THE FIRST WORD
THE SECOND WORD
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Here is a clear command to iconoclasm. Though the first commandment principally dealt with the subject of other gods already, the second commandment is an immediate implication of the first. Barring first idols to other gods, it also forbids ‘the sin of Jeroboam’ – idols erected to the true God. In essence, even if wrought by Christian hands, any image of God conceived by men is necessarily false, and therefore a false doctrine. This understanding was not long ago so universally accepted that even MGM’s epic films such as The Robe and Ben Hur concealed the face of Christ on screen in acknowledgement of the second commandment. An idol was an idol, whether it be stone, wood, or celluloid. That is to say that in the mid-twentieth century, even Jewish-run Hollywood was reluctant to trespass against the law on account of their American Christian audiences.
So was Iconoclasm generally taken for granted even in the Byzantine and Roman churches for the first few centuries, and was repudiated by them only as of the seventh ecumenical council, when syncretism was officially settled upon as a compromise, expanding the definition of Christianity to include icons as ‘aids to the ignorant’ – the new converts still clinging to the habit of idols. That was in A.D. 787, ninety-two years after Emperor Justinian II had, in advance of the Church, sanctioned iconography by minting gold coinage with an icon of Christ on it. Since the church, East and West, depended upon that very gold as well as a largely idol-habituated people, the magisterium came to see it as sufficiently expedient to finally canonize the practice. Thus did icons become established on account of finance, imperial multiculturalism, and the god-state – matters quite familiar to us in the multitudinous warnings of Scripture, as well as our contemporary experience.
Today, in fact, Protestants themselves have come through the aforementioned pressures to repudiate iconoclasm, so that any retaining this mega-majority opinion of Protestantism past are now viewed as an extraterrestrial species. Such antiquated views, though only fallen from prominence a couple decades, are now invariably met in the churches with accusations of legalism and Pharisaism – the same reaction come of the Roman church in the Reformation era. It is a near total inversion on the subject in less than a fifty-year span.
But this shift has not occurred in a vacuum. Rather, the rejection of iconoclasm for iconodulism has moved precisely apace with the paradigm shift in Protestantism and Christendom generally, toward antinomianism, egalitarianism, Marxism, and all the Gnostic -isms which have congealed into the perspective known today as Alienism. The first reason for this is the same as obtained under the paradigm shift of the seventh ecumenical council: rapid integration of pagan groups into an empire. Mestizos (the most rapidly growing ethnic group in America) are a people steeped in quasi-Romanism, and their expression of Romanism is really more accurately called Santería – a blend of Catholicism, voodoo, and indigenous heathenism. If Romanism was already plagued by superstition in Europe, its appropriation among non-European peoples exacerbated the issue a hundredfold. Whether we are speaking of Africa, the Caribbean, or America, Hamitic peoples, even if Christianized for centuries, virtually never seem to cast off the heavy influences of their hereditary faith – voodoo. As the saying goes, “Haiti is 70% Catholic and 30% Protestant, but 100% voodoo.” But this description proves apropos of all Black and Mestizo communities everywhere. So as all our once White Christian nations have been flooded with non-White claimants of Christianity, idols in tow, the churches have found it expedient to disregard the iconoclasm which had been such a resolute fixture of our faith over the previous five centuries, especially. Yes, the quiet embrace of overt idolatry parallels the browning of America. Iconoclasm fell in America concurrent with and inextricable from the effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration Act, among others.
Inasmuch as forced integration with ‘People of Color’ has compelled Protestantism in America toward a position of laxity on the question of idols, the aliens have themselves even come to be held up as idols. If secular Enlightenment thought venerated the abstraction of the ‘Noble Savage,’ American Christendom has lately reprised the idea with a vengeance. Sad to say, it is taken for granted now, even in what are regarded as ‘conservative’ churches, that the American Indian was the moral superior to the White Christian settler, the Black slave superior to his White Christian master, and Santa Ana superior to the White heroes of the Alamo who resisted Mexican encroachment to their last breath.
More’s the pity, Protestants have even come to laud Black communist, plagiarist, adulterer, whoremonger, woman-beater, miscegenator, and heretic, Martin Luther King, Jr., as the greatest of Christian martyrs. I dare say their late veneration of the ‘civil rights’ pantheon bears all the hallmarks of worship. By use of the word ‘worship’ in this case one may think it hyperbole, but it isn’t. For they have been programmed by the concerted efforts of Marxist-subverted institutions (including the denominational governments) to identify MLK reflexively as a universal symbol of all that is good; and to the extent that any dares to remind us of King’s denials of the virgin birth, the Trinity, and other core Christian doctrines, he is himself denounced as a heretic. Yes, to point out King’s heresy is to incur reflexive accusations of blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, and, of course, ‘racism’ – which, in the minds of Alienists, is the zenith of evil.
Albeit, MLK is but one manifestation of this new Brahman-esque cultural Marxist pantheon; the Black, in general, has become an archetype and what can only be described as a theophany of the new age divinity. For the interests of the Black hold unquestioned power in the churches now – even to the point of profaning holy worship with libidinous jungle rhythms and the crass gyrations and bravado of the ghetto. His whim is seen as every White man’s duty under God; his religious inclinations, celestial. Because he isn’t seen for what he is, but for what he represents – revolution, the overthrow of the White Man, and the transformation of Christianity into Liberationism – all of which are taken for the fulfillment of the Alienist eschaton. The Black has become a totem in the minds of White men. So too have Jews, the American Indians, Mestizos, and every other outlier group. Though discordant in their own narratives, all these idols of political correctness are united in a godhead of ‘all is one’ mass-Man. This new orthodoxy holds each of these categories and their reconciliation to one another in a monad of Mankind as the Kingdom Come, and therefore, above reproach.
