not treat birth as oppression. She receives life as a gift. She does not say my body my choice. She says let it be unto me according to thy word. That is the complete opposite of the modern spirit.
The goddess says my life belongs to me. Mary says my life belongs to God. And this is why anti-natslism is not just a political opinion. It’s a spiritual inversion. Because once a society rejects God the father, motherhood stops being seen as participation in life and becomes a threat to the self. And that’s the truth that’s underlying our current dating crisis, and society’s inability to reproduce.”
— Lungs of Faith on motherhood, feminism, and collapsing birth rates
—
“Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.”
— Solzhenitsyn
—
“Failure to properly relate the gospel commission of the New Testament to the commission of Genesis (the cultural mandate) lies behind much of Evangelicalism’s current weaknesses and internal conflicts.”
— Ronald Macaulay
—
”If you’re going to have reparations for slavery, it’s going to be the greatest transfer of wealth back and forth, because the number of Whites who were enslaved in North Africa by the Barbary Pirates exceeded the number of Africans enslaved in the United States.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
Eric Metaxas, on Joseph Warren, showing the kind of men who fought for American independence:
“No one had been more dedicated to the American cause over the decade previous than Joseph Warren. When word of the fighting came to him in Boston, he took a ferry across the harbor toward the action and was heard to say: “They have begun it. That either party could do. And we will end it That only one can do.” As he would do two months later at Bunker Hill, he insisted on taking an active role in thé fighting that day. At one point a musket ball clipped his wig, passing so near his head “as to strike the pin out of his earlock,” nearly ending his life. It was as close a call as imaginable, and when she heard of it, Warren’s old mother with tears remonstrated against his heroics. But Warren would have none of it. “Wherever danger is, dear mother” hé said, there will your son be. And then, speaking prophetically, said: “Now is no time for one of America’s children to shrink from the most hazardous duty; I will either set my country free, or shed my last drop of blood to make her so?””
I love Warren’s words at the beginning of the conflict: “They began it. We will end it.” And his words to his mother are fitting for any patriot: “Wherever danger is, there I will be. I will either set my country free or shed my last drop of blood to make her so.”
—
“Everything the left wants to do to America suddenly makes sense when you realize they have zero respect, love, or appreciation for this country.
This explains everything.”
— Brandon Gill
—
“The reality is overt feminism is easy to spot. It says men are oppressive, marriage is slavery, mother is a burden, and women should be liberated from every natural limit. Has blue hair, can’t put down the Dunkin Donuts, and says, “I hate men.” But covert feminism is more dangerous because it does not reject tradition openly. It inflates it.”
— Lungs of Faith
This is a very insightful video:
I suppose it’s an attempt at an ecclesiocentric solution, but it’s definitely not sufficient. And most men looking for Christian wives will have a hard time doing that in EO churches. i grew around a lot of EO. Most EOs are pretty nominal (especially in the ethnic churches) and even the real believers have not been deeply discipled, except for converts who self-disciple.
The real issue, as I’ve pointed out, is that young women must be reined in. That takes a combination of fatherhood and pastoring, with some Titus 2 older women helping out.
The Effective Purpose channel gives much of the same content/problem diagnosis from an evangelical perspective but I think he’s a little better at giving men solutions. Here’s an example on defeating white knights:
https://www.youtube.com/live/YhOv1AB5w6k?is=6cyQ6W2H2K1qEpti
“Racists may prefer one race to another, but they prefer themselves to everybody else.
Racism is an attitude inside people’s heads, discrimination is an overt act taking place outside in the real world.
The South was racist, but blacks were mostly the construction workers over there because it was profitable.
Same thing in Apartheid South Africa, construction companies would get in trouble for employing a large number of blacks and promoting them.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“For too long, Christians have been characterized by despair, defeat, and retreat. For too long, Christians have heeded the false doctrine which teaches that we are doomed to failure, that Christians cannot win – the notion that, until Jesus returns, Christians will steadily lose ground to the enemy. The future of the Church, we were told, is to be a steady slide into apostasy. Some of our leaders sadly informed us that we are living in a “Laodicean age” of the Church (a reference to the “lukewarm” church of Laodicea, spoken of in Rev. 3:14-22).
Any new outbreak of war, any rise in crime statistics, any new evidence of the breakdown of the family, was often oddly viewed as progress, a step forward toward the expected goal of the total collapse of civilization, a sign that Jesus might come to rescue us at any moment. Social action projects were looked on with skepticism: it was often assumed that anyone who actually tried to improve the world must not really believe the Bible, because the Bible taught that such efforts were bound to be futile; as one famous preacher put it, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” That slogan was based on two assumptions: first, that the world is nothing more than a “sinking ship”; second, that any organized program of Christian reconstruction would be nothing more than “polishing brass.” Evangelism was an invitation to join the losing side.
This was rooted in…a false view of Spirituality. The unbiblical idea of “spirituality” is that the truly “spiritual” man is the person who is sort of “non-physical,” who doesn’t get involved in “earthly” things, who doesn’t work very much or think very hard, and who spends most of his time meditating about how he’d rather be in heaven. As long as he’s on earth, though, he has one main duty in life: Get stepped on for Jesus. The “spiritual” man, in this view, is a wimp. A Loser. But at least he’s a Good Loser.
The teaching of the Bible is very different. When the Bible uses the term Spiritual, it is generally speaking of the Holy Spirit
(which is why I use a capital S). To be Spiritual is to be guided and motivated by the Holy Spirit. It means obeying His commands as recorded in the Scriptures. The Spiritual man is not someone who floats in midair and hears eerie voices. The Spiritual man is the man who does what the Bible says (Rom. 8:4-8).
This means, therefore, that we are supposed to get involved in life. God wants us to apply Christian standards everywhere, in every area. Spirituality does not mean retreat and withdrawal from life; it means dominion. The basic Christian confession of faith is that Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:9-10) – Lord of all things, in heaven and on earth. As Lord, He is to be glorified in every area (Rom. 11:36). In terms of Christian Spirituality, in terms of God’s requirements for Christian action in every area of life, there is no reason for retreat.”
— David Chilton
—
“The Christian has no right to separate his life into two realms…to say the Scriptures are the right rule in matters of religion, but this is a question of business or of politics.
God reigns over all everywhere.”
— A.A. Hodge
—
“Since the Saviour came to dwell in our midst, not only does idolatry no longer increase, but it is getting less and gradually ceasing to be. Similarly, not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer make any progress, but that which used to be is disappearing. And daemons, so far from continuing to impose on people by their deceits and oracle-givings and sorceries, are routed by the sign of the cross if they so much as try. On the other hand, while idolatry and everything else that opposes the faith of Christ is daily dwindling and weakening and falling, the Saviour’s teaching is increasing everywhere! Worship, then, the Saviour “Who is above all” and mighty, even God the Word, and condemn those who are being defeated and made to disappear by Him. When the sun has come, darkness prevails no longer; any of it that may be left anywhere is driven away. So also, now that the Divine epiphany of the Word of God has taken place, the darkness of idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are enlightened by His teaching.”
— Athanasius
—
The French Revolution has been rightly called “the cradle of the Left.”
—
“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
— Jordan Peterson
—
“Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Conscience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love and reverence toward almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust–no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or to any other trifling and mean amusement–no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men–no man would blaspheme his maker or profane his worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
— John Adams
—
“We can’t list all our rights, Hamilton said, so what happens to the rights we fail to list?
Under the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others), listing certain rights justifies a future court or legislature in assuming that, because we failed to name a certain right (the right to breathe, for example), we did not intend to protect it, and therefore, the government is free to violate it.
But the Antifederalists made the lack of a bill of rights a primary objection to ratifying the Constitution, and many of their countrymen agreed. So Madison and others promised that as soon as the Constitution was ratified, they would work on a bill of rights.
Madison made good on his promise, introducing the Bill of Rights as a congressman in 1789. The Ninth Amendment responded to Hamilton’s objection that naming some rights left others unprotected. “This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system,” Madison told the Congress, “but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against.”
Madison’s solution to guard against encroachment of unenumerated rights was the Ninth Amendment, which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, the Ninth Amendment nullifies the inclusio unius est exclusio alterius principle. Naming certain rights in the Constitution does not constitute a forfeiture of rights not named.
Once, while lecturing at a North Dakota university on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, a professor asked me whether the Ninth Amendment gave the courts some latitude to create new rights, such as abortion. My response focused on the word “retained.” If the Amendment had spoken of other rights “acquired by the people,” the professor’s argument might have had some validity. But the Framers used the words “retained by the people,” limiting the Amendment to rights already recognized and protected by English and American common law.
And that’s the way the courts have interpreted the amendment. A few justices have looked to the amendment as a source of abortion rights, but most have limited its scope to rights retained.
Nevertheless, the Ninth Amendment stands as a bulwark against tyranny, warning tyrants that we, the American people, have never surrendered our ancient, God-given rights.”
— John Eidsmoe
—
“Let me ask you very seriously, my friend, where are now in 1813 the perfection and perfectibility in human nature: Where is now the progress of the human mind? Where is the amelioration of society? Where the augmentation of human comforts? Where the diminution of human pains and miseries?”
— John Adams writing to Jefferson on the French Revolution
—
“The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, The Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity and Humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will. It is Resignation to God—it is Goodness itself to Man.”
— John Adams
—
“As much as I love, esteem, and admire the Greeks, I believe the Hebrews have done more to enlighten and civilize the world. Moses did more than all their legislators and philosophers.”
— John Adams
—
“Often, what “everyone knows” turns out to be nothing more than the opinion of a few college professors. So if we want to know whether the Declaration is based on biblical principles, we must ask not what Jefferson may have believed in the 1800s, but what he believed in 1776.
As Mark Beliles and Jerry Newcombe explain in their book “Doubting Thomas,” 1777 is the year Jefferson took a leading role in establishing an evangelical, orthodox Anglican church and was chosen to serve as one of its vestrymen. To be a vestryman, Jefferson had to swear that he accepted the basic doctrines of the church: the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and justification by grace through faith. Jefferson continued to support this church financially for many years, writing that he and his fellow subscribers were “desirous of encouraging and supporting the Calvinistical Reformed church, and of deriving to ourselves, through the ministry of its teachers, the benefits of Gospel knowledge and religious improvement … by regular education for explaining the holy scriptures.” The pastor, Rev. Charles Clay, whose 50 surviving sermons are thoroughly orthodox and evangelical, maintained correspondence with Jefferson throughout their lives.
So far as we know, the first time Jefferson expressed doubts about Christian orthodoxy was in 1788 while was serving as U.S. counsel to France. Asked by a friend to serve as godfather to his child, Jefferson responded that he could not do so because he could not consider himself in good standing with the church, because, he said, he did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity and therefore could not affirm it.
In the 1800s, Jefferson veered further away from orthodoxy and toward Unitarianism, denying the doctrine of the Trinity and probably denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, although he respected Jesus as a great teacher. But even then, he was never a Deist, for he clearly believed God was active in human history. As he said in his Second Inaugural Address (1805):
‘I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.’
But in 1776 his beliefs appear to have been orthodox, and in the Declaration he invoked God in the following five ways: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; “all men are created equal”; “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”; “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”; and “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Whatever Jefferson became later in life, in 1776, he spoke as a Christian, wrote as a Christian, and apparently thought as a Christian. The Declaration must be understood as the work of the Jefferson of 1776, not the Jefferson of 1820.”
— John Edismoe
—
[A]lthough the Declaration speaks about equality, many Americans at that time (including Jefferson) owned slaves, although many still expressed their opposition to it. Those who expressed opposition and either did or did not own slaves include John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Rush, Henry Laurens, Elias Boudinot, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, Charles Carroll, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, George Mason, Joseph Reed, Noah Webster, John Witherspoon, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, William Few, Zephaniah Swift, and Rufus King, Patrick Henry, and James Madison. George Washington left instructions in his will regarding the freeing of his slaves.
We can only say in response that the Declaration sowed the seeds of equality. Bringing those seeds to fruition is an ongoing effort.
So the “sacred and undeniable” or “self-evident” truth that all men are created equal is firmly based on the Bible.”
— John Eidsmoe
—
“By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments.”
— Thomas Aquinas
—
“As America approaches its 250th birthday, we celebrate the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with unalienable rights.
Jefferson’s original draft said these truths are “sacred and undeniable”; Ben Franklin suggested the change to “self-evident.” A child was about to be born, but some still question its paternity today.
So who is the “father” of these truths? The Bible? Or the so-called Enlightenment?
The Declaration begins by saying we are entitled to independence by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” a phrase taken almost verbatim from Blackstone’s “Commentaries.” A devout Anglican, Blackstone spoke of the Law of Nature, which was dictated by God Himself, written into nature, and discoverable by human reason, and the Revealed Law, which is found only in the Holy Scriptures.
