Deo Vindice: Providence vs. Ordeal

 

[A]ll nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest. ~ Revelation 15:4

Providence is a direct implication of the sovereignty of God, an essential Christian doctrine. But even amidst them who claim to be her proudest children, the Calvinists, Providence is today greatly misunderstood, and much maligned by the same. This raises the question of whether many of our modern Calvinists are indeed Calvinists at all. Regardless, I herein mean only to address certain misconceptions of Providence lately promulgated in Alienist circles. Though their arguments are couched in political theory and expressed as historical narrative, underlying it all are certain errant theological commitments.

To the point, this statement (paraphrased) was made some time past by a teaching elder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance, California:

We know the Confederacy was wrong because they lost the war. Their defeat means that God weighed in and declared the Union in the right.

Another from a ruling elder of the same denomination:

Society has moved beyond race. That’s Providence. God has ruled and is turning the world toward equality for all people. That’s how we know God hates inequality – because He’s destroying it.

Strange indeed to find self-described conservative Presbyterians fallen to agreement with the likes of the NWO-communist shill, Jim Wallis:

That’s our theological foundation – God hates inequality.¹

Like all Marxists, Wallis holds this view as indivisible from the pursuit of the Marxist eschaton: a one-world state forcibly leveling mankind forever. That’s nothing unusual for those who boast of their liberal bona fides; what is unusual is that so-called conservatives have lately taken up the liberal crusade as their own. They insist at once that all the goals of liberalism are, in fact, the definition of conservatism, and that those who disagree with this strange inversion are the real liberals. These are the windmills at which they unfortunately now tilt. Vanity, all.

The problems with their new interpretation of Providence and the premises which underlie it are so numerous that one scarcely knows where to begin.

First, as regards the American War Between the States, while we agree that it was in fact a religious war, claiming that the Union cause was vindicated of God by their having savaged the South is to embrace a false dichotomy. Choosing to see it only in terms of two truncated alternatives – victory as tantamount to justification, and defeat as definitive of divine condemnation – is but self-serving presumption, because we are assured that God often has other motives for bringing defeat upon a people, such as the fatherly chastening of those whom He loves (Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:6-11; Rev. 3:19). Plainly, then, covenanted peoples may suffer setbacks, losses, and divine rebuke through the agency of peoples and factions much more sinful than themselves; and this is precisely what we find when we survey the judgments God repetitiously visited upon national Israel by the instrumentality of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Rome, and others. God makes frequent use of the more wicked for the chastisement of their betters. Union victory over the South, then, can in no way vindicate the Yankee worldview, any more than Babylon’s victories over Israel can be said to vindicate the Babylonian worldview.

Contrary to modern Alienism, Christianity keeps in view that the Union acted in breach of the national covenant (the Constitution), the millennia-old common law ethics of combat, and all semblances of Just War Theory.² To posit the idea that victory achieved through the transgression of God’s law vindicates an otherwise lawless faction is not a Christian notion in the least. It’s more akin to Nietzsche’s “will to power,” in which might makes right – an acceptance of the utilitarian ethic of ends justifying means, or as black civil rights agitators have sloganized it, achieving objectives “by whatever means necessary.” It is an apologetic for conscienceless barbarism. Ultimately, all such attempts on the part of men to justify satanic means by reference to heavenly ends is an attempt at the usurpation of God’s very throne. For He and He alone can wield evil as a weapon without touching guilt (Gen. 50:20).

Taken in the best light possible, this Alienist theory of Providence is a manifestation of the pagan juridical doctrine of trial by ordeal, which was extended in the Christian era for a time under medieval Romanism. It is the notion that the winner of every contest is proven by Fate to be the virtuous party. This was the theology of the duel.

Of course, Romanism found this pagan theory of adjudication quite convenient, as their superior war machine tended to win most contests between the empire and independent nations. In terms of the Inquisition, it vested all authority in the discretion of the Inquisitor: where one man’s silence under the hooks and brands might be interpreted as his vindication, the silence of another under the same might be construed as proof of impenitence.

