“There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the night … singing songs to freedom.”
~Garet Garrett, five years after the election of FDR, cited by Pat Buchanan, Where The Right Went Wrong, p. 231
The 2016 election is bearing down on us all like an avalanche. The Presstitutes are gnashing their teeth. The Democrats are reared up on their collective hind legs, barking out all the mythic tropes of Adorno, Marcuse, and Trotsky. And the GOP apparatchiks are all doing their best le Happy Merchant impersonations.
If the primaries and convention circuit heretofore are any indication – with all the attendant protests, riots, and public calls for more aggressive White dispossession on behalf of the colored hordes – much hinges on this election: nationally and racially speaking, we sit at an existential precipice and all apparent avenues of egress seem to portend some great doom.
As polarized as the country and our people are on the subject generally, the dividing lines within the churches are no less stark. Obviously, we can write off anyone even contemplating a Hillary or Sanders vote as overt enemies of Christ and humanity; but among Whites, Christians, and White Christians the spread, prior to Cruz’s departure, had been broken down between Cruz, Trump, and a score of Constitutionalist, Third Position, and America-First third party candidates such as Merlin Miller and Darrell Castle.
What Cruz had brought to the table: Cruz delivered a polished evening anchorman-style pitch for constitutional minarchy which appealed most to those with a foot still in the network television generation – baby boomers and all points north. But that preference is stylistic, mostly. In spite of his unsettling rictus, his practiced Evangelical-speak made him appear the Christian candidate in the eyes of those who trust reflexively in such tokens.
But his stated policy positions were backlit by certain behind-the-scenes associations such as his wife’s VP position with Goldman Sachs. I mean, come on, folks, she wasn’t working in the mail room. She was an administrator. She was also a member of the infamous Council on Foreign Relations. Even if Mr. Cruz minimized or disavowed those associations, his having voted in favor of that signal piece of globalist legislation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), reaffirmed and underscored those ties.
For all his denunciation of the UN and the NWO, his obsequious pledges of fealty to the NWO command center – Israel – utterly nullified not just his professed patriotism but also any pretensions of constitutionalism or national sovereignty. But how could it have been otherwise when the financing of his campaign read like a who’s who of Zio-globalism?
In a positively surreal speech before a group for the defense of persecuted Christians in the Mideast, Cruz rebuked those persecuted Christians suffering genocide because they would not “stand with Israel and the Jews.” Never mind the fact that those Christians were being persecuted and exterminated in no small part by Israeli-led forces and according to the designs of the “Greater Israel Project.” In essence, because the Christians demurred from pledging allegiance to their own murderers above all, Cruz declared them outside the Faith!
Contiguous with this, he insisted we continue and actually ramp up the Zio-hawk war-mongering in the Mid-East, even banging the drums of war against Russia for no conceivable American interest. Pure madness; and conclusively refuting all his constitutional, American-patriot, and Christian pretensions.
Need I even mention the fact now that, no matter how many corrupt judges rule to the contrary, Cruz does and has not fit the definition of a ‘natural-born citizen’ per Vattel’s Law of Nations, nor any standard sources upon which our Founders drew?
Okay, even if we granted the one source on which the Cruz-is-so-natural-born lobby might call – the Act of 1790 – the folks invoking it on this subject would never accept the naturalization policy outlined therein, as it is so emphatically White Nationalist in substance. Cruz certainly isn’t about to embrace the limitation of American identity to “free White persons of good character,” so I’m not sure how we’re supposed to validate his bid for eligibility based on a resolve which he himself would never endorse. Because, Neocons such as Cruz regard the definition of American identity outlined by our founders as “un-American.”
But even by the loosest proposition-nation standard under which the Cruzbots had wished to adjudicate the case, since his mother obtained full Canadian citizenship at a time when Canada allowed for no dual citizenship, it means she was required by law to renounce her status as an American to become Canadian. Thus Ted is ruled out as being natural-born even by the most liberal interpretation of the concept. And his even deferring to this liberalized interpretation of ‘natural-born’ would fly in the face of his own supposed Originalist stance on the Constitution.
His advisors also included members of the cursed Bush crime family. Mighty hard to make the case that you’re this generation’s Patrick Henry when all your advisors are an assemblage of Benedict Arnolds.
The guy kept a bust of MLK on his desk and praised Mandela as a “hero.” Suffice it to say if your heroes are heretical communist terrorists, you are disqualified from a bid for office.
