Thursday, July 13, 2017

Where The Reformation Failed

On that fateful day in 1517, when Martin Luther posted his now famous Ninety Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Schlosskirche, he more than likely had no idea what an impact his simple exposure of the abuses of the Roman Church would have for Christianity. While Luther merely sought to address the specific abuses he detailed, his actions eventually led to the Protestant Reformation. It is this Reformation that we must address herein, both the good and the bad of it. In doing so I hope to establish the essential problems in the Church today, demonstrating why it is impotent to influence our culture and the sociopolitical future of Western Christians, as well as potential answers to these problems.
Evangelicals generally take a very myopic, if not fantasy filled, view of the Reformation. And while these very same evangelicals note the problems in our churches, they do not understand their root, and so we must have a better grasp on the history of our faith. What most Protestants fail to come to terms with is that Luther did not set out to challenge the Catholic priesthood, the Liturgy, or even the papacy itself. He had no grand scheme to lead a schism from the Roman Catholic system, nor did he seek to establish an entirely new church. He was a faithful member of the Roman Church, as well as a good Augustinian monk. However, he soon found himself facing, and thus exposing, the fallacious historical and theological foundations of the papacy, the abuses of the ecclesial system, the issue of salvation by faith, and many others. This opened a proverbial can of worms that resulted in others also addressing concerns about Roman Catholicism, and like Luther, without having any recourse to the hermeneutic of continuity, but rather a libertarian approach to the church and scripture. This hermeneutic I speak of must influence not only our theological approach, but also our historical approach, and how our history can influence our future in both positive and negative ways. On the purely ecclesial level, this is not to suggest that the issues raised about the Vatican need not have been addressed, as they certainly did and continue to be a very real problem today with the Vatican being a force for Modernity, Naturalism and Cultural Marxism. It is to say though, that the way in which things are addressed is every bit as important as how.
Methodology matters.
It appears that God, despite the obvious problematic issues in the Reformation movement and Rome’s tantrums, indeed did inspire many of the Reformers who followed on the heels of Luther. Having said that, what needs to be understood at the outset is that the Reformation is a lesson in what can only be called the law of unintended consequences. Not all of the fruits of the Reformation were the result of the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather the deviations and misunderstandings of well meaning reformers under the influence of inherited depravity and a zealous effort to distance themselves from all things perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be “Romish”.
On the positive side, the Reformation certainly did much to reinvigorate Christianity, moving it back toward a Biblical orthodoxy and away from the accretions of non-Biblical ideas and practices. By focusing on Sacred Scripture as the rule of faith the Reformation undermined a misguided hierarchy that routinely abused their positions. It also moved the faithful away from mere ritual observance and outward acts of piety to a living, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ, at least conceptually if not in reality. It insisted on the Bible being read by everyone in their own language (a positive for both the spiritual and educational foundations of European culture), in order to better foster that relationship. And yet with all of this good, the Reformation has given us some very bad unintended fruits as well. Protestant leaders began to influence the politics of their respective regions, some for good and some not. Rather than using their influence to promote the unity of European Christians, in many cases they sought the persecution of fellow Christians who believed slightly differently on matters of theology, using the apparatus of the State to do so. In short, they became a miniature of what they claimed to have fought against. Many Protestants groups sided with the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment and republicanism, which has only led to a gradual move away from Christendom- the Christian State- toward secularism, liberalism, and today Cultural Marxism and the eradication of traditional Western European Christian culture from the public sphere entirely.
Another bad fruit was that of the division of the Church and the continuing spirit of division we see today. The Church, as seen in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, understood that it was a united entity. That unity did not mean there would be no disagreements, but rather that disputations within the Church should be addressed and settled in councils. This ensured the Church spoke with one voice, even as Her Bridegroom spoke with one voice with the Father. Even after the division between the Eastern Church and Western Church, there was still a desire for that unity to be restored, as that was how the Church should be. 
While it was not Luther’s desire to cause division in the Church, that was the eventual result of his actions and those of the reformers who followed after him. While it is indeed true that it was Rome who made the break from Luther in its action to excommunicate him, it remains that his actions, justified as they were in some circumstances, contributed to the subsequent division. While the Vatican did not meet Luther’s challenge to examine the issues raised with the appropriate Christian response, but with malice, anger, and an obvious fear of losing power, it is also true that Protestants did and do the same when challenged today. In effect, they have established a tradition of division and rebellion that marked the beginning of the end of Christendom.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The Historical John Calvin: Saint or Tyrant?