Ever insightful, Rudyard Kipling identified this exaltation of the stranger-alien as beings of superior spirituality as ‘the rule of En-dor’:
But they are so deep in their new eclipse
Nothing they can say can reach,
Unless it be uttered by alien lips
And framed in a stranger’s speech.
The son must send word to the mother that bore,
Through an hireling’s mouth. ‘Tis the rule of En-dor.1
This is the very scenario in the modern churches, where the faith is validated only by the presence of non-Whites, and where God is seen as genuinely accessible only by the mediatorial presence of aliens. All the diversity-obsessed outreach, multicult sentimentalism, and denouncements of White homogeneity from our pulpits and in our seminaries are a testament to the fact that the continued existence of the White race or White nations is now regarded tantamount to damnation. So deep is this conviction in contrast to all others, in fact, that while the pews may be brimming with impenitent sodomites, philanderers, whores, blasphemers, pedophiles, and every historic heresy under the sun, there is no public outcry to purify the churches of these fecund elements, but the slightest suspicion of ‘racism’ is met with red-faced overtures, charges of heresy, secret calls to employers and CPS, death threats, defamation across the blogosphere, opinion pieces in the local paper, and, in some cases, television news reports. Speaking from experience, one of the elders who presided over my own case confided in me that an allegation of ‘racism’ was regarded as “worse than anything else; even worse than pedophilia, or being a serial killer.” Really.
Without the slightest sense of irony, or curiosity about how the Church’s priorities could align so precisely with the secular and heathen world, they cleave all the more tenaciously to these idols held in common with all the non-Christian worldviews about them.
All pietistic self-flagellation on the part of Whites and liberationist slogans on the part of non-Whites, these idols of the multicult churches are oracles of an alien law system, and they announce the transplantation of God’s Law in favor of tolerance, equality, unity, niceness, etc. These are the baals of our age. A doctrine of demons.
But the law goes on to annex reasons – promises and curses – to the second commandment:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Catechism question 110 describes these counterfactuals as reason ‘more to enforce it.’ Which is to say that hereditary blessing is a profound consolation and double inducement to keep the Word contra idols. Abstinence from idols is health to your lineage after you, and in the context of the national covenant in which it is given, grace to your folk corporately. Clearly, if the law tenders this inducement, the trustee family or clan model is directly vindicated, as is, by connotation, ethnonationalism. On this toledoth framework of the covenant, the Puritans were univocal:
Hereby you become grossly unfaithfull, yea, treacherous to your God, to your Ancestours, to Parents, to posterity, to the whole Church. God made you His Trustees, and so did Ancestours and Parents make you their spirituall Trustees, under God, to hold up Religion, Truth, the Worship, Wais, and Government of Christ, when they should be gathered to their Fathers; they look at and leave you their Children to be a seed of the Church, to be as plants, to hold up God’s Orchards.2
Consider and remember alwayes, that the Books that shall be opened at the last day will contain Genealogies in them. . . . How shall we many of us hold up our faces then, when there shall be a solemn rehearsal of our descent as well as our degeneracies?3
Some well Observed, God has so cast the Line of Election that for the most part it runs through the Loins of Godly Parents. . . . Doubtless, if an account of it were taken, it would be found that the greatest part of such as belong to God have descended from Godly Parents.4
The antithesis – Marinov’s revolutionary theory of an atomized family and radical individualism artificially severing us from previous generations – is here refuted. After all, if any teaching concerned for lineage and extended family is ‘paganism,’ he winds up leveling this charge flatly against the second commandment itself, because the law assures lineal covenant to ‘thousands of generations’ of those who keep His law. Inveighing against the law itself, he doubly violates it. More than revealing him insensate to the concerns of the law or the blessings of the covenant, it shows in him an intractable opposition to the law.
Through our fetishizing the alien in every way possible, he is very much an idol; and Alienists do not even shrink from sacrificing their children to the Other. Because the Other has become the definition of Goodness to them. For they displace affection due to the holy Creator God who is, in a profound sense, alien to us, and they lay that affection on all things alien in the created world. They seem, as it were, to isolate that distinguishing quality of God – His otherness and His alien righteousness – and superimpose divinity on all things alien. All of which otherwise happen to be part of the creation as opposed to the Creator. That displacement allows the Alienist to believe he is worshiping God when he is in fact only worshiping a characteristic of God – otherness. He will worship otherness wherever it is found. This makes the Alienist a pantheist idolater. Or, as Paul said it in Romans 1:
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
The apostle goes on to describe the behavioral sins flowing from such idolatrous theology: “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:31). Covenant-breakers without natural affections. Yes, that is Alienism, precisely.
Thus bowing to a pantheon of weirdling gods, the Alienist cannot tolerate the second commandment as it is. Even if he cites it, he does so only by infusing it with assumptions alien and irreconcilable to the words themselves.
THE THIRD WORD