What Trump brings to the table: whatever else may follow, Trump has made a meaningful contribution to posterity in publicly spurning political correctness and the media priesthood which enforces its shibboleths. So too has he, with no small assist from the likes of Ann Coulter, finally leveraged the Overton window back enough to reintroduce the essential topic of border patriotism. And he snubbed the Israel lobby by publicly denying campaign contributions from them, and by his stated desire to return America to a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has dared even to revive the old patriotic slogan, “America First;” which the ADL promptly denounced as ‘anti-Semitic,’ and in response to which they went on to demand this sentiment be stricken from all public discourse. Of course, it would be mighty difficult to expunge the concept without censoring virtually every public figure from the 1950s back to the War of Independence. This lays bare the fact that groups like the ADL would prefer to have George Washington erased from our history on account of his emphases on national independence and non-interventionism. They wouldn’t likely flinch at the notion of simply outlawing all American history, but, for the time being, it is still slightly beyond their reach. But bringing this conversation into the light of day should no doubt be laid to Trump’s account.
In consideration of these things, we are tempted to think we’re witnessing the rise of the American equivalent of Alfred the Great. And truth be told, I cannot contemplate a Trump victory without echoing Fox Mulder’s refrain – “I want to believe.”
However, Trump’s unqualified emphasis on “national security” is a familiar trope from the Bush era and implies a doubling down on the anti-constitutional Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and all the recent contrivances of “Homeland Security.”
This and his bluster about ramping up torture, not just of individual enemies of the state, but also of their families, all seems to presage an advance and expansion of the police state. Seriously folks, the policy which obtained under Bush the Lesser made specific provisions for “crushing the testicles of a suspect’s child with pliers” to extract information. This is so far beyond the pale – beyond Orwell’s worst forebodings – all one can do is issue imprecatory prayers against all involved. Yet Trump suggests that the present policy – the Bush torture doctrine – is actually far too soft. And we dare not forget that the Patriot Acts expanded the battlefield to American soil, and supplemented with the 2009 Homeland Security and MIAC reports, the primary vectors of ‘Terrorism’ are now officially considered conservative, straight, White, Christian, homeschooling gun-owners. Heck, it isn’t unusual now to hear public sector authorities describing Terrorism as a 90% White conservative Christian phenomenon. I’m not saying we know Trump would use Bush’s and Obama’s accumulated policies against White Christians. But that’s just the point – we have no idea what he might do. His profession of Christian faith seems little more genuine than Obama’s. The only hints we have open to us are that he believes the Confederate flag should come down from all public buildings, he disallows the Starry Cross at his rallies, and he says gender-bending trans-whatchamacallits should have access to the same restroom facilities as your wife and daughter. Oh yes, and he says, short of being captured and executed, Edward Snowden should be assassinated via drone strike. These bellwethers lend precious little confidence that he would not just as readily subject Christians to torture as Muslims. Just the opposite really. Apart from foreign policy, his domestic policy seems most aggressive against traditionalist patriots, all pledges to “end the war on Christians” notwithstanding.
Moreover, his resume includes also a long, sordid history of buying politicians, successive divorces, and habitual public consortment with harlots. And though professing Christian faith, and possessed of admirable confidence, he ever comports himself with a braggadocio befitting only the sort of degenerate who lives precisely the rebellious life which he has himself lived. Albeit granted, if he is a degenerate, he is no more so than Cruz.
So we come to the question, especially with Cruz now out of the picture – which way, O Christian? Is the man of God at liberty to cast his plebiscites for such as these? Of course, the question can alternately be framed either as a choice of the ‘lesser evil’ or of the ‘greater good’, so the rhetorical framing of the matter does not further the conversation.
Inasmuch as the law of kin-rule (Deut. 17:15) is first a call to elect only physical kin over us, Deuteronomy 1:13 elaborates that those kinsmen-candidates whom we would exalt must also be ‘wise, understanding, and knowledgeable’ in the Law of God, and thus in the Christian Faith. This concept is all the more reinforced in the NT as we are admonished that our “overseers are to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled,” etc. (1 Tim. 3:10) and that we shall appoint no man hastily lest we partake of his sin (1 Tim. 5:22).
Nonetheless, with Trump having the presumptive nomination, we may count it a mercy. For at this point it is clear that we aren’t speaking of electing a Moses, a Joshua, a Phinehas, or a David. We are merely hoping for a milder strain of heathen ruler like unto an Alexander the Great, perhaps. Albeit a heathen, he was certainly better than the Khans.
