John Knox Puts a Woman in Her Place

John Knox: In very deed, Madam, that book* was written most especially against that wicked Jezebel of England.

Queen Mary: But ye speak of women in general?

John Knox: Most true, Madam.

Queen Mary: But yet ye have taught the people to receive another religion than their Princes can allow. How can that doctrine be of God, seeing that God commandeth subjects to obey their Princes?

John Knox: Madam, as right religion took neither original strength nor authority from worldly princes, but from the Eternal God alone, so are not subjects bound to frame their religion according to the appetites of their princes. Princes are oft the most ignorant of all others in God’s true religion, as we may read in the Histories, as well before the death of Christ Jesus as after. If all the seed of Abraham should have been of the religion of Pharaoh, to whom they were long subjects, I pray you, Madam, what religion should there have been in the world? Or, if all men in the days of the Apostles should have been of the religion of the Roman Emperors, what religion should there have been upon the face of the earth? Daniel and his fellows were subjects to Nebuchadnezzar and unto Darius, and yet, Madam, they would not be of their religion; for the three children said: “We make it known unto thee, O King, that we will not worship thy Gods.” Daniel did pray publicly unto his God against the expressed commandment of the King. And so, Madam, ye may perceive that subjects are not bound to the religion of their princes, although they are commanded to give them obedience. **

Shotgun: Queen Mary tries to tie in her gender and religion with the authority of the state. This is similar to what various feminists try to do today, though theirs is a different religion, and a different state. Their religion is the religion of humanism, disguised in Christian garb. And their state is the American state; where Satanism masquerades in language of democracy and equality. Knox eloquently places this feminist in her place by pointing out that our Religion is not of the world, nor do our heros pay homage to the trends and whims of contemporary society. We are God’s men…and Godly women will support us and love us. Feminists will get put into their place.

*Knox’s “Treatsie Against the Regiment of Women.”

** http://www.ccel.org/ccel/knox/blast.iv.iv.html

A Letter to Mr. Bertram From His Daughter Maria

Forgive me my dear father for not writing sooner. A most scandalous and ill-natured rumor has reached my ears, and I write to inquire as to the truth of it. I’ve heard tell from the servants, as well as from correspondence with my dear sister Julia, that you disapprove of my relationship with Mr. Crawford. I’m sure that I’ve heard wrong, and a day or two will clear up the matter. I eagerly anticipate your response and hope that it will alleviate my suffering. I’m so certain that it would since no father of mine would be so muddle-headed as to deny the wisdom of love.

It’s true father, Mr. Crawford has won my heart in ways my husband Mr. Rushworth never could have. Mr. Rushworth is dry, and uninteresting. He glides about on whims of fancy that shock even Julia (who, as we both know, is disposed to imaginations.) And father, I don’t want you feeling as if your judgment has been defied in the marriage, or that your previous consent is being scorned in some way. This is far from the truth and I’ve attempted to absolve you of this burden by sneaking out of Sotherton with Mr. Crawford as quietly as possible. I trust that my comings and goings were observed by no one other than perhaps the maidservant.

More ways to help with my suffering should not be wanting father, if I know anything of your virtue. I’ve heard something more from Julia, this concerning Fanny Price, who I am to understand, is currently visiting her parents in Portsmouth. In her comparison of our two houses, I heard that she’s alluded to Dr. Johnson’s celebrated judgment as to matrimony and celibacy, saying that “though Mansfield Park might have some pains, Portsmouth could have no pleasures.” Is not this a shame father? Portsmouth is of the lower classes and I wouldn’t want Fanny being accused of racism! Can we condone her thinking more highly of Mansfield Park than of Portsmouth? I realize that this must be a painful revelation father, and I highlight it only because I know how dear Fanny is to you. I want you to know that I am also aware of how well you approve of Mr. Crawford and now you can rest knowing that I have saved him from the love of a possible racist!

I long to be at home with Mr. Crawford and I hope this letter finds your sentiments in my favor without delay. In terms of my finances, Mr. Crawford has seen to my comfort, though I could wish for thirty extra pounds, and I know how you would fret if I were not comfortable, and so I mention here only briefly (in order to lessen your angst father.) I remain forever, and truly yours. – Maria

Is “Jew” a Race? (A guest article by my friend R.F.)

For those of you who don’t know me well, or your knowledge of me comes from many years ago from either my days in the government schools or the Air Force, I assure you that I am a Trinitarian Christian, and that I believe all people are born with a sin nature. No race is free from the curse of Adam, and everyone needs Christ.

Having made those prefacetory comments, let’s dig in.