Even modern secularists love this paganized theory of Providence, for it affirms the evolutionary doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Those who triumph in any given contest are, on the basis of their survival, always morally vindicated because, to the materialist, survival is the very definition of justification.

This theory of ordeal has, amongst Alienists, fully supplanted the doctrine of Providence. They have traded the eternal order of God’s kingdom, revealed in Scripture, for the myopia of a revolutionary epoch otherwise defined by every measure as the overthrow of Christendom. They see all the rubble of our once-great Christian ramparts and spires, fallen to so many satanic hammers in the last century and a half, as polished gemstones which they imagine paving the way to their inverted heaven. The metropolitan equality by which they imagine themselves to usher in God’s kingdom is, in reality, a profound historic provincialism, radically broken from both our Christian past and doctrine. Their metro-egalitarian view of the Kingdom confines them to the theological ghetto and a most sheltered form of historical bumpkinism.

They are no more concerned by their rube ideological schism from the historic Church than by the unrestrained state terror which they sanction in the service of that macabre ideology. For them, there is no deed too black so long as it moves toward the Marxist eschaton. Albeit, these things are not without precedent: we have seen the mania of such antinomian command theories before in the Anabaptist terror at Münster.³

But the differentiation of Ordeal from Providence is a simple matter: the former would cast Cain as a hero for overcoming his brother, and Abel the villain for being overcome. Ordeal would cast as villains every Christian martyr, and all the prophets and apostles murdered by God’s enemies. The theory itself is refuted with no more effort than that. The matter can hardly be said to require any reductio ad absurdum, because the theory is absurd on its face. Ordeal declares evil good and good evil. That is its refutation.

But the late baptism of liberal politics is driving the children of the Reformers to renounce all the foundational tenets of the faith by filling the old terms and theses with alien content antithetical to biblical Christianity. Modern social programming effected by total immersion has proven potent enough to convince our modern churchmen that Providence is vindicated only through the repudiation of the very revelation upon which Providence is predicated. Their theory of Providence comes at the ultimate expense of God’s sovereignty. This, of course, is madness. And the further they settle into that madness, the sooner they will abandon the faith altogether, because, according to their theory, the eclipse of Christendom through which we presently live may prove its falsity.

In terms of “Christian living,” the emphases of books like Experiencing God (Blackaby and King), Your Best Life Now (Joel Osteen), and The Purpose Driven Life (Rick Warren) are all, in one respect or another, about divining God’s favor not by the bar of God’s Law-Word, but by placing our energies where we discern momentum, “where the Spirit is moving.” The Emergent Church, then, with all its growth schemes based on marketing studies and psychological profiling (hallmarks of all “seeker-sensitive” movements), is consonant with the doctrine of Ordeal. Running throughout these discordant -isms is the presupposition of perceived utility as divine sanction. And utility is defined only by the contemporary zeitgeist.

But it was in the face of just this sort of theological distemper that R.L. Dabney addressed the blood-drunk empire at the close of the War Between the States:

To the conquerors of my native State, and perhaps to some of her sons, a large part of the following defense will appear wholly unseasonable. A discussion of a social order totally overthrown, and never to be restored here, will appear as completely out of date to them as the ribs of Noah’s Ark, bleaching amidst the eternal snows of Ararat, to his posterity, when engaged in building the Tower of Babel. Let me distinctly premise, that I do not dream of affecting the perverted judgments of the great anti-slavery party which now rules the hour. Of course, a set of people who make success the test of truth, as they avowedly do in this matter, and who have been busily and triumphantly engaged for so many years in perfecting a plain injustice, to which they had deliberately made up their minds, are not within the reach of reasoning. Nothing but the hand of a retributive Providence can reach them.⁴

And so it remains: they “who make success the test of truth . . . are not within the reach of reason,” and “nothing but the hand of retributive Providence can reach them.” So the good reverend saw the antagonism between the Northern doctrine of Ordeal and Christian Providence. From it he surmised that the only thing which might dissuade men from such a willful ignorance was the divine retribution of Providence itself. The only thing that seems to disabuse men of such utilitarian notions is when they themselves fall subject to the outworkings of their own lawless views and actions. This is the univocal testimony of both history and holy writ.