Yes, we understand the power of the practical, the Realpolitik, inclusive of things like trends, probability, the hierarchy of relative goods, and logic. I take practicality to be an approximation of “the light of nature” affirmed in the Westminster Confession. In this sense, practicality is a species of revelation too. Yet howsoever valid any natural revelation be, it cannot supersede special revelation. In fact, the former must be conformed to the latter in order for our observations of it to be weighed and measured, validated or dismissed.
Admittedly, this requires faith on our part. But, in God’s graciousness, He has provided us the providential and natural ‘amen’ to His plenary Law-Word. As Christians, we suffer no principle nor perception drawn from nature which does not comport with the Scripture. But because these twin witnesses, natural and special, spring from the same Mind, and are mutually reinforcing, there is much in our common experience which reciprocally affirms the biblical stance:
In 2012 I represented Ron Paul in the first-ever caucus held in the Idaho Panhandle. In spite of what I knew of national politics, including the now-confirmed rigging of Diebold machines, I was hopeful that our local efforts might just make a difference on the national scene; but I regret to report that what I witnessed there well disabused me of the notion. Despite some two thirds of the attendees bearing signs, hats, or tees endorsing Paul, every successive tally that night mysteriously came back as a Romney win. Though the attendees booed and demanded recounts, the GOP functionaries running the event from behind a cordoned police line ignored all protestation and drove the process forward, inexplicably confirming Romney over and again.
Perhaps the participants such as myself would have taken our protest to the next level if we thought direct action could have helped, but you see, prior to our having even begun the caucusing process that night, while we still stood in line awaiting entrance to the venue, the winner for my state was officially announced on television. The victor – Romney – was somehow deduced and confirmed in advance of our county even beginning the voting process! I still do not conceive exactly how that was so, but it was so, nonetheless. So our resolve to continue with the process that night was at best perfunctory, if not stubborn pretense. Even if our local tallies were so obviously rigged, it was apparent that the fix was in well up the line and in advance of our counts. All said and done, none of our votes that night, whether for Paul or Romney, mattered a lick.
Beyond the intricate and multi-layered mechanisms of voter fraud in play now, we are confronted by the mundane fact that our people have degenerated to the point that virtually all their deepest civic convictions – even in the churches – have been successfully renovated to accord with those of all their most vicious enemies. And on just about every subject. Even those who self-identify as Theonomists have shifted 180 degrees from their positions of a decade ago. Thanks to Bojidar, McDurmon, DeMar, North, and their unsightly phalanx of hipsters, Theonomy is now coming to be defined as the vindication of multiculturalism, feminism, charismata, open borders, GMO foods, usury, limited liability, religious pluralism (except for Kinism and cessationism – they are verboten), penalty-less sodomy and abortion (read: infanticide), and capital punishment for Kinism. Up until R.J. Rushdoony’s waning years, Theonomy stood as the unflappable justification of conservative Christendom, and though it beggars the imagination, the Neo-Theos have since inverted every point to justify all things radically Left. Such being the case even amongst explicit advocates of God’s Law, we have simply passed the point of political solutions. We will not likely regain that option again short of a return to genuine reform in the house of God. For the populist conscience of the nation is predicated upon moral convictions, which is to say, religion. As much as we may prefer it otherwise, that isn’t likely to occur without a fair amount of violence.
Why do I say that? For one, because it proved so in the run-up to and throughout the Reformation. Second, the Secularists are caterwauling presently for anyone resembling a Christian traditionalist to be raped, locked away, chemically lobotomized, or liquidated. And third, the Neo-Theo Alienists who have hijacked our churches agree with them. Yes, they insist that upon their ascendance to power, they mean to bring the full jackbooted force of the state down upon any clinging to the Old World Order of Christendom.
The question of force does indeed cut both ways, as seen in such rueful circumstances as the aftermath of Elijah’s showdown with the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18) or the vengeance meted out by Moses and Joshua against Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their followers (Ex. 32): it had come to the point where the Truth had to be backed up by physical force. Nigh invariably it seems, either the righteous are subject to continual violence at the hands of the wicked, or the threat of violence restrains the wicked. All in between are but degrees of the same.