When I look at Bahar Soomekh, the actress who played Dorri, the daughter of the Persian store owners in the movie “Crash” (and Dr. Lynn Denlon in the reprehensible “Saw III”), I say to myself, “That is one hot looking Persian.” The man who is an adherent of dispensationalism would probably say, “That is one hot looking Jewess.” I would maintain that Mrs. Soomekh is a Persian, who follows a variety of Judaism and belongs to the Jewish culture specific to Persia and Los Angeles. The dispensationalist would say that she is a Jew, but would not and could not account for her obvious Persian racial features (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F).

If you look at Persian Jews, Ashkenazic Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Sephardic Jews, they are obviously not from the same race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions). Or just look at well-known Jews in the entertainment industry such as Alicia Silverstone, Sarah Silverman, Larry David; Sammy Davis Jr. (who was black!); or Paula Abdul; it is obvious that we are not talking about one, homogeneous race.

Jews only constitute a race when it is convenient for the Anti-Defamation League (henceforth referred to as ADL) or some similar body to yell “Anti-Semite”. When a Jew thinks he is being attacked for his race, instead of his religion, it hardens his view, because he cannot help what race he was born into. That is why it is very important that the rabbis and Jewish organizations twist comments about Judaism, Jewish culture, Israel, etc., into being about race. It makes their jobs much easier.

Jews were treated as a race by the Third Reich and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Europe. However, this is because the Jews that hailed from Poland and the western USSR (pure-blood Ashkenazic Jews), frequently have some distinct physical traits. And Ashkenazic Jews look considerably different from Sephardic Jews, which I will talk more about shortly.

Can a Jew be a Christian? Most Jews would answer “No”. According to the ADL’s and Israeli immigration department’s websites in times past, the answer was a resounding “No”. This web site lists all of the reasons why a Jew can’t be a Christian, http://www.jewish-history.com/Cresson/cresson15.html. All of the cited reasons are religious in nature. If being a Jew consisted purely of being a member of some race, then that person could be of any religion he or she wanted to be. But from these Jewish sources, being Jewish is tied to either to the Jewish religion, or more accurately–not being a Christian. You can be a Buddhist and be a Jew, but you can’t be a Christian because the Jewish religion is inherently anti-Christian.

The Anti-Defamation League’s web site has said in the past as well that Jews who converted to Christianity are no longer Jews. Still sounds like it a religious issue to me. But then, of course, the ADL, or Israel or some other Jewish group will turn right around and treat the subject of being Jewish as being part of a race instead of a religious groups. Groups like the ADL want to have their cake and eat it to. It is good for business. “You can’t convert to Christianity because you are Jewish, and because the Christians hate us, you need to give money to the ADL.”

From “Jews Who Were Israelis’: Anti-Semitism and the Mumbai Chabad Center” by Shaul Magid (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/850/%E2%80%98jews_who_were_israelis%E2%80%99:_anti-semitism_and_the_mumbai_chabad_center):

“In some ways, this issue revolves around the vexing question of “who is a Jew?,” a question whose origins reach back at least to Paul’s Letter to the Romans and is crucial in determining the status of citizenship in the modern “Jewish” State of Israel. One interesting articulation of this dilemma is the 1962 Israeli Supreme Court case of Brother Daniel. Oswald Rufeisen (a.k.a. Brother Daniel), born a Jew in Poland in 1922, was able to escape the Nazis and saved other Jews in the White Russian city of Mir by disguising himself as a Gentile. He secured a job with the Germans as a policeman, eventually converting to Catholicism and becoming a Carmelite priest.

“In the late 1950s, Brother Daniel applied for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, which allows any Jew to settle in Israel and become a citizen. The Israeli government denied his request on the grounds that even though he was born a Jew, his conversion to Catholicism rendered his (secular) status as a Jew null and void. (Emphasis mine) The Israeli Supreme Court upheld the decision against the general opinion of Rabbinic Law which states that, according to halakha (traditional Jewish Law), Brother Daniel, despite being a Carmelite priest remained, by most definitions, a Jew.

When Jews do push the race angle, it is frequently to push “Jewish racial supremacy”. Here’s a quote from Manichem Begin, former prime minister of Israel, in a speech he made to the Knesset, quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” (New Statesman, June 25, 1982):

“Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

While many Jews do not believe in this sort of rubbish, plenty of them do. Look around, these sorts of sentiments are not exactly rare.

Unfortunately, a lot of the confusion on this issue among Christians started with dispensationalism, which is popular among many evangelicals, Baptists and charismatics. Does the Bible teach that the Jews were a monolithic race in the Old Testament? No, it certainly does not.

Abraham left Ur and settled in Canaan. There he made converts of his servants and others around him, who were presumably Canaanites. From there, the story of the “chosen people,” not the “chose race,” goes to Egypt.