The concept that “all men are created equal” didn’t come from the French Revolution slogan, “liberty, equality, fraternity” (actually liberty, equality, fraternity or death). The French Revolution was nothing but a bloody coup staged by self-appointed thugs who represented nobody but themselves. These thugs launched a bloodbath to exterminate the aristocrats, and when they ran out of aristocrats to exterminate, they began exterminating each other (which I argue was the only good thing they ever did).
Nor did the “all men are created equal” concept come from pagan philosophy.”
–John Eidsmoe
—
“Besides our common ancestry in Adam and Eve and our common creation in the image of God, we are all equally subject to His law. “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it,” Deuteronomy 1:17 says.
The biblical doctrine of creation also gives a solid basis for equality, unlike Darwinian evolution, which opens the door to racism. George William Hunter’s “A Civic Biology,” the textbook defended by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial, stated blatantly:
‘At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America….’I’m not saying evolutionists are racists; I am saying Darwinism does not provide a basis for combatting racism. Hitler based his notions of the Aryan master race on Darwinism. As he said in “Mein Kampf”:
‘If Nature doesn’t wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, even less does she wish that a superior race should mix with an inferior one. In such a case, all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher type of being, might be rendered futile.’God has given us dominion over nonrational creatures because we are created in God’s image as rational beings, Augustine explained. But although we have dominion over other animals, we are equal among men, because God “did not intend that his rational creature[s], who [were] made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation,—not man over man, but man over the beasts.””
— John Eidsmoe
—
“Some have concluded that democracy (using the term in the broad sense of representative government) is fundamentally anti-Christian because God, not the people, is the Source of government power. The Stuart kings of England (James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II) believed in the “divine right of kings,” meaning that God gives governmental authority to the king, he delegates it to lesser magistrates, and together they rule over the people. The Puritans in Parliament agreed that God is the source of governmental authority but argued that He gives that authority to the people, who delegate it to lesser magistrates, who in turn delegate authority to the higher magistrate or king. America’s founding fathers definitely took the latter view. God spoke through the people’s vote, but only if the people were attuned and listening to God.
Does that leave God out of the equation? Not at all! The motto of my home state of South Dakota, authored by Presbyterian pastor Dr. Joseph Ward at the South Dakota Constitutional Convention of 1885, puts it all together perfectly: “Under God, the people rule.””
— John Adams
—
“If there was one truth the ancients held to be self-evident it was that all men were not created equal. If we maintain today that, in fact, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then it is because we have inherited as part of our cultural heritage notions of equality that were deeply entrenched in the ancient passages of the Pentateuch.”
— Josh Berman
—
“[D]espotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor; equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical…
If the majority is 51 and the minority 49, is it certainly the voice of God? If tomorrow one should change to 50 vs. 50, where is the voice of God? If two and the minority should become the majority, is the voice of God changed? ….
[The voice of the people is] sometimes the voice of Mahomet, of Caesar, of Catiline, the Pope, and the Devil.”
— John Adams
—
“[T]he Declaration does not say that consent is the means by which the government is to operate; it says that consent is necessary only to institute or establish the government. … [T]he Declaration says that they may organize government on ‘such principles’ as they choose, and that they may choose ‘any form of government’ they deem appropriate to secure their rights. …
Thus the Declaration, accurately speaking, is neutral on the question of forms of government; any form is legitimate, provided it secures equal freedom and is instituted by popular consent. But as to how to secure that freedom the Declaration, in its famous passage on the principles of government, is silent.”
— Martin Diamond
—
“Some say asserting rights is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, which is giving up your rights for others. But on no less than three occasions, Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen, first in Acts 16:37-38 and 22:25-29, where Paul challenges the legality of flogging him without a trial, and then in Acts 25:11, where he appeals to Caesar and avoids trial by the Sanhedrin. Each time, he asserted his rights not for personal gain, but to gain a hearing for the Gospel.
Man’s creation in the image of God means man is created with human dignity. Certain rights go with that human dignity.
Although the Bible prescribes punishment for crimes, human dignity requires that no one be punished without clear proof of guilt. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death,” Deuteronomy 17:6 says.
Also, the negative commands of Scripture imply human rights. “Thou shalt not kill” implies a right to life. “Thou shalt not steal” implies a right to property. One might argue that this means only that one may not steal from the state; but the command against coveting “anything that is thy neighbor’s” clearly encompasses private property. The biblical command against manstealing implies a right to liberty. In the account of Naboth’s vineyard, even the apostate King Ahab recognizes that under Hebrew law Naboth could refuse to sell his vineyard, although Ahab’s Phoenician-born wife Queen Jezebel held such rights in contempt.”
— John Eidsmoe
—
“A tyrant takes from his subjects as long as he finds something to take. This privilege the Lord does not here want to concede to government. On the contrary, by the fact that He commands the subjects: ‘Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’ he also wants to give governments or the emperors to understand that they are not to demand and take more than is theirs.”
— Martin Luther
—
I’m convinced the most American place in America, for better and worse, is the Red Neck Riviera. IYKYK.
—
If Jewish conspiracy theories are true whites are idiots incapable of self governance
Innocence comes at price of stupidity
—
On the Russian Revolution:
—
““If it’s true that the rich are rich because they’re keeping the poor poor, then in a country with lots of billionaires you should correspondingly have great amounts of poor people.
But if you compare the actual data, there are more billionaires in the United States than Africa and the Middle East put together; and yet the standard of living of the poor in the United States is higher than that of people in Africa and the Middle East.”
— Thomas Sowell on the myth that the rich get rich by exploiting the poor
—
“The one perfectly divine thing, the one glimpse of God’s paradise given on earth is to fight a losing battle and not lose it.”
— Chesterton
This line could describe the American War for Independence.
—
Progressivism is really regressive. It’s a regressive return to the old paganism.
—
Charlie Kirk on Islam:
—
“On this anniversary, we must remember that American liberty has not endured for 250 years merely because of words on paper. Liberty has prevailed because of the culture and character of the people who declared it, defended it, and preserved it….
Yet as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack. A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of Communism, there is now a resurgence of the Communist menace in our land—including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life.
These are not mere political disagreements, like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American Liberty. It is the Greatest Threat to our Country including World War One, World War Two, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11.
Because Communism is the enemy of Free People everywhere. It is the enemy of the Constitution. Above all, it is the Enemy of July 4th, 1776.
Even while the Radicals and Extremists attack our incredible history at every turn, they are SILENT on the miserable history of Communism itself. Their system has led to more death and destruction than any system ever tried—it killed 100 million people in the last century.
Communism is the exact opposite of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—it is death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil.
The Godless Communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about the inhuman visions they propose. They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights.
It is an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder. Such doctrines can be given no quarter in a Democracy, because the first thing they do when they get into power is turn around, and destroy it—just as Communists have done in other countries all over the world.
Very simply, Communism represents the worst ideas and abuses in history by the worst people—the American Founding represents the best ideas and traditions in history by the best people.
You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America. You can be a Communist, or you can be a Patriot. You cannot be both.
As for those who would peddle Marxist lies about our heritage—who tell our children that we live on stolen land, or that our heroes were oppressors—they are doing something much worse than slandering our past. They are attacking our future. They are trying to tear down the American Character, to destroy the people who declared Independence, crossed the Delaware, settled the West, and conquered the skies. But we will never let that happen.
Our American Ancestors did not shed their blood at Concord and Trenton, Gettysburg and Shiloh, Midway and Normandy, just so that a band of thieves and radicals could come in and loot and pillage the nation our heroes died to win, build, and save.
So on the eve of this 250th anniversary of American Liberty, we resolve and swear for all to hear that the Citizens of the United States of America will vanquish Communism from our shores, and send it into exile once and for all. America will never be a Communist country!”
— Donald Trump
—
“It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
— Calvin Coolidge
—
“We must never forget there is no American freedom without American culture and there is no American founding without the American people.
A constitution is only as strong as the people and the culture responsible for upholding it…the United States of America will forever be the land of free men and women, and we will never, ever fail.
Above all, Americans love freedom. We cherish independence, and we know that we are the heirs to the most beautiful land.
In America, we do not need anyone’s permission to say what we think and to live as we please, to worship as we choose, or to keep and bear arms.”
— Donald Trump
—
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…
If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
— Patrick Henry, speech delivered to the Second Virginia Revolutionary Convention meeting at St. John’s Church, Richmond, on March 23, 1775
Besides this speech, my favorite thing about Patrick Henry is that he got elected governor of Virginia 5 times, including twice when he was not running.
—
Prodigal America can be restored but it will take Christian men willing to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to do it.
—
“To the Americans:
I’ve travelled all over the world. I’ve familiarized myself with many places, and met many people. And I’m a Canadian, although I’m privileged to reside once again in the States.
And here’s something I’ve noticed, and it’s a key element of America’s continuing greatness:
You bloody Americans value success, and you believe in its existence.
This is something that doesn’t really happen anywhere else in the world. Even in other free democracies—the United Kingdom; Finland, Sweden, and Norway; Australia, New Zealand and Canada; Germany, France, and the Netherlands (great countries all)—a counterproductive cynicism too often reigns.
Success is equated with exploitation.
Ambition is looked upon with contempt.
This happens sometimes in the United States too—particularly among the miserable progressives, who confuse their resentment, ingratitude and unearned skepticism with wisdom.
But in your great country, by and large, striving is admired and success celebrated.
This means that more people strive and succeed in the US than anywhere else. And it’s increasingly obvious. You remain stunningly more innovative and productive than any people anywhere else on the planet.
And so I say, as all should who are fortunate enough to live in the western world, let alone America:
Thank God for the United States.
Thank God for the wisdom of its founders.
Thank God for its faith in the free market and in the natural rights of man.
Happy birthday, you damn Yankees and Southerners.
Long may your admirable country dominate the world.
Long may your freedom and hope provide an example to those suffering everywhere at the hands of their malevolent states.
May your two and a half centuries of unparallelled success be just the beginning.
Your country is the light of the world, and the city on the hill.
Thank God for the USA.
Happy 250th.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson”
—
There’s a lot more to the Bible than John 3:16.
—
Jeremy Schenk, on America’s Christian founding:
“America’s Providential History (Beliles & McDowell) is robust, full of primary sources, and clearly shows the USA was founded and is a Christian nation. Highlights:
- 95% of the Constitution is directly taken from the Bible, or taken from a source that based its arguments upon the Bible
- even deists like Ben Franklin recognized the Bible as the singular preeminent source for human wisdom, and Franklin even stopped chaotic arguing during the Constitutional Convention to remind the delegates how God answered their prayers with miraculous providence during the war, and he chided them for forgetting this and recommended prayer then, and every morning before conducting business, quoting Psalm 127:1 as the basis for his argument (“unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it”).
- Washington recognized that the framing of the Constitution was an “event in the Hands of God”.
- Franklin wrote of the writing of the Constitution, that delegates were ”influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent and beneficent Ruler in whom all live, and move, and have their being.”
- it highlights the various state constitutions that required government servants must be a member of the church and/or recognize Jesus as Lord, etc.
- Washington took his oath of office with his hand on a Bible opened to Deuteronomy 28, which promises blessings to the nation that follows God and curses if they do not.
- Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1789 that stated “religious liberty (e.g. liberty to worship God as one chooses) is the basis wherein these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected” and that “religion, morality and knowledge shall forever be encouraged”. That same day Congress passed a resolution for a National Day of Prayer to praise and thank God for blessing them with the miracle of the nation.
- the 1st amendment states Congress shall make no establishment of religion, because most states already had a state established religion, and they wanted to preserve the states rights to do so, and not have the federal government decide which religion to establish.
- The idea of separation of church and state came first in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson in 1802, and is not anywhere in the Constitution.”
—
“Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation… that this is a Christian nation. We are founded to legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity.”
— 1892 SCOTUS case, Holy Trinity vs the United States
In 1947, the Supreme Court said “we are a religious people and our laws presuppose” the existence of God. The Court upheld our national motto as constitutional in 1979, as well as paid chaplains in the Legislative branch of government in 1983.
SCOTUS has a very mixed record but there are numerous case rulings that affirm our Christian founding/heritage.
—
Repost from 1/22/26:
I believe America was founded as a Christian nation and we can only solve our problems by returning to Christian faith.
But if you think America was not founded as a Christian nation, it remains true we can only solve our problems by turning to Christ.
However we got into this mess, Christ is the only way out. Turn to him. Repent and believe.
—
Darwinian evolution is not science. It’s not even a theory. It’s a philosophy. It’s a theology. It’s a religion.
—
“America is such an incredible nation, even the poorest people are overfed and obese, and the people who whine the loudest about the country refuse to leave.”
— Spencer Pratt
—
“The Word of God is the only power that can subdue the rebellion of our hearts. No teaching of man will do it, not even that of your father or mother. The teaching of the church and of the most beloved pastors will not do it, nor time-worn tradition, which is the teaching of the ages…To make the kingdom of God enter our hearts we need a battering-ram that can overthrow the strongest walls, and that ram is the Word of God.”