As it pertains to that war, Reverend Thornwell offered a similar, but more pointed, prognostication:

They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.⁵

And now, many years into that process of retributive Providence, we bear witness of the enemy falling by their own hand and condemning themselves by their own words. Edward Hale’s patriotic fable, “The Man Without a Country,” published in 1863, well illustrates the poetic irony of Providence: though written as pro-Union propaganda, one cannot read it today without the profound impression that it actually vindicates the cause of the South, rather than that of the Union. The forced alienation of Philip Nolan from his homeland and people, the removal from his life of all the familiar comforts and customs of the same, the imposition of a rigid code of political correctness in which his native vocabulary, natural affections, benign matters of interest, and rights of association were declared illegal, as well as the mortal anguish experienced by a man denied his own identity – all of these things were posited as analogous to the South’s abdication of American identity. Yes, the author thought the opposition to federal tyranny was somehow a renunciation of all identity. But history has proven the antithesis. All the curses of Hale’s dire fable have proven not to be the entailments of Confederate ideals, but the rancid fruit of imperial Union. Even subsequent to Union victory, the region which most retained an affinity for the founding American sentiment was that same Southland which Hale predicted singularly to lose it. The irony is exquisite.

Albeit, even the forlorn character of Hale’s imagination was not subjected to the violence and demoralization common to life in the modern multicult America founded in Lincolnism. Nor was he shamed for his Christian faith or hindered in the free exercise thereof, as we are today. Neither was he subject to any of these privations inside the land of his fathers, so even if he was denied the enjoyment of his heritage, he did not suffer the indignity of seeing it mocked, spat upon, and defaced by privileged foreigners every day of his life. The people who can most empathize with Nolan’s grief at exclusion from the empire, then, are we who have been forced to abide in it. If we are to pity the fictional Mr. Nolan, how much more ought we pity ourselves and our contemporaries?

Mr. Hale was blind to the reality that what abolitionism ultimately abolished was not African slavery, but the American identity, Christian liberty, property rights, and his own race. The lawless thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution ostensibly abolished everything which Mr. Hale would recognize as aspects of the good society. We, the dispossessed of America, are, each one of us, the condemned Philip Nolan; we are all men without a country now.

But these visitations of retributive Providence aren’t unique to the American context. More’s the pity, they have become the story of the West as a whole, definitive of a disillusioned and crumbling Christendom. In his symposium of letters, The Unknown Warriors, Nicholas Pringle chronicles the late consensus of British WWII veterans pertaining to their part in the war against Germany:

They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It’s not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger. . . .

Many writers are bewildered and overwhelmed by a multicultural Britain that, they say bitterly, they were never consulted about nor feel comfortable with.

‘Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for care and are being refused medical services because incomers come first.’

Her words may be offensive to many . . . but Sarah Robinson defiantly states: “We are affronted by the appearance of Muslim and Sikh costumes on our streets.”

But then political correctness is another thing they take strong issue with, along with politicians generally – “liars, incompetents and self-aggrandising charlatans” (with the revealing exception of Enoch Powell). . . .

As a group, they feel furious at not being able to speak their minds.

They see the lack of debate and the damning of dissenters as racists or Little Englanders as deeply upsetting affronts to freedom of speech.

‘Our British culture is draining away at an ever increasing pace,’ wrote an ex-Durham Light Infantryman, ‘and we are almost forbidden to make any comment.’ . . .

‘I am very unhappy about the way this country is being transformed. I go nowhere after dark. I don’t even answer my doorbell then.’ . . .