During their time in Egypt, the numbers of the Hebrews expanded drastically. The problem of trying to explain the population explosion that took place in Egypt prior to the Exodus is most easily explained if one believes that the servants of Jacob and their descendants are counted, in addition to Egyptian converts. Consider this quote from Gary North’s “Moses & Pharaoh”, (p. 20):

“If as many as 3,000 came into Egypt in Joseph’s day, then the rate of population growth over the next 215 years was 3.18% per annum in order to reach 2.5 million by the time of the Exodus. Had this rate of increase been maintained after their settlement of Canaan, there would have been over 2 billion of them 215 years later, not counting the “mixed multitude” (Ex. 12:38) that went with them out of Egypt. Two hundred and seventy five years after the settlement of Canaan, there would have been 13.8 billion, roughly equivalent to three times the world’s population in 1980.”

This continued population explosion obviously did not happen, which gives credence to the conversion argument. Now the dispensationalist pastors will yell and scream that this was a sign of a miracle. That’s nothing more than sloppy exegesis looking for a quick cop out.

Think about this. Rahab, the former prostitute from Jericho, who hid the spies, was later included in the lineage of Christ, and she was not a part of the Exodus from Egypt. King David’s friend, Uriah the Hittite, was presumably a convert, and he, too, was not a part of the Exodus, but rather a Hittite.

In the Old Testament, after ten generations a person from a heathen tribe was considered a full-member of Israelite kingdom. There were no racial conditions presented.

From Esther 8:17 (NKJV): “In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.”

The Geneva Study Bible offers the following commentary about the above verse: “Conformed themselves to the Jew’s religion.” That is the obvious interpretation.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary states: “8:15-17 Mordecai’s robes now were rich. These things are not worth notice, but as marks of the king’s favour, and the fruit of God’s favour to his church. It is well with a land, when ensigns of dignity are made the ornaments of serious piety. When the church prospers, many will join it, who will be shy of it when in trouble. When believers have rest, and walk in the fear of the Lord, and the comfort of the Holy Ghost, they will be multiplied. And the attempts of Satan to destroy the church, always tend to increase the number of true Christians.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia offers the following on Esther 8:17: “Before the day set for the slaughter arrived a great number of persons, in order to avoid the impending disaster, became Jewish proselytes, and a great terror of the Jews spread all over Persia (viii. 17).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=483&letter=E

More things to think about:

1) Jonah preached to Nineveh and many people there repented of their evil, Ninevehites were not “racial Jews,” yet many found saving faith.

2) Moses was married to a Midianite (and possibly an Ethiopian, too), a dark-skinned race, so Moses children were not “pure-bred Jews” from Egypt. Yet, the children of Moses are obviously considered Jews. And even more ironically, according to Jewish law, which is itself based on nothing permanent, one’s “Jewishness” comes from the mother.

3) The Canaanites tricked Joshua into being their slaves and thus became a part of the two Israeli kingdoms.

4) King David is described as having a ruddy or red appearance. That does not sound very “Jewish looking” to me because most so-called racial Jews have darker hair (red hair sure does sound Celtic, though). Of course if you want to say there are red-headed Jews, such as the adorable Kyle Brovloski on South Park, then I will respond that this makes my point: that to be a Jew means you can be from any race.
5) The wives of Jacob were Egyptians, yet, Jacob’s children were considered Jewish.

6) What happened to the ten lost tribes? They obviously ended up inter-marrying with people beyond the borders of the two kingdoms.

7) Ruth was a Moabite

These references are all from the OT, which supposedly the followers of Judaism love. But the reality is that they don’t. The Talmud is their real holy book.

From what I can tell, it wasn’t until the Babylonian captivity that the Jewish racial superiority syndrome started to become a part of the Hebraic religion. As a rebuke to the Jewish leaders who espoused pride in being descendants of Abraham, Christ said, “for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:9).

The first chapter of Matthew lists the genealogy of Christ. Look at all of the non-Jewish people: Tamar (v. 3), Ruth the Moabite (v. 5), Rahab (v. 5), and Bathsheba (v. 6).

The Biblical argument I encounter most frequently trying to prove that there is a Jewish race is Romans 10 & 11. In light of the facts from the Old Testament, the “pro-Jew” interpretation of these two chapters, which is not at all concrete, needs to be rethought. More than a few post-millennialists subscribe to the “Jewish race view” because it allows them to look politically correct (at least this is what I think). There are people that reject this pro-Jew interpretation of Romans 10/11, Reformed theologian James Jordan is one of them (of course I have tons of issues with many of Jordan’s beliefs, so my citation here should not be misconstrued as an endorsement).

In closing this section, I would say the concept of replacement theology confuses the issue because their was no chosen race to replace.

What does observing the natural order, or God’s natural revelation tell us?

The Hebrews/Jews/Israelites were a people–not a race. Texans are a people. Even if you use the Alamo-era as a standard, Texans were comprised of whites, Mexicans, American Indians and blacks. Of course, the whites were the dominant race, and there may have been a dominant race among the Israelites, too.