— Merle D’Aubigne
—
Repost from 11/21/24:
What is America?
We are not a propositional nation, though certain propositions have definitely been important in defining our identity. Neither are we just a continuation of Anglo or European peoples in a new location, even though the history of Western civilization is foundational to our heritage.
America is something new and different. An American is a different kind of human who did not exist before. America is hard to define because it is a genuinely new ethnicity. Again, an American is not merely a transplanted European (or African, etc.). Sure, we borrowed from other cultures, but we created something new in the process – the sum total of American culture is much greater than its parts. It is not just a conglomeration of different cultures that have migrated here, it is new and unique and dynamic.
American culture is not exactly like any other nation’s culture. American culture is, well, American.
What ties together the propositions and the heritage that went into making America a new ethnicity? The link is the Christian faith. Christian faith supplied the defining propositions. And the people who settled here were Christian stock. The Christian faith has been the glue that has held America together and given us coherence as a people. The story of America simply cannot be told in secular terms. The American story is impossible to understand without grasping the role of the church and the gospel in our corporate life. Even our increasing secularization can only be understood as apostasy, as a falling away from a faith that once defined us.
America’s current identity crisis is entirely a result of losing her Christian faith en masse. Without the faith that created this nation, we cannot figure out who we are, what we are supposed to do, or what we should strive for. Without Christian faith, we cannot figure out how to get along or how to understand our great institutions. The only way to get America back on track is to restore that faith.
American existence is always fragile. Some have referred to America as an “experiment” and it’s easy to understand why. Some things America has tried have been wildly successful. Others times, we’ve blown up the lab. The fragility of our existence has sometimes been masked by prosperity or power. But the only way for the experiment to continue in a meaningful and coherent way in the future is for America to once again center her identity on the Christian faith. A completely secularized America will cease to be America. For America to be her true self, she must be a Christian America – not that everyone must personally be Christian, of course, but that a prevailing Christian ethos must shape and ground our unique ethnicity.
TLDR: America’s identity crisis is really a faith crisis.
—
Repost from 8/25/25:
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Psalm 33:12).
This verse presupposes every nation has a g/God. A blessed nation chooses the true God its Lord. A nation with some other god will be cursed. Nations that serve other gods are really serving demons. Or to put it another way, a blessed nation is chosen by God (the rest of the verse calls the blessed nation his “heritage/inheritance”). This can’t be limited to old covenant Israel. Any nation that, as a nation, seeks the kingdom of God is a “chosen” and “blessed” nation in the sense of Psalm 33; that nation becomes God’s inheritance and brings its treasures into his kingdom (cf. Isaiah 60). Psalm 33:12 needs to be read in light of God’s purpose in Genesis 12: every nation will be blessed in Abraham’s promised seed. In Psalm 2, when David calls on the other kings to kiss the Son (the Messiah/Christ), he’s calling on them to enter into the blessedness of Psalm 33. He’s calling on the kings of the earth to make their God the Lord.
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).
This proverb shows us that any nation – not just old covenant Israel – can be blessed and exalted. Any nation that seeks to obey God, to please God, to serve God, as a nation, will be exalted. Any nation that lives in rebellion against God will bring reproach and shame upon itself. Nations discipled in righteousness (= nations in which the Great Commission is fulfilled) are glorious nations.
Note that Proverbs 14:34 is about national greatness. In an age of MAGA, we should take note. This proverb could be paraphrased, “righteousness makes a nation great.” There is no national greatness for America, or any other nation, outside of pursuing righteousness, as defined by God. To make a nation great requires making that nation righteous, according to the law of God.
—
Repost from 9/6/24:
From Joseph Story’s famous 1833 work, Commentaries on the Constitution, discussing the meaning of the First Amendment and the need for the states to publicly encourage and support worship of the Christian God:
“Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great, basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty…
Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her BILL OF RIGHTS the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. “As,” says the third article, “the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, etc. etc. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion….
Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
Note that for Story, the only kind of pluralism allowed is a Christian pluralism. It is taken for granted that only the Christian faith can underwrite the American system of government and support the kind of virtue necessary to make it work. Story acknowledges that the state cannot compel belief and must allow for freedom of conscience. But he rejects any kind of pluralism that would level all religions and treat them exactly the same. From our nation’s earliest days, the Christian faith held a unique position, politically, socially, and culturally. To make any other claim is to engage in historical revisionism.
—
Repost from 1/7/25:
Maybe we wouldn’t “need” illegal immigrants to fill out our workforce if we hadn’t killed 60 million of our own children in the womb over the last generation.
We can’t “make America great again” without making the American womb a great (and safe) place again.
TL/DR: America was founded as an explicitly Christian country.
—
Repost from 11/6/24:
Making America great again requires church, family and state all working together and moving in a Godward direction.
America cannot be great without great policies and great leadership. We cannot be great without defined borders, without being respected on the global stage, without encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, without cheap and affordable energy. The bloat of government waste and bureaucracy have been holding us back from greatness; it’s time to do something about them.
America cannot be great so long as our churches are mediocre. We need churches with beautiful, reverent worship. We need churches that powerfully sing God’s praises and cry out to him fervently in prayer. We need churches that boldly preach biblical truth. We need churches that practice discipleship and discipline. America will never be great without great churches spread across the land. The greatness of the church in our land is the key to national greatness.
America cannot be great without intact and strong two parent families, without moms and dads who love each other and love their children. We need to recover a sex ethic. We need to restore marriage. We need a resurgence in true education. We need to increase our marriage rate and birth rate. America cannot be great without great marriages, great families, and great schools. We cannot be great if men refuse to step up and fulfill their responsibilities; we cannot be great so long as our women generally reject motherhood and homemaking; we cannot be great if we coddle our kids instead of discipline them; we cannot be great if our schools brainwash kids rather than teach them to think. America cannot be great again unless her families are great again. America cannot be great without great husbands and fathers, without great wives and mothers.
We have an opportunity to make America great again. Will we take it?
—
I would consider a man like John Adams a Christian who was confused about the Trinity. Whether or not his theological error is damnable is for God to decide. But he does not fit neatly into any category we have today. He most certainly lived like we’d expect a Christian to live. Perhaps he was the ultimate cultural Christian.
George Washington gave every indication of being a Christian in public. But he rarely shared much about his personal beliefs beyond using the terms that were common in the day – Supreme Being, Providence, virtue, etc. He attended church and encouraged others to do so as well, but rarely if ever communed. Some speculate this was because he had little opportunity to be confirmed (there no Anglican bishops in America). The Presbyterians from Eastward who wrote to him certainly thought of him as a Christian – and in his reply he did nothing to correct them if they were wrong. I think the most we can say is that he was a public Christian. He presented as a Christian. Only God knows his heart. There are reasons to be hopeful and reasons to doubt.
Jefferson was clearly not a Christian, though he is probably best categorized as a cultural Christian with increasingly Deist beliefs.
Ben Franklin was clearly not a Christian though he moved away from the Deism of his youth to something closer to orthodoxy over his life. He clearly did not live as a Christian, though his worldview was very much shaped by biblical principles. He certainly appreciated Christian faith, he was close friends with Whitefield and supported his ministry (publishing his sermons, financially helping out with his orphanage, etc.), he called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention, and so on. He’s a tough one to figure out. We do not have many non-Christians like Franklin today. But he was certainly not hostile to Christians, despite his unbelief.
—
The Treaty of Paris which ended the War for Independence and ratified America’s existence in the eyes of the world, begins with the words, “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.”
America is a baptized nation, its existence sealed and established in the Triune name. And it was an infant baptism, obviously.
—
An overview of “rights” in Christian political philosophy:
In Christian political philosophy, a “right” (Latin ius) is fundamentally what is just or due to a person according to God’s moral order, natural law, and the requirements of justice—rooted in the created nature of human beings as image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:26-28), rather than in autonomous individual will, state grant, or social contract alone. 
Core Grounding: Imago Dei and Natural Law
Christians have long grounded rights in the doctrine that every human person bears God’s image. This confers inherent dignity and certain claims that others (and authorities) are obligated to respect. Rights are not primarily self-claimed entitlements but correlative to duties under God’s law. 
- Natural law tradition (prominent in Augustine, Aquinas, and carried into Reformed thought): Humans participate in God’s eternal law through reason. Natural law is the rational apprehension of objective moral order—e.g., the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) as a summary written on the heart (Romans 2:14-15). A “right” is what accords with this order: rendering to each what is due (suum cuique). Aquinas defines ius as the object of justice: the just thing itself in a given relationship, preserving equality and the common good.
- Government’s role is to protect these rights by punishing evil and promoting the common good (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17), not to invent them. Unjust laws contradicting natural/divine law lack true authority.
This differs sharply from purely secular modern views (e.g., rights as mere preferences, positive grants from the state, or outcomes of power struggles). In Christian thought, rights are discovered in God’s design for human flourishing, not constructed.
Key Developments in Christian History - Augustine: Emphasized the City of God vs. City of Man. Political order restrains sin post-Fall but is penultimate. Justice requires right order—soul subject to God, body to soul. Rights flow from divine justice, not earthly power. Just war and authority are framed around restoring peace and order under God.
- Aquinas: Synthesized Aristotle with Scripture. Natural law derives from eternal law. Rights (iura) include life, property, and what serves the common good. Particular justice restores equality in exchanges; legal (general) justice orients all to the community’s flourishing. Human law must conform to natural law to be valid.
- Reformed/Calvinist tradition (highly relevant to your context): Calvin affirmed natural law as God’s moral testimony engraved on consciences, supporting equity in civil laws. Later Calvinists (Beza, Althusius, Puritans) developed robust theories of natural rights—including religious liberty (freedom of conscience, free exercise), resistance to tyranny, popular sovereignty under God, and covenantal liberty. Rights serve duties to God, neighbor, and community; they are not absolute individual autonomy but “federal” (covenantal) liberty for fulfilling one’s calling.
John Witte and others note that Calvinist thought contributed significantly to pre-Enlightenment rights discourse, influencing constitutionalism, limited government, and protections like church autonomy. - Locke and later synthesis: Locke drew on Christian natural law (rights to life, liberty, property as stewardship under God) but shifted emphasis toward consent and individualism. This bridged to modern liberalism while retaining theistic foundations in many American founding contexts.
Rights in Practice: Duties, Limits, and the Common Good - Correlative to duties: A right implies someone else has a duty (to God ultimately). E.g., the right to life correlates to the prohibition against murder; parental rights to the duty to raise children in the Lord; property rights to stewardship (not absolute ownership—God is ultimate owner).
- Not absolute: All rights are limited by higher law (no right to do wrong, e.g., no “right” to abortion or to harm the innocent, as these violate natural/divine law). The common good (virtue, justice, peace) takes precedence over unchecked individualism. Politics aims to make people better, not merely protect preferences.
- Religious liberty: A key Christian contribution—freedom of conscience because only God rules the heart (early Baptists, Calvinists). Yet this does not entail state neutrality on all moral questions; government should promote natural justice (e.g., protecting marriage, punishing crime).
- Self-defense and resistance: Biblical precedents (Nehemiah, Exodus 22, Luke 22) and just war criteria support the right (and duty) of defense against tyranny or aggression, as developed in Reformed thought.
In Reformed political theology, rights are covenantal: ordered toward multi-generational faithfulness, household and church spheres of sovereignty, and ultimate accountability to Christ the King. They equip believers for cultural engagement without utopianism—realistic about sin, hopeful in providence.
This framework critiques both libertarian excess (rights as isolated autonomy) and statist overreach (rights as state-dependent). It calls for prudence: laws should approximate natural justice in a fallen world, fostering conditions for gospel proclamation and human flourishing under God. For deeper reading, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (esp. II-II on justice), Calvin’s Institutes, or modern syntheses like John Witte’s work on Calvinist rights are excellent.
—
Rights are rooted in justice (what is owed) and correlate with responsibilities/duties we have to one another under God, eg, you have a right to your property because no one has a right to steal it; a baby in the womb has a right to life because no one has a right to kill it; you have the right to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation because you have a duty to self-preservation; etc.
And, no, rights are never absolute precisely because they are grounded in and conditioned by God’s law. So in early America, the right to free speech co-existed with blasphemy laws, laws about libel and slander, etc., as is proper. A murderer forfeits his right to live. Etc.
Your magistrate may or may not fulfill his duties to you as a citizen, but those duties definitely include securing certain civil rights. In practice, a magistrate might trample those rights, but that’s an injustice.
We use “rights” language more broadly today for things that are social constructs, not natural rights, eg, the “right” to drive a car at age 16.