In one letter in this collection, an RAF mechanic quoted a poem about comrades who fell in battle:
‘I mourned them then,
But now surviving in a world,
Indifferent to their hopes and dreams,
I grieve more for the living.’⁶

Notice, Enoch Powell is now recognized by the British veterans as the only popular political figure of their era to have been a genuine patriot, for he at least fought to stave off the egalitarian effects of WWII. In what may be the speech of the twentieth century, Powell said:

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

But the consensus of the “greatest generation” in Britain goes further: they’ve come to the same realization as many Americans – that they fought on the wrong side in the war; or, as general Patton wrote:

Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.⁷

I can’t tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America.⁸

All of the Allied countries are, in the wake of WWII, suffering the recompense of policies which they took up in their polarization against Germany. And polarization is the perfect word for it, because the policies of the Reich had been deliberately modeled after the American template. The resolution to side with Bolshevism in its total war on Christendom required a complete inversion of our society.

Implemented by JFK in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would kick off the advent of “the Great Society” under the Johnson administration. This was but a reincarnation of the Enforcement Act of 1875, a bit of Reconstruction-era legislation principally designed to punish the Southern states and make blacks content there, so as to dampen incentive of their migration northward; to the consternation of liberaldom, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1883. But far be it from liberals to concern themselves with trifles such as legal, logical, or moral consistency: in 1964, once they had fully subverted the Supreme Court, they were finally able to ram their illicit legislation through, establishing that central plank of communism: the effective abolition of private property. Since then, and on that basis, Americans have been denied their God-given rights of both property and association. So it was that (state-created) black civil rights were said to have nullified the God-given rights of White men. As surely as day turns to night, the denial of those essential rights in the private realm was the perfect predication for the denial of the same in the national scope: so came the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, removing any national discrimination in the immigration quota system.⁹ Which is to say that in order to prevent the American people from ever reining in a government which was announcing itself as an enemy of the nation, that government opted to appoint a new people who neither would nor could hope to ever depose them.

Any who objected to the top-down resolution to replace the American people were met with accusations of Nazism – the anti-communist reactionary policies of our sister and foremost tributary nation, against whom Americans had fought what were, to most men, two rather mysterious world wars. Though precious few were ever able to say that their minds had fastened upon any justification for our campaigns against Germany, the fact that we nonetheless waged merciless war against her, and drowned our doubts in the economic windfalls which seemed just as mysterious, had deeply seared the public conscience.

If the shadowy figures who had decided upon war for their own clandestine purposes were, by their pleasure, able to somehow conjure money from the haze of conflagration, their alchemy seemed boundless. Any man who dared question their means or motives seemed not only to impugn the arcane economic magic of minds presumably well beyond his own, but also the late sense of patriotism conjured by wartime propaganda, and in the revels of victory. According to the intelligentsia, then, to harbor reservations about supplanting the American stock with a chimeric mass-man was not only anti-progress, but anti-American. Only a traitorous troglodyte would not give hearty consent to the new orthodoxy: that up was down, right was left, and black was white.

On all these bases the communist internationale won the Cold War before it ever began, because America had sold herself out as the mercenary muscle of world communism from the time of the Lincoln administration, which famously praised Karl Marx as among the great “friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.”¹⁰ And the history of common cause between the American Union and world communism is well-documented.¹¹ By the time of the 1965 Act, Americans retained little moral conviction, it having been systematically stripped from them in stages by all the little concessions to “progress,” which ever proved to be but a euphemism for the rejection of Christendom in favor of Marxism. By the time most came to understand what had happened, they were already so deeply invested in the system that a man could not oppose the course that had been set without siding against much of his country’s and, by extension, his own legacy.

These were the inevitable entailments portended in the passage of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution: that the redefinition of nationhood was a statement of intent on the part of the federal government to forcibly erase everything we knew to be American. But for a man to denounce that germ a century after the fact was to acknowledge a profound national-corporate guilt. Better in the eyes of sinful men for their people to pass into the night in self-delusion than to repent in the light of day.

Inasmuch as right is the child of law, we have always recognized free association and property as inverse corollaries of God’s law, which forbids theft in all its forms. Forced association is a species of theft, perhaps even of manstealing, in its arbitrary appropriation and contortion of property rights. What the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 1965 Immigration Act, amount to, then, is mass larceny performed over our entire nation. The invasion and forced integration to which we are each now subject involves literally trillions of major offenses annually against our people. Forced integration is the abduction of our entire race. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the mass rape and murder which come as a package deal with that multiracial invasion. Which is to say that according to Christian law, all parties responsible for those vaunted civil rights and immigration codes should have been indicted and executed long since.