If you look at an Ethiopian Jew, what do you see? An Ethiopian. If you look at a Persian Jew, what do you see? A Persian. The previously cited article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions has more information about Jewish ethnic divisions, and it is absolutely fatal to the idea that there is a Jewish race.

I believe in the premise as postulated by Arthur Koestler, who was Jewish, in his book “The Thirteenth Tribe” (despite Koestler’s impeccable Jewish credentials, the book quickly fell down the memory hole). He believed that the Ashkenazim were descendants of the Khazars, a people who were from what is today southern Russia. With time, undoubtedly some Slavic blood entered the mix. Others have written about this subject, too, so Koestler isn’t the only one. But that only explains the background of the Ashkenazim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars or http://khazaria.com for more.

But even among the Ashkenazim, you have Jews as diverse looking as the aforementioned comedians Larry David and Sarah Silverman. Larry David is a white looking as I am.

The other major Jewish group in the West (aside from the Persian Jews in the Los Angeles basin), are the Sephardic Jews, who are a mix of Berber, Latin, Arab, Chaldean and Assyrian.

Back in 2001, there was an article in the journal “Human Immunology” that stated that there were almost no genetic differences between Palestinians and Jews of Middle Eastern origin. However, a firestorm of protest from “certain quarters” drove the journal to retract that article. As The Guardian, a liberal, mainstream newspaper in the UK newspaper wrote concerning the controversial article, “In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team’s research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited,” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics). You should ask yourself, why is there such a drive to avoid open debate on this topic. The truth does not fear being investigated.

As I mentioned earlier, Jews only constitute a race when it is convenient for the ADL or some similar body to yell “Anti-Semite”. The Semitic people themselves are comprised of Assyrians, Arabs, and some Jews, so the term “anti-Semite” as commonly employed is grossly inaccurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic). And it turns out, that the Jews of Semitic origins, which are also referred to as Sephardic or Mizrahim, fare pretty poorly among their Ashkenazim brethren in Israel who clearly see them as being from another race. This article http://www.meforum.org/707/post-zionism-and-the-sephardi-question elaborates further. FYI, you can frequently find articles addressing such controversial subject matter in Israeli newspapers such as Haaretz–but you won’t find such articles in American newspapers. Consider, too, the recent revelations about the Ashkenazim using 35,000 Sephardic Jewish children in medical experiments involving ultra-high level of X-rays, http://web.israelinsider.com/views/3998.htm.

Another article detailing how the Mizrachi Jews, the true “Middle Eastern Jews,” are considered to be another race by the reigning Ashekenazim in Israel can be found here http://www.newvoices.org/opinion?id=0037. A pertinent quote from the author, who happens to be a Mizrachi woman:

“Mizrachi Jews who came to Israel with promises of green plots of land and Jerusalem of Gold were plopped down in the middle of the night for months on end, in desert tent colonies. This lowly beginning allowed for continual discrimination against Mizrachi Jews, who largely came from trade or agricultural backgrounds and lacked the educated sophistication of their Ashkenazi counterparts.

“Such prejudice continues to be a shameful part of Israeli society, as the periphery of modern Israel continues to be populated by Mizrachim. The stratification is seen in common parlance, and is seen in the racialized slang term “arsim,” which refers to young Mizrachi troublemakers. Despite the musical and culinary bliss of Ramleh, my time in Israel has been a constant reminder of the Mizrachi/Ashkenazi divide. In Israel, the music, food, and art that remind me of home are categorized as “ethnics,” a Hebraicized English word that means “everything that is not white European.” (Emphasis added)

As far as defenses of the Jewish race position goes, I think the only one the rabbis can come up with is from the oral tradition–that is the Talmud or perhaps the Kabbalah. I am more than prepared to deal with this in hopefully a future short paper on the Jewish religion. But for now I will say that such a position, because it runs contrary to the created order, would indicate that “G-d” is an irrational and capricious deity. But those are things that the Christian God are not.

A Pagan Hocus Pocus?

When you say “God bless America” are you presenting a humble request, or demanding payment? Is there a comma in your statement?

Don’t we deserve it after-all? From the time we are young, we are taught the brilliance of our founders. The luxury of capitalism, the integrity of libertarian economic ideals! Value theory, trade cycles, and free markets. All founded on Biblical principals of course. When followed, these ideals lead to prosperity and wealth. They demand God’s blessing! It’s only logical to conclude that education is the key to surmounting all the world’s problems. There is no man that cannot be blessed by wielding these ideals eh?  Lest we be too hasty, it should be added that Christian virtue be a vital part of this education if we are to demand God’s blessing. When taken together as a system, all people can look at the sovereign lord and demand payment for their adherence to the system! God, Bless America!