—
“Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
— George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796
—
If the Jews are really THE problem, we have George Washington to blame
His letter to the Rhode Island synagogue pretty much assured Jews would have a place in American life, for better or worse
The crazy thing is the Anglo-Protestant Reformed tradition has been the friendliest to Jews of any branch of the church, eg, Cromwell, Puritans, etc.
The “Retvrn” guys are all about “tradition” but they either don’t know or don’t like the real tradition all that much
The whole idea that we can apportion a certain amount of blame for all the evil in the world to different ethnic groups is just insane
It’s such an unbiblical way of thinking about sin
—
The Constitution is mainly a procedural document, not a philosophical document. And yet it has a number of biblical principles, reflecting the Christian culture of the founding era, 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
—
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 initially:
“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. The secularizing of America began before the Declaration was even finished.
The question has to be asked: To whom are these truth “undeniable” or “self-evident”? Only to a people steeped in the Bible and the Christian tradition. These truths were not self-evident to the Greeks and Romans, or to the Incas and the Aztecs. They are not self-evident to Muslims or Hindus. And thus, these truths are not religiously or theologically neutral even if some want to treat them that way.
Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were orthodox Christians. But Jefferson knew he was writing a document for a predominantly Christian people and it had to use language they would accept. The earlier draft was theologically superior to the final version.
—
Progressivism is actually regressivism. It’s just a return to the old paganism. It’s the ancient demons wearing new disguises. The label “progressive” sounds future oriented but it is really just a revival of the paganism of the past.
The good news is the church has already defeated these demons before.
—
Christians do not have to resort to non-Christian tactics in order to win the culture war. In fact, those tactics will not bring us victory.
We cannot fight for Christian ends with anti-Christian means.
Our real problem is not Marxists or Muslims. Our real problem is the judgment of God. And the only way to avert his judgment is by repenting, trusting him, and obeying him. We win the culture war through the blessing of God. To do anything else is to become functional atheists. It’s to become more of the problem rather than the solution.
—
In the midst of all the bad news we hear each day, we must remember the good news:
Jesus died for sinners.
Jesus rose again to defeat death.
Jesus reigns as king right now.
Jesus is coming again to complete his redemptive work.
—
From the 1860s into the 1950s, the National Reform Association (with strong ties to some Reformed and Presbyterian churches) sought get the Constitution amended to contain an explicit recognition of Jesus’ lordship.
SCOTUS Associate Justice William Strong (1808–1895, served 1870–1880) was a key supporter and leader (president) of the NRA.
He endorsed and promoted the organization’s platform calling for a “Christian amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, acknowledging:
•Almighty God as the author of the nation’s existence and source of its authority,
•Jesus Christ as its ruler,
•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. Strong actively championed it as a Presbyterian ruling elder and jurist.
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.
The furthest these efforts ever got was a Congressional House Committee in 1954.
Tis a shame it never happened. Strong’s warnings were not heeded and what he feared – the obliteration of Christian faith from American public life and institutions – largely came to pass.
—
“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. I believe it captures his thought but he did not actually say it.
—
“”Think of your forefathers! Think of your posterity!”
— John Quincy Adams
—
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
In the Declaration of Independence, the founders claim to have opposed King George’s invasions of their rights with “manly firmness.”
America could use more of that manly firmness today.
—
“Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”
— John Quincy Adams
Sadly, I think we’ve let JQA down.
—
“America cannot remain “half 1776” and “half 1789″…America as a nation must choose one revolution or the other.”
— Os Guinness
—
From December 13, 2025:
“America was born a Christian nation!”
— Woodrow Wilson
“This is a Christian nation?”
— Harry Truman, 1947
“… we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”
— Barak Obama, 2009
Three quotations that sum up went wrong and what we lost. We were a Christian nation in the past. We need to be and ought to be a Christian nation again in the future. For now these two visions – the traditional vision of Christian America versus Obama’s vision of progressive/pagan America – are locked in combat. Which way will you go, American man?
—
From December 30, 2024:
Look at this testimony (see pic). There’s a lot of truth here. But I would say the sucker punch and backstabbing was not from “every non-white group” but mainly from Obama. Obama could have used his presidency to continue and maybe complete the racial healing. Instead he re-politicized race, promoted a vicious racial identity politics aimed at making whites feel guilty about being uniquely evil, and opened up all the old wounds. In 90s and early 00s, most people were tired of talking about race and wanted to move on. The Obama years made everything about race once again. By denying any progress had been made, the Obamas undid the progress that had been made.
Yes, there are exceptions to what I’m saying (eg, obviously the OJ Simpson trial in the 90s was racially motivated). But in pop culture and on the street, most Gen Xers will tell you race relations were reasonably good in that time period.
Caldwell’s analysis captures a lot of what was happening, but not all of it.
—
“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 deserts 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’s farewell address
—
“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
— John Adams
—
“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”
— Calvin Coolidge
—
“Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association…The political associations that exist in the United States are only a single feature in the midst of the immense assemblage of associations in that country. Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society.”
— Alexis deTocqueville
—
The American Revolution was not really revolutionary. It was actually conservative, as the founding fathers sought to conserve their God-given rights. The real revolutionaries were found in England, especially in Parliament, who treated rights as a government grant rather than pre-political, natural, and theologically grounded. The conservatives in Parliament, like Burke, understood this, and that’s why they took the side of the colonists.
—
If rights come from God, there cannot be rights like a right to same-sex “marriage” (as with Obergefell) or a right to change your gender (as with transgenderism) or or a right to murder your baby (as in abortion) or a right to other people’s property (as in socialism/communism). God does not grant the right to do things he considers abominable. Those things may be tolerated in civil society but they can never be rights. Rights are granted by God, but also therefore limited by God. Rights are defined by divine revelation, as corollaries of the divine law. The purpose of civil government is to secure and protect those rights in civil society.
When rights are considered a grant from government rather than God, new “rights” can be invented and real God-given rights taken away. This is exactly what has happened in American history. SCOTUS in particular has been guilty of inventing “rights” which are contrary to our Creator’s will rather than grounded in his will. American Christians have seen their real rights infringed upon while perverted Americans have been given “rights” made up by darkened imaginations.
When the founding fathers wrote and adopted the Declaration (and later the Bill of Rights), they were not inventing any new rights. They were simply asserting the rights God had already granted them, and (in the case of the Declaration) rights that belonged to them as citizens of the British Empire. None of them thought of rights as a blank check to do whatever they wanted. The only kind of liberty they recognized was an ordered liberty, a liberty deeply intertwined with virtue and responsibility.
The Declaration became one of the clearest political statements to that point in history that the state is not divine. The Declaration de-divinizes the state. The state is under God every bit as much as the citizen. The state is not autonomous. The purpose of the state is grounded in God’s design. While this was often asserted by medieval and especially Reformational theologians, it was not always understood or put into practice. The founding fathers insisted that our rights are theological and therefore pre-political. Our rights are inherent and natural, deriving from our Creator. This is why the founding fathers insisted on limited government – civil government must not infringe upon the God-given rights of citizens but protect those God-given rights from infringement by others.
This why the American Revolution was not really revolutionary (and certainly not in the sense that France had a “revolution”). The founding fathers were conservatives. The real revolutionaries were found in Parliament who believed they had the “right” to rule and tax colonies even though the colonies had charters with the king and had no representation in Parliament. (The Glorious Revolution of 1688 did not change the colonial arrangement; the king’s covenants/charters with the colonies remained in tact.) The American founders accused the king of failing to preserve and protect their God-given rights as Englishmen. This is why conservatives and traditionalists in Parliament, like Edmund Burke, sided with the colonial case. And, of course, Burke staunchly opposed the French Revolution because its view of the “rights of man” was a complete break with the traditions of Christendom.
—
“Sometimes we do not fully appreciate how radical was this experiment. To be sure, it was not radical in the way the subsequent French Revolution was radical; that convulsion existed to utterly destroy the past, burn the “old world” to the ground and to create, as though ex nihilo, a whole new world based on autonomous Enlightenment reason. That was radical, truly revolutionary in every respect—and it was a political and humanitarian disaster. The American experiment was quite different. It sought not to invent new rights, but to reassert the rights they already believed they had, and to ground them in a higher and more secure authority. All men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator. Rights are pre-political, not dependent on the shifting winds of political arrangements. This was not a rejection of the past, but an advancement on the past. We would retain our long-recognized pre-political rights—“life, liberty, property”—but not at the “by your leave” of a king. In this new experiment the State would be humbled and marginalized.
And that is the truly radical and revolutionary idea embedded in the American experiment. America represents the first realized, systematic attempt in history to constitutionally prevent the deification of political power. Put another way, it is the first viable civic polity to “de-deify” the State. The State is not God. Whereas before the State sought to be all-encompassing and all-authoritative—to “providentially” micro-manage the body politic toward some beneficent end, usually the enrichment of the few by the many, the ruling class by the ruled (Aristotle thought this was just “natural law”), here the State is limited in scope and shackled in power. Rights and liberties are taken out from the prerogative of kings (who were, remember, kings by divine right) and placed squarely in the prerogative of our Creator and granted directly, unmediated, unto all. The responsibility of the civil authorities is to “secure these rights,” not to grant them. There is in the American experiment, almost for the first time, the conceptualizing of a “space” between God and the State, the possibility of divergence between the will of the ruler and the will of God. They are no longer assumed to be one and the same.
It is true that the institutions of Church and State, Altar and Throne, had in the past been distinguished, particularly in the wake of St. Augustine’s City of God. But throughout the Medieval era Emperor and Pope were essentially wrestling over who would have supremacy over the entire domain of human life and society. Each wanted to be the supreme voice of God on earth; they were fighting over the same territory. Neither contemplated or at least fully appreciated that perhaps this was not to be their role. America essentially chastened both Church and State.
As for this perennial deification of the State, the history of the past century alone, with its mass delusions of communism, fascism, and national socialism ought to make it obvious that the temptation is ever-present to conflate or merge together civil powers with divine powers. In all of those arrangements, the State is conceived as totalitarian (“all encompassing”) and the individual is simply one cog in a collective wheel. But one could trace this back much further. From the Roman Imperial cult to Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon all the way back to the Tower of Babel itself, bodies politic have organized themselves in idolatrous fashion, fancying their kings or princes or Caesars or politburos or “Führers” as nothing less than gods walking on earth. This is precisely what German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (who inspired legions of would-be autocrats, including Karl Marx) said: “Es ist der Gang Gottes in der Welt, dass der Staat ist.” “The State is the march of God in the world.”
But the American experiment grounded the legitimacy of political power in the (admittedly complicated) consent of the governed rather than (the much simpler) divine mandate. By institutional design political power was restrained and diffused so as to avoid a concentration of power in any single individual or institution. Political rights were grounded in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” rather than the “say-so” of a ruler or magistrate; that is to say, they are transcendent.
There were, of course, historical precedents for many of these notions. The idea that there is a divine law above earthly law was developed and defended by Puritan Samuel Rutherford in his 1644 book, Lex Rex, drawing on an older Continental tradition of political resistance. Consent of the governed had been planted as far back as the Magna Carta in 1215, and was further developed by Reformed reflection on the concept of “covenant.” We have the Dutch Reformation to thank for decentralized government and religious toleration, the results of their revolt against hierarchical Spanish Catholic rule. These were all fruits of the Protestant Reformation—better, these were new seeds sown by the Reformation that at last found their full flower in the American Revolution. The Reformation’s insistence that the individual’s relationship to God is not mediated exclusively through the sacramental hierarchy of the Church eventually involved a corollary: neither is the citizen’s relationship to God mediated by a monarch. He is not “the great Prince,” or the “nation’s god.” The Reformation did not simply bring about theological or ecclesiastical reform; it eventually brought civil reform, a reordering of the place and priorities of both institutions: Church and State.
What resulted from this de-deifying of the State? Put simply, the emancipation of divine image-bearers in every facet of social, communal, and civic life. Emancipation not from nature or from God’s moral law, but emancipation from illegitimate interference from the coercive power of the State. Mutually reinforcing ideas of commitment to individual equality before the law, representative government, private property rights, along with wide freedoms of economic exchange, speech, religion, and association opened up a civic “space” wherein newly unleashed human potential and dynamism brought about prosperity and improvement to the quality of life heretofore never imagined by the human race. That is quite a claim, but it is in fact uncontroversial. It is a simple fact that the world has never known a more powerful and prosperous nation than the United States of America.
America was the Land of Liberty, a free people. This freedom manifested itself both horizontally and vertically. Hierarchical, aristocratic societies had the tendency to “silo” or freeze people into their proper “stations” in life. Now, gone were the days when one was destined to marry among one’s own social class or to pursue the exact same profession as one’s father and grandfather and his father before him. One was free to pursue lateral movement throughout society. Put in economic terms, human capital—the talents and gifts and strengths of individual human beings—were now free to flow and to move to their most advantageous and prosperous use. And there was vertical mobility; “rags to riches” became a real and distinct possibility. No longer were people doomed to intergenerational, grinding poverty. It is as though the gears of social dynamism, lateral and vertical, forever gummed up or rusted over by aristocratic expectations and/or collective State tyranny, were now broken free.