But as we’ve said, subsequent to Northern victory, the passage of the never-ratified fourteenth amendment, and the prosecution of two world wars against the sister nation which may have more closely mirrored American values than any other nation, we were by that time so demoralized that the guilty parties could not help but exude contempt for the overthrown nation. So emboldened were they by the successes of “the big lie” that they dispensed with all pretense of rationality; in regard to the 1965 Immigration Act, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy said:

The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system. . . . It deprives us of able immigrants whose contributions we need. . . . It would increase the amount of authorized immigration by only a fraction.

Senator Ted Kennedy had these prophecies to add:

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. . . .

The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.¹²

Senator Kennedy’s rebuke of Americans who dared muster the Christian backbone to question the needfulness or propriety of the act was a mass of bold-faced lies. So bold, in fact, that no wait was necessary to prove it. They were apparent for lies at the time of his speaking. You cannot exponentially increase the immigration quotas on nonwhite countries without upsetting the ethnic balance of the country. His statements were false by definition. Furthermore, if he, like all other proponents of the 1965 Act, acknowledged that a change in ethnic composition would be detrimental to America, why not legally forbid that change rather than depend on foreigners to voluntarily remain in their home countries? And even worse, he maximized that effrontery by arguing that opposing the replacement of the American nation would only “breed hate of our heritage.” That is gall of an unfathomable quality. All of his words on the subject stand as an ironclad indictment against him for remorseless treason.

But that obvious outrage, like so many other public declarations of war on our people since, was itself an opportunity. Waymarks of such conceptual accessibility and historic significance offer an opportunity for men of meaner intellect and the most placid temper to rally alongside the keener firebrands of their communities for the common defense and maintenance of justice under God. Such pronouncements of ill intent ahead of implementation are, in this sense, a mercy divine. But if such opportunities are allowed to slip past without the responsible parties being deposed from office and tried for capital crimes, they presage worse things to come. For the Scripture assures us that a covenanted people who turn from God’s law will suffer the vengeance of the covenant until they either repent or are entirely consumed by God’s wrath and scoured from the earth (Deut. 28; Lev. 36).

Thus the history of our subversion and overthrow is thoroughly entwined with our own abdication. And according to Scripture, the chain of causation runs against intuition, as our abdication generally precedes subversion. Or, as de Maistre wrote, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

At first blush, this may sound akin to the theory of Ordeal, but it is really quite different. The acknowledgement of curses as the result of sins is not at all the same thing as declaring the victor of every contest to be the virtuous party, because God often chastens those whom He loves toward their repentance.

While Ordeal takes an ex post facto view of events interpreted through the zeitgeist, Christian Providence takes an ex ante view based upon God’s revelation. That is, the Christian interpretation of history is that Providence is intelligible to men only by reference to His prophetic word. This is so because He who has designed the end from the beginning superintends all things to His preappointed ends. We are to interpret all events in accord with that eschaton, as well as the normative social order which He has revealed in His scriptures. Over against the Christian view, Reformed Alienists, like the liberals who preceded them, interpret all by asking, “What can the Scripture be allowed to communicate in light of modern sentiment?”

This subordination of revelation to the zeitgeist has resulted in the proliferation of syncretist lobbies and alternative-agenda pulpits within the church: so-called Christian feminism, Christian socialism, theistic evolution, higher criticism, and so on. In so doing, they join company with the process theologians and open theists in their functional atheism. Their claim to anything like a Christian cosmology is thereby forfeited.

What, then, is the meaning of this promise, that “all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest” (Rev. 15:4)? Simply this: that history, being vindicated by the Logos, shall answer its Author with an unequivocal “amen.” As that process of “retributive Providence” spoken of by Dabney visits the promised consequences of rebellion (Deut. 28; Lev. 36) upon the advocates of Ordeal, creation itself shall at length bear witness against them. But they who have held fast to God’s Word see with the eyes of faith that divine retribution manifesting itself against a backslidden Christendom even now.