And yet, something seems terribly wrong with that attitude. This is a soulless religion, fit only for pagans who utter magic words and spin magic circles hoping they will reap benefits. There is no blood tie with the God who became man. The God who covers His people with His blood! How dare we demand anything of Him? He, Who does what He wills! Oh no, God doesn’t bless systems, charts, or magic words…rather, He blesses people. For no virtue of their own, He blesses whom He blesses, and curses whom He curses, and I praise Him for it!

When a true love for the true God-man is established among His people, an organic out-pouring of appreciation occurs. I’m a lover of the “dominion mandate,” as much as anyone but I cannot stand to see it treated as an analytical truth. It is the gracious outpouring of love from a regenerated people…a love that tempers and molds a people to the very core. There has only been one race to have sustained this…and the world has been blessed through them. Pagan cultures no longer eat each other. Wars between tribes are abolished (temporarily) and babies are no longer sacrificed en-mass (at least as long as this race held sway.)

Sadly, this evangelistic spirit has been taught to children as the most heinous of evils, and given the name “colonialism” or “racism.” Even worse, it’s being re-worded into nothingness…a fantasy. Races, they say, don’t even exist. Certainly not the one that did battle with Satan for so many years. That race of ALL the races doesn’t exist! Any man who says otherwise is a true fiend!

God pours out material blessings on the pagan as well as His own people…but only His own people are blessed with a blood knowledge of Him. A familial bond.

Will you view the world through the lens of blood, or through the lens of a Pagan Hocus Pocus?

Where Have All the Biblical Men Gone? (Comments on Social Change)

I know nothing about boating… but there’s a story of 2 boat teams. They are racing their hardest. Turns our the Second team wins the race. The First team looks over at the Second team and see the captain congratulating his team of rowers on the victory. The Captains of the First team discuss the loss and decide to fire the only rower left on the team. The point is that when problems come we need to look to proper leadership for success. Good leadership will reap good results. Bad leadership will always result in failure.

Ephesians 5 teaches that the husband is the head of the wife… just as Christ is the head of the church. The husband IS the head of the wife just like Christ IS the head of the church. Now if we turn this idea around a little we get the wife leading the husband… and the church leading Christ. Obviously the Church does not lead Christ – and neither should the wife lead her husband. I would conclude that many of our problems today stem from failure in leadership. Failure in the men taking their God given role – and specifically that of leadership.

Phil Lancaster, who wrote the book “Family Man, Family Leader” and also published “Patriarch Magazine” for a time summed up Biblical manhood to include 3 duties: To lead, provide, and protect. I would add that each duty is to be done in 3 ways: physically, mentally, and spiritually, in order to be accomplished completely.

This thread is to discuss Biblical manhood, what it entails, and how we men can better live up to it.

Posted by J.T. Townsend

Shotgun replies:

I went to the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. All the big names were there: Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Huckabee, Chuck Norris. I think Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter showed up at some point, though I didn’t see either. I was really there to see Ron Paul! What a rousing evening that was! It seemed like Ron Paul supporters had taken over the conference. Unfortunately the blue-blood republicans wouldn’t acknowledge it and Paul’s rally was stuck in a small, out of the way conference room. We freedom lovers were packed in like sardines…standing room only!

While waiting in line to enter the room, I had a chance to talk with some of the “Revolutionaries.” Their passions were as varied as their faces. Everyone had a different pet issue. “Economics!” cried some. “Education!” yelled others. “Civil Liberties!” cried more.

Something’s been on my mind lately gentlemen. It concerns social change. We all know we need it, but it seems like every one of us have a different issue we want to tackle. There is no-doubt that biblical men are missing in action…(present company excluded.) From Joey in “Friends”, to Peter Griffin on that blasphemous cartoon “Family Guy”…the childish male is glorified. Men sit around and talk about sports as if its some sort of religion. The god-like state has emasculated men, and taken their place in the family…leaving women to serve it instead of their husbands. It fires me up like nothing else! Men are descending into the existential void of eternal childishness.

As terrible as all this is, I’m reminded of Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 7 verse 13: “Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what He has made crooked? When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other.”

My cry at the conference wasn’t “economics!” It wasn’t “liberty” or “education” or even “manhood.” Nor did I cry “evangelism!” My cry was…”all praise to the God who disciplines those He loves!”

News Alert: Subversion of French Culture Leads to Civil Unrest!

A recent victory of the Dreyfusards in France has established (in the minds of many Frenchmen) the possible existence of some sort of Jewish conspiracy.

Popular novelist, Andre’ Gide is friends with Leon Blum, a leader of Jewish Dreyfusards (who later becomes the French Prime Minister.)  Gide comments on Mr. Blum in his journal:

“…his apparent resolve always to show a preference for the Jew and to be interested always in him…comes above all from the fact that Blum considers the Jewish race as superior, as called upon to dominate after having been long dominated, and thinks it his duty to work towards its triumph with all his strength…A time will come, he thinks, that will be the age of the Jew; and right now it is important to recognize and establish his superiority in all categories, in all domains, in all the divisions of art, of knowledge and of industry.”