The empires of old were built on hierarchical social stratification and were supported, like a pyramid scheme (the Egyptians even made it their brand logo!), on the backs of the lower classes. They were essentially slave societies. They lacked the internal economic dynamism to sustain their nations, so ever more conquest and tribute and taxes were the only alternative. And they usually crumbled from within; consumption without production will do that. Bricks without straw, indeed (Exodus 5). But America? A quarter of a millennium into its experiment, polarized and sclerotic and dysfunctional as it seems, a nation comprising a mere 4.34% of the global population represents 26% percent of global gross domestic product. A full quarter of the world’s wealth. This is not because America is more clever than the ancient Egyptians at extracting wealth from other people; it is because America produces wealth unlike any other nation in world history. And while there are many complex factors involved in a nation’s economic health, the fact that Americans are not ruled by the descendants of the sun god seems a significant one.
A revolution, indeed. The ramifications of this de-deified State are difficult to fully trace out. Americans suddenly had a unique ownership and agency. And not just economically. No longer is the betterment of society, whether by education or philanthropy or arts or what have you simply a matter of waiting for some local lord or baron or duke to act, or, worse, for a government bureaucrat to convene a committee to come up with proposals. Americans threw themselves into social interaction and cooperation. “Association”—one of the rights famously protected by the First Amendment—became a national pastime.
This is the genius of America; this is its “soul,” the engine that drives the body politic: a free and virtuous people not hindered in its pursuits by a deified State—a government that acknowledges that it is not a stand-in for God’s providential ordering of all things social, cultural, or economic, nor a stand-in for the Church in matters of moral formation and discipline. A government restrained in scope and power respects the space for divine image bearers to flourish according to their gifts and abilities; and, more than that, space for people to band together in associations and to form institutions with great cultural power and reach…
Nevertheless, the temptation to deify the State, to conflate or merge together civil powers with divine powers, is perennial—so much so that we find the thorny problem addressed in a classic biblical text. Jesus famously says, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Christians have long battled a terrible distortion of Jesus’s words. Namely, the idea that Jesus is granting to Caesar—civil powers—a kind of autonomy from the will and authority of God. This has been, and is, what secularists wish Jesus to have meant. Leave religion out of it! They find here not just a separation between the church and the state, a description of differing “spheres” or levels of authority, but a separation of the civil realm from God, religion, and morality altogether. Secularists find in these words permission to treat the civil order as a matter of pure Deism: God is kicked upstairs and out of sight, and does not concern himself with the affairs of men.
It is necessary to insist that this is a great distortion of Jesus’ words. He is, after all, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. The Christian proclamation is that he is the Second Adam and true God-Man seated at the right hand of the Father, and as such is the absolute and ultimate authority before which every knee of every lesser authority must bow (Phil. 2:10). His authority extends to every square inch of all creation, and that includes civil realms. Even King David, “God’s King” par excellence, recognized this: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” (Ps.110). David knew himself as a subject of his own offspring.
But secularism is not the only possible distortion of Jesus’ words. While separating civil authority from the kingdom of God is a recipe for idolatrous, messianic politics of the sort you find in secular progressivism, it is equally idolatrous to conflate, blur, or merge together civil authority with the kingdom of God, to lose all sight of any distinction or divergence between the two. Jesus very clearly does distinguish the things of Caesar and the things “of God.” In so doing he denies that Caesar has god-like authority, god-like possessions, and god-like prerogatives. Caesar’s power and domain is not coextensive with God’s kingdom. As he said to Pilate, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given you from above” (John 19:11).
Both distortions of Jesus’s words produce the same practical result. If one separates Caesar from God then Caesar simply becomes a god unto himself. If one identifies the “things of” Caesar with the “things of” God then Caesar simply becomes god unto himself. This political Deism (separation) and political Pantheism (identification) are two sides of the same coin. They are both forms of messianic politics—that is, they invest in civil powers divine prerogatives and soteric (salvific) significance. They attribute to Caesar what belongs to God. It is messianic because the civil ruler always—always—promises “deliverance,” whether it is deliverance from poverty or famine or war or persecution or economic competition or immigrants or Jews or—equally common in our own day—from pronouns you didn’t invent, and even from the ordinances of nature and creation itself like your biological sex. There is always a utopian paradise just around the corner that will liberate one from whatever bondage one feels. Eric Voegelin famously termed this “immanentizing the eschaton,” the promise to bring the new heavens and the new earth into the here-and-now. This is a vision of the State or civil powers as an agent of redemptive history…
Messianic politics, the deification of the State, viewing the State as “God’s Vicar” on earth, is the very thing America resisted and by so doing liberated society to pursue its God-given individual and communal purposes with dynamism and energy and fruitfulness the likes of which the world had never seen. If America is going to survive and thrive for another 250 years she must recover her love of political freedom and the moral virtue and wherewithal to fruitfully exercise it.”
— Brian Mattson
—
“All of civilization can be fundamentally divided into two groups of people: BUILDERS and DESTROYERS. The people who do the work to build, sustain, and nurture civilization…and those who only destroy. Who litter, who ROB, who are feeding, who deface, who DEGRADE. Civilization only exists because of people like you [the National Guard]. People who choose to serve, who choose to sacrifice, who choose to build, who choose to dedicate themselves to some cause greater than their own family. Each and every one of you is the reason why America’s future is brighter than it’s ever been before.”
— Stephen Miller
—
All Western values are Christian values. Even woke, leftist values are just distortions and perversions of the Christian values. Wokeness is a Christian heresy.
—
Not a single Baptist signed the Declaration of Independence.
—
“We are, by any honest measure, richly blessed to have been born into the freest and most remarkable experiment in self-government the world has ever produced. To answer that blessing with contempt is not sophistication. It is spiritual sickness.”
— Clayton Wood
—
The Christian religion that founded America is now barely tolerated in its public life.
—
The irony of our situation in America today:
The left trusts the major institutions (government agencies, media, universities) but hates our country. The right does not trust the institutions but still loves the country.
—
Love of country is not the same as trust in government or the nation’s other major institutions.
American patriotism has often been combined with a healthy distrust in our leadership.
Those who love America the most have often been the most critical of her.
Patriotism at its best is love of one’s people and place, one’s cultural heritage and constitutional inheritance.
The problem today is that a huge proportion of America has been trained to hate their country, to be ashamed of her, to magnify her sins and deny her virtues. When I was growing up, the right and left disagreed, often sharply, but both sides seemed to have a genuine affection for America. Today, that is no longer the case.
Ironically, today the left trusts in institutions – the government when their people are in power, the universities, the media – but they do not love their country. The right does not trust the institutions but does love the country.
—
“In 1976 America was objectively worse off than it is today. Unemployment was above six percent. Inflation was eating paychecks alive. Vietnam had ended a year earlier in humiliation, Nixon had resigned in disgrace, and the country was still absorbing assassinations, riots, and a decade of upheaval that had not fully healed.
And yet America threw itself a party.
Tall ships sailed into New York Harbor. Small towns held parades. Families gathered for fireworks with a kind of unselfconscious joy that, fifty years later, feels almost foreign to us.
Patriotism has not simply declined since then. It has divided along party lines.
According to Gallup’s 2025 figures, 92 percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very proud to be American. Only 53 percent of independents and 36 percent of Democrats say the same.
That is not merely a decline in national confidence. It is the partisan division of patriotism itself.
In 2001, the three groups were separated by only a few percentage points. Republicans, Democrats, and independents could disagree bitterly over politics while still sharing a basic affection for the country in which those arguments occurred. Today, one party remains overwhelmingly proud of America while pride among the other has collapsed.”
— Clayton Wood
—
“The intellectual revolt against America began before Zinn and extended far beyond him. But no popular historian did more to give that revolt a simple, readable, emotionally powerful story that could be taught to generations of American students.
The lie was not that America had sinned.
America has sinned, grievously at times.
The lie was that America was nothing more than its sins, that its ideals were merely camouflage for power, that its heroes were frauds, that its achievements were accidental or stolen, and that love of country was therefore evidence not of gratitude but of ignorance.
That lie did not break my love of country. It did not break the love of millions of Americans who remain profoundly grateful for their inheritance.
It did something nearly as dangerous.
It broke our unity.
It destroyed much of the shared patriotic consensus that once allowed Americans with radically different politics to recognize that they still belonged to one another.
The man who taught a generation to hate its own house.”
— Clayton Wood
—
“Gramsci understood that a revolutionary movement could not permanently transform the West merely by storming government buildings or seizing economic assets. Political power rested upon something deeper: cultural authority.
A people’s understanding of what is normal, admirable, shameful, sacred, and true is formed through institutions. Families form it. Churches form it. Schools form it. Universities form it. Newspapers, entertainment, professional associations, and civic organizations form it.
A revolution that captures the government but leaves those institutions intact may eventually fail. A revolution that captures the institutions can transform a civilization without ever appearing to overthrow it.
The Frankfurt School extended Marxist criticism beyond factories and economic classes into culture, religion, sexual morality, family life, inherited authority, and the structure of Western society itself.
The old Marxism had said that history was primarily a conflict between economic classes. The newer critical theories expanded the number of oppressors and oppressed until nearly every inherited relationship could be viewed through the same suspicion.
Parent and child. Husband and wife. Clergy and congregation. Teacher and student. Citizen and nation. Male and female. Majority and minority. Settler and Indigenous person. Western society and the rest of the world.
Every relationship could be reconstructed as domination.
Every inheritance could be treated as a mechanism of control.
Every loyalty could become evidence of false consciousness.”
— Clayton Wood on cultural Marxism
—
“Alinsky understood that politics is not merely the exchange of ideas. It is the organization of people, pressure, conflict, fear, embarrassment, and institutional leverage.
Later radicals spoke openly of a “long march through the institutions,” a patient effort to occupy the places where a civilization forms its memory and moral imagination.”
— Clayton Wood
—
“Gramsci explained why cultural institutions mattered.
The Frankfurt School supplied a method of suspicion directed toward inherited Western life.
Alinsky supplied practical methods of organization and pressure.
Zinn supplied the American historical narrative.
Zinn gave the long march its textbook.
And the bitter fruit is now visible.
At some of the wealthiest universities in the world, coddled children of extraordinary privilege put on the costume of revolutionary allyship and demonstrate on behalf of Hamas, an Islamist terrorist movement that would crush nearly every fashionable identity these students claim to defend.
Students at Columbia and other elite universities have occupied buildings, harassed Jewish students, celebrated “resistance,” and adopted the symbols and slogans of a movement responsible for the deliberate murder, kidnapping, rape, and torture of civilians.
Some have done so while presenting themselves as champions of women, sexual minorities, religious pluralism, and human rights.
“Queers for Palestine” is not merely an amusing contradiction.
LGBTQ activism on behalf of Islamist terror is the bitter fruit of a carefully cultivated and deeply warped tree of confusion and delusion.
It is the logical endpoint of an education that has trained students to divide the world into oppressors and oppressed, then suspend every other moral judgment once those labels have been assigned.
Once Israel and the West have been placed in the category of oppressor, nearly any force opposing them can be romanticized as liberation.
The actual beliefs and conduct of that force become secondary.
It no longer matters that Hamas governs through religious authoritarianism, subjugates women, persecutes dissent, glorifies martyrdom, targets civilians, and would never tolerate the sexual revolution celebrated on American campuses.
It no longer matters that an openly gay student loudly endorsing Hamas from the safety of Columbia University would enjoy no comparable safety under Hamas rule.
Ideology has destroyed the student’s ability to perceive reality.
America, despite its freedoms and its unmatched capacity for self-correction, must always be the villain.
Any force opposing America or the West must therefore contain some liberating virtue, even when that force murders children and builds its political theology around hatred.
This is not compassion enlarged by education.
It is moral perception destroyed by ideology.”
— Clayton Wood
—
“Oh, liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name?”
— Jane Austen
—
John Adams, in a letter to Abigail:
“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. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”
—
Karl Marx borrowed a lot of his ideas from the French Revolution. Grok summarizes:
Karl Marx was deeply fascinated by the French Revolution (1789–1799, especially its radical phases). He analyzed it extensively across works like The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Holy Family, and The Class Struggles in France. He saw it as the archetypal “bourgeois revolution”: the decisive overthrow of feudalism by the rising capitalist class (bourgeoisie), which established legal and political conditions for modern capitalism, property rights, and the market economy. 
- It provided a template for class struggle and revolutionary change. Marx and Engels viewed history as driven by class conflicts, with the French events as a prime example of how one mode of production (feudalism) gives way to another (capitalism). The Revolution’s slogans (Liberté, égalité, fraternité) inspired radicals, but Marx argued it fell short—delivering formal equality while entrenching economic inequality under capitalism.