So we see honest monies such as gold, silver, and the sundry commodities of agrarian economy being vindicated by the intrinsic corruption of fiat-money and the looming collapse of the fractional reserve system in America. And since globalism has chained all of the national economies around the globe together, America’s monetary crisis is the world’s crisis. Even the foremost advocates of the fiat system are found to be transitioning their abstract wealth into solid holdings. Though they persist in their hypocrisy, it grows increasingly apparent that they cannot ultimately live according to their ideals of abstraction. Moreover, the indivisibility of the fiat money market from political globalism means that, as goes the international banking cartel, so goes globalism in general.

Despite long defaming White Christians as “insane” and “paranoid” for speaking of demographics as destiny, leftists now openly affirm all of the the old Right’s worst forebodings. They now proudly revel in the idea of White genocide and extinction, missing no opportunity to inform us that they intend to punish us more and more with each passing year until we are no more. Leftists have come full circle finally to acknowledge that “demographics is destiny” after all.¹³

And who can forget when arch-Leftist Tim Wise confessed the reality of demographics as destiny in his genocidal dance macabre?

[Y]ou’re on the endangered list.

And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly, without hurting your precious feelings, or those of the so-called “greatest generation” — a bunch whose white contingent was top-heavy with ethical miscreants who helped save the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.

It’s OK. Because in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it. . . .

Like I said, this is math. And numbers don’t lie.

The 2012 election vindicated every dire prediction of the Christian mossbacks. In spite of themselves, Wise, Maher, and every other liberal pundit is now compelled, amid their revelry, to confirm that all those racist White Christians were right all along: the leopard cannot change his spots. Demographics are destiny.

Naturally, the presuppositions which underlie the modern fad of transracial adoption on the part of Whites are already being disproven by the very objects of their misguided philanthropy. Their black, brown, and yellow adoptive children are, to the horror of their White caretakers, turning around to affirm that blood is important after all.¹⁴ Like all adoptive children, regardless of race, they eventually seek out their birth parents or other blood relations to re-establish ties with their own heritage. Inasmuch as this innate tendency is so well-verified in racially homogeneous adoption, there was never any reason to expect less in the case of interracial adoption. Really, there is only a greater incentive toward this dynamic, the more genetically and culturally disparate the children are from their caregivers.

If we granted the Alienist understanding of family not as a kinship group, but as a group of people united around common ideals and objectives, wherein they enjoy protection, accountability, and a sense of belonging, gangs are then to be accepted as genuine families.¹⁵ Frankly, the Alienist family structure differs little to none from the definition of a gang. Not long ago, if a child chose a gang over his blood relations, saying that the gang was his “real family,” we called upon clergy to deprogram the child and reacquaint him with the genuine meaning of family, as designed of God. Clearly, Alienism, standing the Christian conception of family upon its head, baptizes the social theory of the gang at the expense of the traditional and biblical family.

Again, nothing but divine chastening will turn men from this strong delusion of egalitarianism. To wit, revolutionary advocate of transracial adoption, Michael Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries, has recently conceded the case in great measure:

Right here in our own community a family adopted three children from Liberia. We warned them, but they were so caught up with good feelings about how they were sacrificing their lives to save poor starving children from orphanages that they danced their way into tragedy. They have several children younger than the three adopted kids, who, unknowing to them, were well versed in all the dark arts of eroticism and ghastly perversion.

We have received many letters from families who have adopted children from overseas, quite a few from Liberia, and nearly every one of them—if not all—told sad stories of the fall of their natural children into sexual deviance.

I will say this again. Never adopt children even close to the age of your own. You should be past child bearing age, and your children should be at least 10 to 15 years older than the adopted kids. I don’t think there is any such thing as an orphanage raised child who has not been a participant in sexual perversion. If you are older and your kids are grown, it is a wonderful, full time ministry to adopt foreign kids. You will experience heartache, possibly failure, but you may just save a soul from sure destruction. But if there is failure, at least your kids will not go down with them.