Historian Paul Johnson then paraphrases further objections voiced by Gide in his journals by saying that he “voiced his objections to what he saw as a Jewish takeover of French culture;  why could not Jews write in another language – why did they have to write in French?” Gide’s Journal continues:

“there is today in France a Jewish literature that is not French literature….For what does it matter to me that the literature of my country should be enriched if it is so at the expense of its significance?  It would be far better whenever the Frenchman comes to lack sufficient strength, for him to disappear rather than to let an uncouth person play his part in his stead and in his name.” (From the journals of Andre Gide, January 24, 1914.)

It would seem then that events in France demonstrate the truthfulness of Solomon ibn Verga’s (1450-1525) critique of the Jewish people in his book Shevet Yehuda (the Rod of Judah.)  (Some claim that this is the first work of Jewish history since Josephus’ Antiquities.  The book concentrates on the question “why do men hate Jews?”)  Verga concludes:

“I have never seen a man of reason hate the Jews and there is none who hates them except the common people.  For this there is a reason – the Jew is arrogant and always seeks to rule;  you would never think that they are exiles and slaves driven from people to people.  Rather, they seek to show themselves lords and masters.  Therefore the masses envy them.”

The French (of this time) believed that a group of non-French people had moved in and hijacked their culture, and furthermore, they believed that this group of people was conspiring with each other in order to bring about cultural domination.

Interesting story.

(Facts taken from Paul Johnson’s “History of the Jews.” pg. 390.)

Dr. Horton Insults Reconstructionists

In a recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn…Dr. Michael Horton insults Christian Theonomist and Reconstructionists by comparing our position to that of radical Anabaptists and liberal theologians like John Milbank, an English theologian advocating Christian socialism.

The broadcast is called “The City of God” and can be heard by clicking here:  http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=1/18/2009 

I took the liberty of transcribing the relevent portion of the show.  The entire broadcast is around 45 minutes long.  My transcription begins at 32:22 in:

Dr. M. Horton:  I gave a paper awhile back at a conference where John Milbank was present.  John Milbank is a leading British theologian who’s had an enormous effect, especially on younger evangelical theologians; and argues very strongly for a recovery of Christendom.  We had this exchange over what it means to live in a secular culture.  The title of my paper was kind of provocative, designed to provoke a debate with Milbank “In Praise of the Secular.”

 

You still doing that? (Laughing)

 

Dr. M. Horton:  Yeah, still doing that (laughing.)  He responded to it all by calling me a heretic.  It’s interesting when you’re called a heretic for siding with Augustine.  He has more recently argued, I just heard him recently at a conference announce, that only Christians have the right to rule, and the Bible teaches Christian socialism and so we need a Christian socialist world order and Christians will run it.  There was something called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy on the right that held views that are very similar to John Milbank’s views (very similar).  Folks, this is actually closer to radical Anabaptism, not the pacifist kind of Anabaptism, but the radical Anabaptism of Thomas Munzer, John of Leyden, and others at the time of the Reformation. 

 

This is why Europe is secularized to this day.  They don’t want to ever see anything like that again! 

 

Dr. M. Horton:  Exactly.  This is a quote from the Schleitheim Confession of 1527 of the Anabaptist.   This could take you, either into (because its both Christ against culture; a radical Christ vs. Culture approach).  It could take you directly into either of what we call today Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy, (liberation theology either of the left or the right) OR into what is more commonly known as Anabaptism of today.  The Mennonites, or even more, the Amish, separating from the world.  But both from this same kind of theological conviction expressed in the Schleitheim Confession 1527:

 

“We are agreed on separation.  A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness of which the Devil planted in the world.  (Notice also the Devil planted in the world, not because of human rebellion.)  In this manner, simply that we shall have no fellowship with the wicked and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations (assuming we don’t commit abominations, while the community there in Munster was communist, polygamist, and they were sharing…(and naked) AND naked!  They shared not only each other’s money, but each other’s wives!  This is the way it is, the confession says.)  Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith and have not united themselves with God, so that they wish to do all His will, are a great abomination to God and it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things.”

 

Dr. M. Horton:  And so, there you have the theological justification for a very different view of Christ’s relationship to culture.  Not a distinction between the Kingdoms of Christ and the kingdoms of this world, but a real hostile opposition to the two kingdoms.  When the Reformation came along, it was opposed both to what Calvin called the “contrived empire of Christendom” and to the radical “Christ vs. Culture” position of Anabaptism.

Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon of American Vision have responded with two 15 minute vlogs. 