- He studied its phases (constitutional monarchy, Jacobin Terror, Thermidor, Napoleon) as lessons in how revolutions can radicalize, then betray their base or get co-opted. The 1848 revolutions in Europe were often compared to 1789.
- Radical currents within it, like the egalitarian demands of the sans-culottes, Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals” (an early proto-communist plot), and Jacobin measures (price controls, land redistribution attempts), pointed toward future socialist possibilities. Marx saw these as foreshadowing proletarian revolution, even if limited by the era’s bourgeois dominance.
In short, the French Revolution was foundational historical material for Marx’s theory of historical materialism and class analysis—not just borrowed ideas, but a key empirical case study he returned to repeatedly.
Marx and Rousseau
The connection here is weaker and more indirect. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was a major intellectual precursor to the Revolution, especially its radical Jacobin phase. His ideas—natural equality corrupted by society (“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”), the Social Contract and “general will,” critique of private property as a source of inequality, and emphasis on popular sovereignty—fueled revolutionary rhetoric and figures like Robespierre. - Shared themes: Both criticized inequality arising from property and civilization. Rousseau’s romantic critique of modern society and call for a more communal/general-will-based politics influenced socialist thought broadly. Some see echoes in Marx’s alienation and communist vision of overcoming bourgeois individualism.
- But Marx was not a direct disciple: Marx’s core framework came from elsewhere—Hegel’s dialectics (inverted into materialism), Feuerbach’s critique of religion, British political economy (Smith, Ricardo), and French utopian socialists (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen). He referenced Rousseau occasionally but often critically or in passing. Marx’s approach was historical, economic, and scientific (class struggle, surplus value, material conditions), not Rousseau’s more moralistic, romantic, or state-of-nature speculation.
- Scholars note connections (e.g., both saw property as central to alienation; Marx and Engels read Rousseau’s Second Discourse), but Marx “corrected” or transcended Rousseau via materialism—rejecting abstract natural rights or a return to primitive simplicity in favor of advancing through capitalism to communism.
Rousseau influenced the intellectual climate and the Revolution that Marx studied, but Marx’s synthesis was far more rooted in 19th-century German philosophy and economics than 18th-century Enlightenment thought.
Overall Assessment
Marx “borrowed” significantly from the legacy and lessons of the French Revolution as a historical process and class conflict exemplar. Rousseau’s influence was real but filtered through the Revolution and earlier socialist traditions—more atmospheric than foundational for Marx’s mature system. Marx was explicit that the proletarian revolution would complete what the bourgeois one started but could not finish. This fits his view of history as progressive yet contradictory.
For deeper reading, check Marx’s own writings on 18th Brumaire or analyses like François Furet’s Marx and the French Revolution.
—
“I do not derive these rules [principles of conduct] from the principles of the higher philosophy; I find them in the depths of my heart traced by nature in characters which nothing can efface. I need only consult myself with regard to what I wish to do; what I feel to be right is right, what I feel to be wrong is wrong; conscience is the best casuist; and it is only when we haggle with conscience that we have recourse to the subtleties of argument. Our first duty is toward ourself.”
— Rousseau, summarizing the demonic philosophy that produced modern liberalism
—
“Ideas are not abstractions. They are not harmless. They are not academic. Ideas are seeds-seeds that grow into families, cultures, laws, religions, and revolutions. Some ideas erect cathedrals; others sharpen guillotines.
At a fashionable dinner, Thomas Carlyle – the formidable Scottish-man of letters – was rebuked for dominating the table with talk of books and theories. “Ideas, Mr. Carlyle, ideas, nothing but ideas,” his critic snapped. Carlyle answered with a dark parable: “There was once a man called Rousseau who wrote a book containing nothing but ideas. The second edition was bound in the skins of those who laughed at the first.” The point was not lost. Carlyle understood that ideas are never harmless abstractions. Rousseau’s writings did not remain on the page; they helped furnish the moral fuel for the savagery of the French Revolution – and for calamities even more devastating in its wake.”
— Seth Gruber
—
The American Revolution was a revolt against King George, but not King Jesus. The French Revolution was a revolt against King Louis but also against King Jesus.
The American Revolution preserved the moral order of Christendom. The French Revolution sought to reject Christendom completely.
The American Revolution arose from the faith of the Great Awakening. The French Revolution arose from the secular rationalism of the Enlightenment.
The American Revolution was covenantal and resulted in ordered liberty. The French Revolution was anarchic and egalitarian and resulted in tyranny.
Both the American and French Revolutions happened because the people had real grievances with their king. Since the American Revolution, America has had two constitutions, the Articles of Confederation and the current 1787 constitution. Since 1789, the French have had 15 constitutions.
—
“The truth is that Irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world.”
— Chesterton
—
“Why is it always the woman who stays home? Why can’t men?” Feminists love to bring this up. It sounds fair… until you apply basic logic, biology, and common sense.
The problem is that the premise assumes that both men and women are the same, but we are not.
Women don’t stay home because we are oppressed, we stay home because we carry the baby, we birth the baby, we bond with the baby, we feed the baby, and we calm the baby with our presence.
it’s biological design. It is what we were made to do. Infants instinctively seek their mother, our voices, our smell, all of it regulates and soothes our babies in a way nothing else in world does
“But men can be nurturing too!” Sure they can, but that doesn’t mean they’re equal substitutes. Saying men can stay home doesn’t mean they should.
Men are not made to nurture the way women are. They are made to protect, provide, and build. That’s not less important, it’s equal, it’s just different than the nurturing of a woman.
Most mothers, even those with careers, would prefer to be with their children if they had the option. Feminism desperately wants to frame the home as the worst place for women, but for most of us, it’s the center of life, it is the place where we are most irreplaceable, and the one where we are the most needed
“Why is it always the woman?” Because we were made for it, and there is nothing wrong with this truth.
Men and women we are not competitors, we complement one another, and most of all we aren’t interchangeable. Civilization needs both, and things fall apart quickly when we forget it.”
— Elizabeth Stone
—
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
—
“Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic… It is binary; and ‘man’ and ‘woman, ‘boy’ and ‘girl,’ are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. To use language to obscure reality – to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’ – is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s].”
— Clarence Thomas
Thomas is perhaps the greatest living American. He has done his part and then some to save our nation. He has fought progressives consistently and with integrity all along the way. He is undoubtedly one of the very best SCOTUS justices we have ever had. Thank God for Clarence Thomas.
—
Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. The glory of a thing is found in it being and doing what God made it to be and do.
—
“No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign of all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ ”
— Abraham Kuyper
—
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child.
Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…
Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.
Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.”
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism.”
“It is very curious that devout Christians like the British and the Americans should, despite their constant and fervent prayers, receive such a series of hidings from the pagan Japanese! It rather looks as if the real God takes no notice of the prayers offered day and night by the British and the Americans, but reserves His mercies for the heroes of Japan.
It is not surprising that this should be so, for the religion of the Japanese is above all a cult of heroism, and its heroes are those who do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the glory and safety of their country. The Christians, on the other hand, preter to honour the Saints, that is to say, a man who succeeds in standing on one leg for years at a time, or one who preters to lie on a bed of thorns rather than to respond to the smiles of inviting maidens. There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.
Another peculiarity of the Christian faith, as it is taught by the Catholic Church, is that it is a school of pessimism rather than of optimism. The Japanese religion, on the contrary, rouses men to enthusiasm by the promise it holds of the rewards in the Hereafter, while the unfortunate Christian has no prospect before him but the torments of Hell.”
“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself… Pure Christianity – the Christianity of the catacombs – is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely wholehearted Bolshevism under a tinsel of metaphysics.”
“It’s only in the realm of music that I can find no satisfaction.
The same thing is happening to music as is happening to beauty in a world dominated by the shavelings—the Christian religion is an enemy to beauty. The Jew has brought off the same trick upon music. He has created a new inversion of values and replaced the loveliness of music by noises. Surely the Athenian, when he entered the Parthenon to contemplate the image of Zeus, must have had another impression than the Christian who must resign himself to contemplating the grimacing face of a man crucified.”
— Adolf Hitler, from “Hitler 1941-1944,” p. 7, 75, 418f, 145f, 325
—
“That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches’ forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I’ve never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents’ mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained – that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively.
The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organised communities.
The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret – all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams – a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs! All these elements contributed to form human communities. It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters.
Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse.
Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”
— Hitler, Table Talk, p 59f
—
“When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore of a whore and a Roman soldier.
The decisive falsification of Jesus’s doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that’s why the Jews liquidated him.
Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus’s supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean’s teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman state which the Jews hated…St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using religion as a means of propaganda…
It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St.
Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people…
It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.
Nevertheless, the Roman slave was not at all what the expression encourages us to imagine today. In actual fact, the people concerned were prisoners of war (as we understand the term nowadays), of whom many had been freed and had the possibility of becoming citizens – and it was St. Paul who introduced this degrading overtone into the modern idea of Roman slaves.
Think of the numerous Germanic people whom Rome welcomed. Arminius himself, the first architect of our liberty, wasn’t he a Roman knight, and his brother a dignitary of the State? By reason of these contacts, renewed throughout the centuries, the population of Rome had ended by acquiring a great esteem for the Germanic peoples. It’s clear that there was a preference in Rome for fair-haired women, to such a point that many Roman women dyed their hair.
Thus Germanic blood constantly regenerated Roman society.
The Jew, on the other hand, was despised in Rome.
Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt.
Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.”
“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
“The Slav peoples are not destined to live a cleanly life. They know it, and we would be wrong to persuade them of the contrary. It was we who, in 1918, created the Baltic countries and the Ukraine. But nowadays we have no interest in maintaining Baltic States, any more than in creating an independent Ukraine. We must likewise prevent them from returning to Christianity. That would be a grave fault, for it would be giving them a form of organisation.”
— Adolf Hitler, “Hitler 1941-1944”, p 76ff, 51, 34
—
Claiming Hitler was a Christian Prince is equivalent to claiming Nietzsche was a Christian philosopher. It’s equivalent to claiming Charles Darwin was a great Christian biologist. It’s equivalent to claiming the Bolsheviks were great Christian economists.
Hitler considered Christianity and Bolshevism to be essentially the same thing – both creations of the Jews to subvert heroism and strength in the name of weakness and egalitarianism. He was wrong, but there’s no question that’s how he viewed it.
—
“It’s only in the realm of music that I can find no satisfaction.
The same thing is happening to music as is happening to beauty in a world dominated by the shavelings—the Christian religion is an enemy to beauty. The Jew has brought off the same trick upon music. He has created a new inversion of values and replaced the loveliness of music by noises. Surely the Athenian, when he entered the Parthenon to contemplate the image of Zeus, must have had another impression than the Christian who must resign himself to contemplating the grimacing face of a man crucified.”
— Adolph Hitler
—
“Intolerance may not promote progress but it can promote survival. An intolerant Islamic world may outlast the Western world that seems ready to tolerate anything, including the undermining of its own fundamental values and threats to its continued existence.”
— Thomas Sowell, on why Islam will defeat progressivism
—
A lot of wives would be happier if they just got out of their husband’s way and let him lead, as God intended. Many wives fight against God’s design and thus become their own worst enemies. They don’t realize when they fight their husbands they are fighting against God himself – and against their own happiness.
—
Adolph Hitler was not a Christian Prince. He was a non-church attending Old Testament-rejecting neopagan Darwinian Christ-hating virgin birth-denying resurrection-denying Muslim-admiring vegan authoritarian tyrannical Nietzschean vitalist, socialist, militarist, and egomaniac with a weird Social Darwinist and eugenicist race fetish.
John Doyle is right: anyone who thinks Hitler was a Christian Prince is part of the retarded right.
—
The Jews are not to blame for all the evils in the world or in the West or in America.
—
The Bible nowhere condemns or prohibits interracial or interethnic marriages. It does prohibit interfaith marriages; Christians are to marry only “in the Lord.”
—
“Many men and marriages can only conceive of a man serving his wife by… becoming his wife.
Taking over her duties and vocation to keep the home- laundry, cooking, baby care, etc.
Leads to disaster.”
— John Moody
—
“Nature does not recognize rights. It recognizes responsibilities.
Scream at the bear that you have a right not to be eaten. See what it does.
Scream at the storm that you have a right not to have your house blown away. See what it does.
Scream at the bad man that you have a right to be unmolested. See what happens.
The idea of rights exists only in the imagination of men. What exists are responsibilities.
Nature is all about responsibilities.
We have a responsibility to defend our life, liberty, and property. We have a responsibility to defend our common interests. We have a responsibility to defend those who are on our side, our team. That is, those who benefit from our success and whose success benefits us. Those whose incentives are mutually aligned with ours.
As soon as you switch from a rights-based philosophy to a responsibility-based philosophy, the whole world becomes infinitely easier to understand.