In spite of his past advocacy for transracial adoption, he has been humbled in some measure, it seems, by the corrective hand of Providence for his trespasses against the created order. Consider the enormity of his concession: he attests that most if not all of the African adoptions (and he singles out the Africans) of which his group has played a part have resulted in the black adoptive children sexually molesting the natural children of the White families. Since a goodly number of such adoptions are infants, it is not ultimately, or at least not solely, attributable to environmental causes. The reality that Mr. Pearl is still struggling to suppress is that, when contrasted with the rates of like behaviors demonstrated so less frequently by White adoptees, these tendencies in black children confirm it more a matter of nature than nurture. Talk about eating crow.

And who can forget when pioneer geneticist James Watson, the man regarded as the greatest living scientist, stated that by all measures, Africans are uniquely less intelligent, implying that their genetics had something to do with it?¹⁶ The man was immediately stripped of his funding, and as a result of all the death threats and harassment, he was forced into seclusion.

But all of the strides being made by his successors mapping the human genome continue to only reinforce Watson’s statements in regard to the African’s uniqueness. The fact is that certain gene clusters have been identified as responsible for the expression of intelligence, or the lack thereof; the genetic profile of the African features fewer occurrences of those positive gene clusters for the expression of intelligence. And the black race proves to have inherited a segment of their DNA from an ancient source completely different from all other peoples of the world.¹⁷

Of course, evolutionists might frame these findings as “Africans found to be of non-human origin” or “Africans descended from unknown hominid”; but these secular misconstruals shall be put down in time, too, as their universalist politic is at loggerheads with their particularist science. Clearly, that clash is only just begun.

Yet the clash of thesis and antithesis is being channelled into a new synthesis: the singularity. Google Executive and New Age guru, Ray Kurzweil, resolves the tension between universal egalitarianism and particularist inequality in transhumanism:

In any event, the “dumb” matter and mechanisms of the universe will be transformed into exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence, which will constitute the sixth epoch [“The Universe Wakes Up”] in the evolution of patterns of information. This is the ultimate destiny of the Singularity and of the universe.¹⁸

This dawning era of Singularity – the adulteration and fusion of animal, plant, mineral, mind, and machine – looms large on the horizon now. Let us pray that God’s judgments on the nations are sufficient to rout this eventuality. Otherwise, if implemented, the rebuke of heaven for such wickedness will be beyond this writer’s contemplation. This New World Order imagines its own perverse machinations for a new Manifest Destiny – an inevitable eschaton of world communism, absolute planetary federalism, and even union with the elements and the totality of the universe in the theosis of mankind. Really.

For their part, neo-Christians, such as Bojidar Marinov, have thrown in with this New Word Order by assent to classic Marxist  social theory and eschatology which Théodore Dézamy defined as “the egalitarian church, outside of which there can be no salvation.”¹⁹ All of this toward “the new ‘universal country’ [which] would abolish not only ‘narrow’ nationalism but also such divisive loyalties as the family.”²⁰

For all his cash nexus theorizing, Gary North yet bills himself a postmillennialist. Since the millennium seems, if it were possible, delayed, he has succumbed to a quality of cognitive dissonance rarely witnessed: seeing the communist world order congealing before his eyes, despair has driven him to simply declare up down and black white:

Socialism is dead. We lived to see it. There are so few traces of socialist thinking these days, that we must search for it on obscure blogs. I came across such a site this morning. It focuses on refuting Austrian economic thought. Year after year . . .²¹

Truly, the vengeance of the covenant is upon the West, for many “go mad for the sights their eyes see” (Deut. 28:34).

Patrick Michael Murphy well charts this despair-driven madness in his book, How the West Was Lost; but at length, he succumbs to the same:

Those of us with a foot in the West are like people at the water’s edge, holding the hand of loved ones leaning over the rail of an ocean liner as the ship’s engines are fired up. The gulf between the two, the shore and the ship, begins to grow, at first imperceptibly. Soon, it will be impossible to keep holding hands.  Those of us watching the ship leave can only guess where that monstrosity is taking our progeny. Then we turn around and see that the world the ship is leaving behind is more like a fading shadow than a real place. Unreal, and getting less real before our eyes. To be effective, we know, we must get on that monstrous ship, bound for who knows what destination. To stay behind is to have no influence on the passengers of that unfortunate boat. The West cannot be resurrected. The West is gone.