See them by clicking here: http://www.americanvision.org/media/main/ 

They are under “Gary’s Radio Show” and are named:  “Thoughts on Theonomy”  and “Tertullian and Theonomy.”

Listening to Dr. Horton drone on about how ignorantly defenseless Christians should be in society makes a response by Mr. DeMar and Mr. Mcdurmon, very satisfying.

Tears For My People…(Warning: Strong Content)

This video clip brought tears to my eyes.

When looking around at the majority of my kinsfolk, I see morbid obesity.  I see confusion.  I see fear.  I see a lack of resolve.

Furthermore, I see and hear the sly laughter of those who would oppress my race and it turns my blood to pure venom.  I, for a brief moment, imagined the girl in the above video clip to be my sister, and I couldn’t see straight…my vision was skewed with anger.  What is worse…I know this sort of travesty takes place on a daily basis.

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it as long as valiant discourse is possible:

If ever some woman loses her mind and marries me; and God blesses us with children;  the “State” will have to pry them from my cold dead arms before I give them up for that faux they call “education.”  To reduce my beautiful daughter…my own personal miracle…to the level and dignity of an ANIMAL;  forcing her to degrade herself and condescend to the level of other animals…to be beaten and spit on by animals!

Dear Lord I thank you for giving me the resolve to never live through such a thing, and if it must happen…it will be a drama for the eyes of a bullet riddled corpse.

For a very insightful article written on this topic…giving an overall look at the fate of our race…see here: http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-people-our-people.html

WATCHMEN: Preliminary Discussions (Warning: This blog contains strong language)

I just got home from the theatre where I watched the most offensive movie I have ever seen in my life. 

I consider myself prepared to deal with most movies I go to see but; I had no idea “Watchmen” would blindside me like it did.

I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. I will write out my initial thoughts for now, and then after constructing a coherent response; will write a review later this week.

Before I even discuss the movie…I have to note one of the previews.  For those of you who don’t know there was a recent surprise in Hollywood called “Paul Blart:  Mall Cop.”  This surprise has evidently pissed off SOMEONE.  For a really great review of Paul Blart, see this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w73.html

You see, in the article, author William Grigg points out how certain anti-statist ideas were promoted in the flick.  Paul Blart stands up to the “militarized government monstrosities” in defense of private security personnel.

If there was ever any doubt in my mind that people in Hollywood see themselves as modern prophets and shapers of culture, it’s gone now.  A mere 2 months after Blart, another movie about a portly security guard is going to be released.  Only this time…it will star Seth Rogen (a guy that seems to always end up on screen with beautiful blonde girls…IE “Knocked-up” “Pineapple Express” and now in this film: “Anna Farris.”)

This movie is more in-your-face.  The gutter humor is amped up.  The licentiousness is disgusting (judging from the preview) and it will completely bury the public memory of any positive lessons taught in the “Blart” movie.

Coincidence?  I don’t think so…not in the least.

Moving on:

From the very first opening sequence in “Watchmen” I was disgusted and sick to my stomach.

This movie strives to push whatever limits are left in Hollywood.  We see (what we think to be) a kindly old man brutally beat to death in a very violent fight in the first sequence.  He is then tossed to the pavement from 20 or so stories high and we see his mangled and broken body on the ground afterwards.

There are very explicit sex scenes where little gusts of shadow and shady lighting are all that distinguish this “art” from pornography.  On top of that, full frontal male nudity is gradually phased in, until by the end of the movie it isn’t shocking anymore… (At least not to the desensitized sheep who think such films are “entertainment.”)

The violence is off the charts.  A young pregnant woman is shot point blank.  A man has his arms sawed off.  People are disintegrated regularly, leaving their body parts dripping from the ceiling.  A little girl is sadistically murdered, (though we don’t see the murder) and her body fed to dogs.  We actually see the dogs fighting over the remains of her leg.)  The “murderer” of the little girl is then caught by one of the “good guys.”  In a fit of righteous rage, the good guy hacks the murderers head with a butcher knife repeatedly.  (It was around this time that I heard a baby start crying in the theatre, and noticed some children a few rows down in front of me.  I suppose they thought they were going to be viewing a super hero movie similar to the X-men, or Spiderman franchises.)

The Lord’s name is constantly taken in vain.   A character named “Dr. Manhattan” meets a woman and they soon are having pre-marital sex.  On the nightstand is a Bible.  The producers made sure you see the moral contrast by zooming in on a close up of the Bible with the two having sex in the background.

Also, two of the main heroes have sex in an air machine while a triumphant and emotional song plays in the background.  I can’t remember all the lyrics, but the song was about King David singing praises to God. (UPDATE:  the song is “hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen which uses biblical lyrics to ”pay homage to the orgasm.”) 