Now read it this way: every person has a responsibility to defend their life, liberty, and property.
What does that mean for those who refuse to participate in their responsibilities, who refuse to discharge them, or who are incapable?
It means they must either demand the free support of those who are willing to fulfill those responsibilities, which is what a rights-based system always creates, or they must negotiate with those individuals by giving up some of their property to those who would protect them, which is how we get governments.
In a system based on responsibilities, only those who are willing and able to discharge their responsibilities have a say in government, in how society is organized, and in how common resources are managed.
But in a rights-based society, everyone is said to possess these magical rights, and therefore everyone gets a say in everything, despite their refusal to accept responsibility or their lack of competence.
Today we are seeing the results of our rights-based system as it decays and eventually collapses.
We have a choice. We can replace it with the old “might makes right” system, or we can replace it with the “responsibility makes right” system that I am proposing.
In any case, the old rights-based system, and all the institutions built upon it, are dying. They will not outlast the next generation.”
— Noah Revoy
Of course, the rights enshrined in the Declaration are rights grounded in the law of God and they are rights which civil government should protect for its citizens. But Revoy is correct: there can be no rights without responsibilities.
—
“Men make history. The extremely overwhelming majority of notable historical events have been wrought by men. Wars, explorations, governments, inventions, works of art – no matter what area of public life you look to, 50% of the population has 98% of the reputation.
The pipe dream of modern feminism tells us that this is because of systemic misogyny. Women have been suppressed, prevented from achieving their full potential. Glass ceilings, etc.
But Scripture tells us that woman was created to be the helper suitable for man. And if this is true, then we would expect history to be androcentric…
The standard caveats apply – women are also made in the Image of God. The role that God designed them for also has eternal significance. “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”
Women are supposed to conquer; their conquest is just delayed by one generation.
This is not a distinction in value, but a distinction in design. Coffee mugs and wine glasses. Pickup trucks and minivans. Steel-toed boots and high-heels. Forks and spoons. Fire and water. Salt and pepper. Neither is more valuable than the other; they are designed for different purposes.
It is also worth noting that the vast majority of people who have been slaughtered on battlefields and who have died of exposure on exploratory expeditions have been male.
The moderate egalitarian mindset insists on reducing everything into a question of equality, but then refuses to follow that logic to its conclusions. Yes, men bear a disproportionate share of the glory. They also bear a disproportionate share of the risk.
Yes, women suffer a disproportionate share of the tyranny. They also receive a disproportionate share of special treatment.
We can whine and complain about this, or we can acknowledge that God made it this way- and it is good….
If we embrace God’s design for the sexes, then men will take up their mantle, both as ruler and as protector and as servant, and women will happily take up their role as helper and homemaker. This is beautiful and good, and it leads to a flourishing society…
If we embrace reality, instead of trying to re-engineer it, then a few things become glaringly obvious about how the world works:
Men are much more suited to combat, to conquest, to coronation.
Women are much more suited to domesticity, to deference, to delicacy.
Male heroes throughout history are distinguished by their valor, their courage, their strength, their leadership. Men will follow a mighty man. Women will fawn over him.
Female characters, throughout history, with some notable exceptions, are distinguished by their beauty, their virtue – or lack thereof, and their supporting roles. Men will risk their lives to win the favor of a beautiful woman. Women, meanwhile, don’t generally have a strong affection for alpha females.
To the extent that women do like seeing “strong female characters,“ I would contend that it is because it appeals to their base desire to have power over men. It’s not so much that they actually like the character – it’s that they want to like the fictional world that the character represents.”
— Gabriel Hudson on the inevitability of patriarchy
—
“Nobody believes that it’s a good idea, or makes any rational sense, to award citizenship to the babies of illegal immigrants. Nobody believes that the Founders ever intended any of this. This is one of those times where the debate is a facade. The other side doesn’t believe their own bull****. They know this is ruinous for the country. That’s why they’re so elated. As for the Constitution, they couldn’t care less.”
— Matt Walsh
—
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
–Benjamin Franklin’s response to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
Franklin recognized from the start that the American experiment in self-government was fragile.
—
Why do socialists win elections when socialism has failed every time it’s been tried? Think of it this way: The socialist candidate is Santa Claus and the voters are gullible children who believe. It can be hard to beat Santa and his promises when the voters are naieve and greedy.
—
“In any successful attack on liberty, the state can only be an accomplice.”
— Abraham Kuyper
—
“I don’t want Christianity to reflect America. I want Christianity to change America.”
— Tucker Carlson
—
“Time after time mankind is driven against the rocks of the horrid reality of a fallen creation. And time after time mankind must learn the hard lessons of history – the lessons that for some dangerous and awful reason we can’t seem to keep in our collective memory.”
— Hillaire Belloc
—
“Our politics are now defined by the tears of women and foreigners.”
— John Doyle
—
Overview of Christopher Caldwell’s “Age of Entitlement”:
Christopher Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020) is a sweeping, provocative historical and political analysis arguing that the reforms of the 1960s—centered on the Civil Rights Act of 1964—fundamentally transformed the United States by creating a rival “second constitution” that competes with (and often overrides) the original 1788 Constitution. 
Core Thesis
Caldwell contends that what began as targeted legislation to end Jim Crow segregation and overt racial discrimination evolved into a far-reaching system of bureaucratic, judicial, and cultural power aimed at enforcing equality of outcomes through affirmative action, anti-discrimination mandates, and political correctness. This “civil rights regime” became the model for broader social engineering on issues of race, sex, immigration, and more. 
Americans effectively live under two incompatible constitutional orders:
- The de jure Constitution of 1788, emphasizing individual rights, limited government, freedom of association (Caldwell’s “master freedom”), property rights, and democratic self-government.
- The de facto “Constitution of 1964,” prioritizing group-based remedies for historical injustices, which expands federal (and private-sector) power, erodes traditional liberties, and relies on courts, bureaucrats, lawyers, and corporations for enforcement.
This clash explains much of America’s polarization: it’s not mere incivility but a deeper conflict over which constitution should prevail. The costs—in wealth (trillions in spending and debt), freedom, social cohesion, and stability—have been high and unevenly borne, alienating many (especially working-class whites) and contributing to phenomena like the rise of populism (implicitly Trump).
Structure and Key Arguments
The book divides into two parts:
Part I: The Revolutions of the 1960s (covering race, sex, and war): - Race (Ch. 2): The Civil Rights Act was sold as a limited fix but quickly led to affirmative action, disparate impact doctrines, busing, and expansive federal oversight. Legal equality proved insufficient; the system demanded ongoing preferences and re-engineering of society. It dismantled freedom of association and blurred public/private distinctions.
- Sex (Ch. 3): Links to second-wave feminism, the sexual revolution (Playboy, etc.), and changes like Roe v. Wade, which expanded lifestyle freedoms but disrupted traditional family and gender norms.
- War (Ch. 4): The Vietnam War as a parallel “sister movement” to civil rights and the Great Society, fueling counterculture and distrust of institutions.
Part II: The New Constitution: - Debt (Ch. 5): Reagan did not roll back the 1960s changes but accommodated them via deficits and market-driven growth (“Reaganomics” funded the new regime without asking voters to pay directly). Criticizes free-market fundamentalism, globalization, and immigration policies that further strained the system.
- Diversity (Ch. 6): Rise of political correctness, identity politics, and bureaucratic enforcement extending to speech, hiring, education, and culture. Civil rights logic expanded to other groups (women, immigrants, gays).
- Winners (Ch. 7) and Losers (Ch. 8): Benefits accrued to certain groups (e.g., African Americans in some metrics, women, gays via Obergefell, globalized elites, tech/finance sectors). Costs fell on others (working-class white men, traditional communities, social trust). Discusses cultural shifts, opioids, tech, and economic inequality.
Caldwell weaves in cultural references (music, Playboy, iPhones, OxyContin, BLM, internet tracking) to illustrate broader societal changes driven by baby boomers and their ideological commitments.
Broader Context and Implications
Caldwell portrays the 1960s–2010s as a self-contained era of elite-driven transformation with unintended (or foreseeable) consequences: eroded social norms, massive debt-funded entitlements, weakened pluralism, and a managerial state/corporate alliance enforcing the new order. He is critical of both parties for enabling it and notes the regime’s “religious” or sacred status in American politics, making critique difficult.
The book is ambitious, densely argued, and often witty or acerbic. It has been praised by many conservatives as insightful on constitutional drift, polarization, and the roots of contemporary discontent, and criticized by others as overly pessimistic, selective, or ahistorical in downplaying pre-1960s issues or the genuine injustices addressed by civil rights.
In short, Caldwell’s work is a revisionist history of post-1960s America that frames today’s divisions as stemming from an unresolved constitutional revolution—one that promised justice and humanity but delivered entitlement, division, and a loss of the old republic’s liberties for many. It is essential reading for understanding arguments about the trajectory of modern American politics and culture.
—
“You ask, what is thought of Common sense. Sensible Men think there are some Whims, some Sophisms, some artfull Addresses to superstitious Notions, some keen attempts upon the Passions, in this Pamphlet. But all agree there is a great deal of good sense, delivered in a clear, simple, concise and nervous Style. His Sentiments of the Abilities of America, and of the Difficulty of a Reconciliation with G.B. are generally approved. But his Notions, and Plans of Continental Government are not much applauded. Indeed this Writer has a better Hand at pulling down than building.”
— John Adams, evaluating Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (later Adams became substantially more critical of Paine)
—
If we have no interest in the past, in honoring our ancestors who built the civilization we inherited, it is unlikely we will care for our future descendants. If we are too present oriented to care about the past, we are too present oriented to care about the future.
—
“We constitute the greatest nation on the face of the earth. She is in fact the greatest empire that has ever existed, truly the ‘last great hope of mankind.’
We enjoy a degree of justice and liberty, prosperity and peace beyond the imagination of any other people. We have an unsurpassed heritage, boasting many of the greatest thinkers, artists, and leaders in all of human history.
Indeed, despite the present conflict and turmoil, we will overcome our adversaries and endure forever. No matter how powerful our enemies, no matter how vicious their attacks, we will rise up to advance across the globe, and other nations will, like birds seeking refuge in a spreading tree, find security in the shade of our branches. We will defeat any and all enemies, within and without, in our cosmic warfare.
Do these last statements surprise you? Have I lapsed into the overheated rhetoric of an extremist patriot? I assure you that I am completely serious, and I believe every word that I have written.
But perhaps that little pronoun ‘we’ has confused you. You may have assumed that ‘we’ meant ‘we Americans’ or ‘we conservative Americans’ or ‘we right-thinking” Americans.’ What I have been describing is in fact not the United States of America, but the church, the priestly kingdom and holy nation of God (1 Peter 2:9).
Men and women find true liberty, peace, and joy only in the church. She is the original melting pot. Only citizens of heaven have access to true riches and enjoy true security. The kingdom of God is the cosmic tree in which the nations find shelter. It is the church against which even the gates of hell shall not prevail.”
— Peter Leithart
—
“The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and chose to distort the single most important phrase in the 14th Amendment: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
When the Republican Congress drafted this amendment after the Civil War to protect freed slaves from the Democrat Party’s terror campaign, they inserted that phrase for a definitive reason. It was meant to cover people who owed FULL ALLEGIANCE to this country. It was never written to create automatic citizenship for children born to people who enter our country illegally, or who come here on tourist visas just to give birth, or are part of a mass surrogate campaign run by the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence over America.
The authors of the 14th Amendment would never recognize what the Court did today. They have taken our constitutional compassion, born of justice and mercy, and twisted it into a weapon against us. It makes absolutely no sense.”
— Glenn Beck
—
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
— Thomas Jefferson
—
“Our Christian habit is to bewail the world’s deteriorating standards with an air of rather self-righteous dismay. We criticize its violence, dishonesty, immorality, disregard for human life, and materialistic greed. “The world is going down the drain,” we say with a shrug. But whose fault is it? Who is to blame? Let me put it like this. If the house is dark when nightfall comes, there is no sense in blaming the house; that is what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is, “Where is the light?” Similarly, if the meat goes bad and becomes inedible, there is no sense in blaming the meat; this is what happens when bacteria are left alone to breed. The question to ask is, “Where is the salt?” Just so, if society deteriorates and its standards decline until it becomes like a dark night or a stinking fish, there is no sense in blaming society; that is what happens when fallen men and women are left to themselves, and human selfishness is unchecked. The question to ask is, “Where is the Church?” Why are the salt and light of Jesus Christ not permeating and changing our society?”
— John Stott
—
“Feminist have always had an obsession with Lucifer because he was the first rebel against the natural order, God’s plan for his creation.”
— Seth Gruber, on the connection between feminism and the occult
—
“Utopianism is the original temptation.”