So what we do is jump on at the last minute, carrying the best of the West in our hearts, and scope out the possibilities to do what God would have us do in the continent we are traveling to. . . . [Every indication shows that new civilization to be] horrifying, we know, as Chesterton, Lewis, Ellul, et.al. could see before the ship even turned on its motors. Now, we’re on it, and it has left the shore; the West is receding, fog is settling upon it, and the skyline of the glorious city is getting blurry. Soon we won’t be able to see it at all.²²

As much as we might empathize with Murphy’s anguish, we must reject his conclusion, because the remedy which he proposes is nothing but a total concession to evil. This relinquishment of moral conviction and concession to the zeitgeist is the very process of psychological justification which has compelled modern churchmen to supplant the doctrine of Providence with Ordeal. It is simply much easier to get on the “unfortunate vessel” than to pull your children off or to sink the “monstrosity.” It’s certainly easier than being left behind in that fading Christendom the author describes.

It isn’t as if Murphy’s remedy offers even any psychological relief. It only exacerbates the problem. Even if one boards that fateful ship to retain some influence on the passengers, every single divergence of ideology aboard ship represents another crisis of conscience just like the one which induced the Christian to board in the first place. Which is to say, if you resolve to concede to evil in the name of good, you retain no godly influence to exert. You have joined the ranks of the enemy. Choosing to become salt without savor, a Christian makes himself of no Kingdom use, thus ensuring only that he will be trampled under the feet of men (Matt. 5:13). Murphy says, in effect: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. This is in no way a Christian disposition. We are to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When outnumbered, we can with David say, “They surrounded me; yes, they encompassed me, but in the name of the Lord I will destroy them” (Psa. 118:11). For the Lord prepares a table of feasting for us in the midst of our enemies (Psa. 23:5). In order to maintain godly influence in the culture, Christians are obligated to resist.

Thankfully, there remain many of us yet who refuse to embark. Kinists are intent on saving their posterity from being carried away into the mists of humanism where they would otherwise be severed from Christendom.

Of course, those Christians* who have boarded the Babelite vessel, Alienists, derive no small glee from the sight of a Kinist suffering some family divide for refusal to embark; it is no secret that traditional Christians are often ostracized from their families for insisting that family is a meaningful concept. They are often confronted with the ultimatum from Alienist family members: either renounce belief in the meaningfulness of kinship, or be forever cut off from kin. Of course, the Alienists are oblivious to the fact that renunciation of kinship in aims of preserving kin ties would be not only sublime hypocrisy, but a nullification of all incentive. If the Kinist concedes to the demands of Alienist kin, to renounce the significance of kinship, the very institution of family is forfeit; we are left with no special reason to seek close association with kin if kinship is of no import. The Alienist, in his theological and logical blindness, sees none of this. What they make of it, instead, is that Kinists refuse to live out their own principles. But this is the exact opposite of the matter.

But the day of the crow is dawning. The New Age churches will be force-fed so much crow that they will either repent or burst like old Judas in the potter’s field. These retributions of Providence are being manifest even now. In the end, Kinism will be vindicated, because it is both the precondition to all Christian axiology and nomology, and it is ultimately the only alternative to the unfolding Babelite world order of transhumanism.

The Christian man sees the visitations of calamity upon city and hearth (Amos 3:6) and candidly regards evil as evil, yet can say with Horatio Spafford, “It Is Well with My Soul.” For he has the surety of Providence itself: that God is judging the nations, threshing out the grain, and shall in time put all things to right, healing and hallowing them anew.

Meantime, let the arrogant and successful wrongdoers flout our defense with disdain: we will meet them with it again, when it will be heard; in the day of their calamity, in the pages of impartial history, and in the day of Judgement.²³

Deo vindice.

Tweet