In Elijah’s case it was told him by God that there were yet 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. This was a great consolation to him as, short of a national assembly, it would have been impossible to ascertain any sure number of a faithful remnant. In the information age, however, we have been granted perennial census capability with respect to faithful ministers and their congregations. Albeit imperfect, internet and social media do allow us an easier means of identifying and locating the unbent remnant. But a recent concerted effort amongst an international and knowledgeable pool of believers tendered a list of far less than seventy ministers who might fit the description – a might shy of 7,000. Remember, we aren’t speaking in terms of any small geographical confines of a single nation as in the days of Elijah, but rather, the whole of Christendom as we know it. This strongly implies that the present circumstance of Christendom is at least as dire as in the day of Elijah’s distress. But the prophet’s example stands: though God had entwined the appointment of leadership with the plebiscites of the people (Duet.1:13-15; 1 Sam.8:7), Elijah did not write his congressman. Nor did he “rock the vote” by referendum. Because the circumstance had transcended such civil remedies. The populism necessary for political remedy was simply not there. There was no legitimate governmental infrastructure remaining to adjudicate the matter. No, the hour required a direct and belligerent battle of worldviews in order to “bring [again] every thought into captivity, to the obedience of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), and that sealed with much bloodshed (1 Kings 18:40). For this reason was the command given, “He who sacrificeth to any god, save unto the Lord only, He shall be utterly destroyed” (Ex 22:20). Clearly, the doctrine of religious pluralism promulgated by the Neo-Theos is contrary to the explicit command of God. Violence is a constant; the only question of whether it be wielded according to God’s Law.
Though I count Trump preferable to Cruz, the question may be moot as those in power are no doubt busily conspiring to bring all to their pre-appointed ends, irrespective of any vox populi. As we saw in Colorado, the GOP is simply dispensing with the pretenses of elections at whi, having dismissed any delegates who weren’t true-blue Cruztians.
Clearly, irrespective of Trump’s securing the nomination, this tactic of openly rigging the delegate process is sure to only implode the Republican party anyway. Because their own constituents are, if at glacial speed, wising up to the fact that their party holds them in abject contempt. Many are coming to the delayed epiphany that the Neocons at the helm are not our allies, but our foremost enemies.
If the GOP leadership (the Neocons) would rather lose the upcoming general election than win with their own White Christian base on the issues for which that demographic cares – and this is precisely their resolve – the alternative which they embrace is not only the functional nadir of the GOP, but the abolition of our own country and the full-scale extermination of White Christians, here and abroad.
Cynicism can no longer be regarded as cynical: the Dems and the GOP are pulling a Thelma and Louise, gunning what’s left of America and Christendom right off the cliff. There is no talking them down nor unseating them by conventional means. My proposal, though decried as radical, is really quite a modest one, and in keeping with that of Edmund Burke’s: “I do not think any method can prevent it. The thing is done in principle and in example; and we must wait the good pleasure of a higher hand than ours for the time of its perfect accomplishment in practice in this country and elsewhere. All I have done for some time past, and all I shall do hereafter, will only be to clear myself from having any hand, actively or passively, in this great change.” I say we of the unbent remnant jump clear as we can, and endeavor with all our might to extricate ourselves from corporate guilt. Because nationally speaking, we have no feasible means in the foreseeable future of retaking the wheel, and to get a finger on the tiller as we go careening into the chasm will neither absolve nor save us.
Clearly, God has ordained our backslidden Christendom to undergo this era of chastisement and it will only be arrested as all the outcomes of the alternatives are manifest in time, and proven for curses.
Yes, I will still cast a ballot to make my dissent known. And though my candidate has no chance of winning, I will cast my vote for one I take to be an uncompromised Christian Statesman – Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party: he has all the best policy points of Trump and Cruz, with none of Ted’s ties to Zio-globalist bankers, nor Trump’s decadence, nor the little problem of him not being a genuine Christian. And in its preamble to its platform, the Constitution Party Platform
acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. . . .
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations . . . a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.
This is far and away a superior platform to that of the GOP. In policy and personal life Castle appears a genuinely Christian candidate.
Admittedly, that may not seem practical. It may even seem like a waste of time. But as I’ve said, I think the process of king-making under the present Zio-banking occupation has rigged every high-profile plebiscite. Not even clandestinely, but openly for all to see now. Boss Tweed and the boys are publicly telling the American people that they select the candidates and the winners, no matter whom the people may prefer.
Reciprocally, I reckon it time to withdraw our consent and make known our protest as openly as our enemies have made known their schemes against us. In fact, as Christians, it behooves us to be all the more transparent. The sooner we do these things, the sooner we may set our sights to establishing again parallel institutions of government as we did in the first century (1 Cor. 6:1-11; Rom. 13; etc.), and redeem those we can more realistically affect – our local county and city governments, and most important of all, our families – the better chance we’ll have of really making positive strides for the Kingdom.
This is not a new idea. It is the historic pattern of Christendom’s growth under Theonomic Common Law. That’s my two cents. God help us all.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