— Thomas Molnar
—
“Men speak today as though Europe could continue indefinitely without belief, as though laws, customs, and liberties could be maintained without a common view of man’s origin and destiny. This is an illusion. You may cut the flower from its root and it will remain fresh for a time. But it is already dying.”
— Hillaire Belloc, on the cut-flower civilization phenomenon
—
“In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy…In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattel, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate. Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended. Sexual desires could then be satisfied in a direct or perverted manner…So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared….No society has yet succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period…
Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”
— J. D. Unwin
—
“Every day that passes should be lived in light of the past, in light of the future, and in light of eternity.”
— Thomas Chalmers
—
“We must always keep in mind the fact that history is not what has happened; it is what we remember of what has happened.”
— Herbert Scholssberg
—
“History is not a toboggan slide, but a road to be reconsidered and even retraced.”
— Chesterton
—
“The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they do not know the present. History is a hill or high point of vantage, from which alone men see the town in which they live or the age in which they are living.”
— Chesterton
—
“If you are enjoying life’s blessings, the hand of God is there. If you are feeling life’s losses, his hand is still there.”
— Bob Childress, from his sermon on Job 1
The larger context:
“Job’s first tests were years of property, power, family, the love of friends. His faith didn’t depend on home or health or worldly applause. The secret-the ability to see and the willingness to look for God’s hands in everything.
Do you see God’s hand in the full corn-crib, the full smoke-house, strong bodies? And do you still look for his hand in the storm or in the sickbed, or when you lose something, or by an open grave or the side of a suffering friend, or in the hard breath. ing or the hot brow of a little child? If you are enjoying life’s blessings, the hand of God is there. If you are feeling life’s losses, his hand is still there.”
—
Matt Walsh has a documentary out on the causes of the Civil War:
Walsh points out how it is hypocritical for the North to view the South as irredeemably racist. Northerners owned slaves, did not treat blacks well, had “black laws” controlling the black population, eg, curfews, immigration to Northern states, etc. Further, the slave trade was a mostly Yankee business. Northerners emancipated their slaves gradually and mostly because their increasingly manufacturing-based economy no longer needed slaves the way the more agrarian economy of the South did. The one factual question I have is the status of the slave trade after we legally ended it in 1808. Walsh is right that Southerners overwhelmingly supported ending the slave trade in 1808 (it passed with 95% of the vote in Congress). From my studies, there was still slave smuggling after 1808, but it was rare. Walsh’s description makes it sound as if the slave trade continued to be common, and was a profitable business for Northerners. I’ll have to look into it more.
—
Questions for the “Hitler was a Christian prince” crowd:
What church did Hitler’s attend?
Why did he say he wished Christians had lost to the Muslims at the Battle of Tours?
What did he believe about Darwinism?
What was his view of the OT?
Why did he prefer Islam to Christian faith?
Why did the Nazis control so many industries, implement price controls, etc.?
Why did Hitler call Christianity a “poisonous offshoot” of Judaism?
Why did Hitler talk about making war against the church after the war was over?
Why did Hitler self-describe as a “heathen”?
Why did Hitler remove Christian symbols from public buildings?
How can Hitler be a Christian Prince given that he denied the virginity birth and resurrection?
Why did Hitler not want a Christian priest with 10km of his funeral?
—
Grok analyzes Hitler’s abortion policies:
Nazi Germany’s abortion policy was explicitly eugenic and racial, not a blanket pro- or anti-abortion stance. It aimed to boost the “Aryan” (racially “superior” German) population while reducing or eliminating groups the regime considered undesirable—such as Jews, Slavs, Roma, the disabled, mentally ill, “hereditarily diseased,” or “asocial” people. 
Key Elements of the Policy
- For “Aryan” Germans (the core population): Abortion was severely restricted and punished to promote higher birth rates for the Volk (racial community). The Nazis reversed some Weimar-era liberalizations. In 1933, they strengthened penalties for illegal abortions and suppressed birth control and sex education. Penalties increased over time; by 1943, performing an abortion on an Aryan woman could result in prison, penitentiary, or even the death penalty in serious cases. The goal was demographic expansion for military and ideological strength.
- Eugenic exceptions: Abortion was permitted (and sometimes required) on “racial hygiene” grounds. This included cases where the fetus was suspected of hereditary defects, disabilities, or genetic diseases (in the parents or child). The 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (sterilization law) was amended in 1935 to explicitly allow eugenic abortions, often followed by sterilization of the mother. Hereditary Health Courts decided many cases.
- For non-Aryans and “undesirables”: Abortion was broadly allowed or encouraged. This applied to Jews, foreign workers (e.g., Poles), prisoners of war, and occupied territories (especially Eastern Europe/Slavs). The regime sought to limit “inferior” populations. Hitler reportedly encouraged abortions in the East. Foreign women or those pregnant by non-Aryans faced fewer barriers.
Context and Implementation - Pre-Nazi background: Abortion had been criminalized in Germany since 1871 (§218 of the criminal code). Weimar Republic (1919–1933) saw some liberalization and high numbers of (often illegal) abortions amid economic hardship.
- Nazi enforcement: The regime established the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion (1936). Doctors faced severe penalties for unauthorized procedures on Aryans. Illegal abortions persisted (estimates varied widely, hundreds of thousands annually), reflecting resistance, but enforcement was harsh.
- Broader eugenics: This fit into forced sterilizations (hundreds of thousands), the T4 euthanasia program (killing disabled people), and eventual genocide. Abortion policy served “positive” eugenics (encouraging “fit” births) and “negative” eugenics (preventing “unfit” ones).
In short, Nazis treated reproduction as a tool of racial warfare: protect and multiply the “master race,” suppress others. Post-1945, some Nazi-era provisions (like aspects of §218/219) lingered in German law but were gradually reformed; modern debates sometimes invoke this history. Sources include historical analyses, Wikipedia summaries of primary laws, and academic papers on eugenics.
—
It’s not enough to say Hitler is pro-family, patriarchal, and nationalist. Islam is all those things too.
—
There is no doubt the Jews have been behind a lot of bad things to subvert the Christian West.
But I remain firmly convinced that the source of the West’s decline is rooted in the French Revolution. The French released a spirit of revolution that combined the worst features of secular humanism and Marxist egalitarianism.
The world is a fallen place. There are lots of bad guys. There are lots of villains. Focusing on one group of bad guys as the source of all evil is foolish – and usually accompanied by a desire to escape responsibility for one’s own sins.
—
I wonder how much the “Hitler was a Christian prince” crowd overlaps with the “fans of Raymond Ibrahim” crowd?
Those two positions/attractions are not compatible
But my view of the education level of a lot of these online guys is pretty low so they may not get that
The Ogden guys don’t seem to get it
—
I think on the theological issues, Tucker is either confused or just playing dumb
Personally, I think he’s carrying out his theological education in public – which is fine in one sense, but the stakes are high given his influence
I thought the J D Hall interview was really good til he (right on cue) started simping for Islam
It was completely unnecessary
Raymond Ibrahim took him to task for it – and rightfully so
Why in the world would Christians go out of their way to talk about kindheartedness of the Ottoman Empire, unless there some outside motive?
Just weird
It’s almost like Hall knew or was told the price of admission to that table was to praise Islam
—
Hitler’s anti-Semitism was linked to his view of Islam.
Obviously Hitler saw Arabs as an inferior race, but he preferred Islam to Christianity because Islam was a “warrior religion,” that is disciplined, militant, and masculine.
Hitler said he regretted the Battle of Tours, where Charles Martel turned back the Muslim invasion in 732 and said the Germanic spirit was more compatible with Islam than Christianity.
From his Table Talk:
“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.”
During WW2, Hitler invited the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to Berlin and he became an ally.
People knock the Allied powers for colluding with Soviet Russia, but Hitler was courting Islamic leaders as allies.
Obviously Tucker Carlson doesn’t take it that far – he’s not going to convert to Islam even though he speaks very highly of Muslims, and he’s anti-war in general.
But you do see these patterns repeat.
Jewish scapegoating is often linked to Marcionite views of the OT and to affection for Islam (as preferable to Judaism and in some cases Christianity).
Tucker has a mild infection of these things, but a radical version is capturing some men on the far right.
You’ll see some convert to Islam (like Andrew Tate).
—
“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.” 
— Adolph Hitler
Grok’s analysis:
This quote (or a very close version of it) is attributed to Hitler in Hitler’s Table Talk (also known as Tischgespräche), a collection of his private monologues recorded by aides between 1941 and 1944. 
Context and Attribution
- The quote appears in entries discussing religion, often dated around 1941–1942 (e.g., references to the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732 AD, where Charles Martel defeated Umayyad forces).
- It reflects Hitler’s private contempt for Christianity (which he saw as weak, “meek,” and Jewish-influenced) contrasted with admiration for Islam as a “religion of warriors” that glorified heroism and suited a conquering, martial spirit better for the “Germanic races.”
- A similar sentiment is recorded by Albert Speer in his memoirs: Hitler reportedly said the Mohammedan religion would have been “much more compatible” with Germans than Christianity.
The full context in common versions often includes lines like: “already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” and “Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”
Caveats on Authenticity
Hitler’s Table Talk is a secondary source, not verbatim transcripts. Notes were taken (often the next day) by aides like Heinrich Heim, Henry Picker, or under Martin Bormann’s direction (who was strongly anti-Christian and may have shaped or emphasized certain remarks). The published editions involve further layers: - François Genoud (a Swiss Nazi sympathizer) played a major role in the French and English versions (including the popular Hugh Trevor-Roper edition). Critics like historian Mikael Nilsson and Richard Carrier have documented distortions, especially in anti-Christian passages and pro-Arab/Islam ones, possibly to suit Genoud’s agendas.
- The exact wording and some details may not be 100% precise, and scholars debate how faithfully they capture Hitler’s spoken words versus editorial filtering.
That said, the broad sentiment aligns with other evidence of Hitler’s views: he repeatedly criticized Christianity’s pacifistic elements in private while expressing pragmatic or admiring comments about Islam’s compatibility with Nazi ideals of struggle, loyalty, and conquest. This was not public policy (Nazis had alliances with some Muslim leaders for geopolitical reasons), but it fits his known private irreligion and racial/ideological worldview.
In short, Hitler almost certainly expressed ideas very much like this in private conversations. The quote is “real” in the sense that it’s a well-documented attribution from his inner circle, even if the precise text comes through imperfect wartime note-taking and postwar editing.
Further:
Hitler and Nazi Germany invited and hosted prominent Muslim leaders in Berlin during World War II, most notably the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. 
Key Example: The Grand Mufti
- On November 28, 1941, Hitler personally met with Haj Amin al-Husseini (an Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader) at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.
- Al-Husseini had fled to German-controlled Europe after supporting an anti-British coup in Iraq and actively sought Nazi support against the British, Jews, and for Arab independence. He lived in Berlin for much of the war, collaborated with Nazi propaganda efforts (including radio broadcasts), and helped recruit Muslims for Waffen-SS units.
- The meeting was documented in official German records. Al-Husseini declared shared enemies (Britain, Jews, Communists), while Hitler was cautious about formal promises on Arab independence but aligned on anti-Jewish goals.
This was not a one-off; Nazi Germany pursued broader outreach to Muslims for pragmatic wartime reasons: - Strategic alliances: To undermine British and Soviet influence in the Middle East and North Africa, recruit soldiers from Muslim populations (tens of thousands served in Nazi forces, e.g., in the Balkans or Eastern Front), and use propaganda portraying Germany as a defender of Islam against “imperialism” and Judaism.
- Other contacts included envoys from figures like Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud and efforts to engage Islamic dignitaries in occupied territories.
Context and Limitations
These invitations were driven by geopolitical opportunism rather than ideological affinity. Nazis viewed Arabs racially in complex ways (sometimes as “inferior” but useful allies), and cooperation was selective. Hitler’s regime still prioritized its European goals and racial hierarchy.
Al-Husseini’s collaboration is well-documented and controversial, but claims (e.g., that he single-handedly inspired the Holocaust during the 1941 meeting) are overstated—the Nazi “Final Solution” was already underway by then.
In summary: Hitler hosted key Muslim leaders like the Grand Mufti in Berlin as part of wartime diplomacy and propaganda. This is corroborated by German records, photos, newsreels, and postwar historical consensus.
—
I’m not a fan of the mid-engined C8 Corvette. Yes, it’s an incredible car and the mid-engine design has many advantages. Yes, its performance numbers are incredible, especially at its price. The C8 is the best sports car in the world for the money. But I’m still not a fan.
For one thing, there is no manual transmission option. Corvettes should always have a manual.
For another thing, it just doesn’t look quite right. The XP-882 Aerovette mid-engined concept car from the 1970s actually looked better. But I’m glad they didn’t actually introduce the Aerovette on the mid 70s. The best looking Corvette (really the best looking car ever, period) is the C3 Corvette, so I’m glad it got a long model run.
TPC Pastor's Page 