A character named “Dr. Manhattan” at the end says to one of the villains, “You are the smartest man alive, but what is that to me?” Obviously insinuating that the “strongest of man’s strength is weakness before God” an allusion to the Bible.(1 Corinthians 1:25)

The plot concludes with the idea that a small group of elite scientists or “thinkers” has the right, for better or worse, to sacrifice millions in order to promote the betterment of society.  The “God-like” figure Dr. Manhattan ends up agreeing that such is for the best.

The only sane character in the whole film was Rorschach, who…seems to be the only shining light in an otherwise worthless and blasphemous movie.  While his theology is a bit off, he provides the closest thing to a Christian worldview.

Rorschach gets arrested, and in his conversation with the prison psychologist, says: “God isn’t the cause of all this evil…WE are!”  Rorschach is constantly lecturing us on the depravity of society.  In the end, it seems that the actions of Rorschach may be what serves to hold this elite group of planners accountable to a higher authority…though Rorschach only refers to it as “justice.”

Rorschach, unlike his compatriots, held to “justice” and did not believe that this elite group had the right to make decisions for the rest of humanity.  He was brutally murdered because he refused to keep their secret.

What secret you may ask?  Well, you see, in this movie, the good guys end up killing untold millions of people, and Rorschach vows to get the word out in the name of justice.

In the end, Rorschach, though dead, dropped off his journal to a reporter who gets it after Rorschach is murdered.  The movie is unclear whether it wishes to portray Rorschach’s action as a tremendous tragedy, or as a righteous good.  If we view it as a righteous good, then the movie has some redeemable value after all.  However, if it’s viewed as a tragedy; if Rorschach’s final act of justice is meant to be a negative thing; then it becomes the single most offensive movie (to Christian society) that has ever been made (that I know of.)

The flow and energy of the entire movie lead me to believe that the producers meant it to be a terrible tragedy that Rorschach finally gets his justice.  It’s a terrible irony, or …as the popular theme in the movie would say, “a joke.”

The “good-guys” go through Hell, and destroy millions of people just to end the cold war… (by blaming the mass murder on Dr. Manhattan, and thus uniting humanity against the Doc) only to have that darn Rorschach spill the beans…in which case, Russia and America are no longer united against Dr. Manhattan, and the cold war resumes…everyone died for nothing.   Some joke right?

Dr. Manhattan admits that he can change almost anything in the world, “But I can’t change human nature.”  This means ultimately, that an elite group of planners is needed and if necessary can sacrifice innocent lives for the greater good.

WHO IS PRIMING US FOR THIS GARBAGE, and WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?

I think I know…

Do you, dear reader, care to guess?  I suppose in this respect I sound like Rorschach…but perhaps my paranoia will turn out better for me than it did for him?

What Meyril Streep Can Teach Us About Culture

The above clip comes from “The Devil Wears Prada” where Meryl Streep lays into Anne Hathaway, and gives her a lesson about the fashion industry.

This was one of the most interesting and worthwhile parts of the movie in my opinion.  (For a great review of the cultural aspects involved from a Christian perspective, see here: http://firstword.us/2008/03/movie-devil-wears-prada-2006-hix-1/ )

This can be seen as an analogy for today’s cultural climate.

When surfing through MySpace, Facebook, or various other chatrooms and forums, I see ideas exchanged on a daily basis.

The “mood”  out there is progressively getting more and more anti-Christian.

It’s not uncommon for me to come across the same “argument” or expression of ideas from various unrelated individuals.

An ironic line of thought, (especially in light of the above clip) is the idea that the individual is completely original in all of his or her thought.

Just last night I was debating an atheist in a chatroom who called himself “The Anti-Christian Terrorist.”   Mr. ACT was expecting me to defend straw man positions of my faith.  He would quote a single verse (out of context naturally) and draw all sorts of blatantly wild conclusions about it, then expected me to defend the conclusions…(the verse OBVIOUSLY meant what he was implying…right?)

I pointed out how the Bible teaches that Judas went and hung himself, then later on teaches, “Go ye and do likewise” (what Christian wants to defend the notion that we should go hang ourselves?)  I then pointed out how orthodox Christianity has been in the process of growth, and systematic theology has become more and more pronounced over the years.  I brought up the Westminster, and London Baptist confessions, and the Heidelberg catechism.

“Those are other people’s beliefs you moron!”  He responded.  “I come up with all my ideas on my own.”

Yeah…he later discussed “morality” with me, and informed me that all ethical systems were “subjective” to the individual, and that society should only adopt that system that promotes the most good…

Got that idea on yer own did ya?

I didn’t lecture him about Nietzsche, or Kant’s view of ethics…nor did I trace for him the long history of moral utilitarianism…

I suppose in that sense, Meryl Streep is more patient than I am.

Ideas in the ivory tower slowly pilfer downward until some dude in a theological gutter ends up believing in them, and thinking they are his…(Just like Hathaway viewed her sweater!)