Over the past several years I have had the unfortunate occasion to deal with Calvinists who, despite the historical facts, seek to cast John Calvin as a saint, rather than allow the historical facts to speak for themselves. I have even been accused of being ignorant of the Reformation for even daring to suggest that Calvin was anything but a saint. While I understand some evangelicals want to believe the Reformers were pristine, we have to face the fact that they were all just men, with all the defects of inherited depravity. This includes John Calvin. By way of addressing the historical revision of Calvinist apologists, I will briefly detail the other side of Calvin and allow my readers to decide for themselves what the verdict on his behavior shall be.
At the age of 26, when most are still just forming an understanding of the most basic Biblical concepts, John Calvin, who had very little by the way of theological formation (only three years), published his magnum opus, The Institutes of Christian Religion. The book explores every facet of theology and reveals Calvin’s personal opinions on everything from God to morality. One of the most obvious problems with the book is that it reveals that in Calvin’s mind, not only had both the Orthodox and Roman churches been completely wrong on every single detail of theology, but only he with three years of study, truly understood the vastness of Christian theology; a vastness which apparently the whole world missed- except for John Calvin. It is generally safe to assume that if someone claims to have restored something to the church that literally no one outside the apostles knew, you are on very tenuous ground. And his claims, both theological and of his own wisdom, drew criticism. And Calvin had many lovely names for those with whom he disagreed. Names like fool, crazy, frenetic, sophists, drunk, mad, sacrilegious, sycophants, wild beasts, pigs, and atheists. Not exactly charitable language to use on other Christians, but then, John was not known by his contemporaries for his charity. He had such a notoriously bad reputation that even Rousseau many years later wrote of him:
“Who was ever more caustic, more imperious, strong willed, and divinely infallible, according to his own opinion, than Calvin? For him, the least opposition, the least objection that someone dared to present was always considered a work of Satan, a crime deserving to be punished by fire.”
Indeed, Calvin was not someone given to charity when it came to theological dissent. For example, his hatred for Johann Maier von Eck, a Catholic priest, was so vile that when Eck fell gravely ill and was forced to convalesce in Geneva, Calvin wrote, “One says that Eck will recover. The world still does not deserve to be delivered of this wild beast!” Calvin’s Christian compassion for a brother in Christ is underwhelming. Not that Eck was any saint, mind you. He fully embraced resorting to force to deal with heretics, and in temperament was not very different from Calvin. Is this an excuse for Calvin wishing the man dead, though? You tell me. Once Calvin gained political power and influence in Geneva (1546-1564), he enacted laws that imposed horrible penalties on those who dared to return to the Catholic Church. In fact, he also managed to enact laws that fined the citizens for not attending his sermons and refuting any of his doctrines, or even insulting his person.
J. B. Galiffe, a Protestant historian of Geneva, wrote of Calvin’s tyrannical behavior:
For years people were obliged to report in minute detail every word spoken against him and the doctrine of predestination, with which he identified himself to such a degree that to speak against the dogma became as dangerous as to speak against him. The poor were dragged to prisons, scourged, reviled, obliged to walk in the streets barefoot wearing a penitential habit and carry a torch to expiate for what Calvin arbitrarily called ‘blasphemies.’
Some other examples of Calvin’s behavior are:
  • Sebastian Castillo, a friend of Calvin, disagreed with him on some points of doctrine and was banished from Geneva.
  • Jerome Hermes Bolsec, who referred to Calvinist doctrine as absurd, was imprisoned and eventually banished from Geneva.
  • Pierre Armmaux, a city official who criticized Calvin at a banquet was imprisoned and made to walk through the city in a hair shirt begging God for forgiveness. His sentence reads, “He is condemned to go around the city in penitential clothing, bareheaded, carrying a torch in his hand. When arriving before the tribunal, he must kneel, confess having evilly and maliciously spoken vile words, and manifest his repentance; then, he must beg for mercy before God and the justice of man. He is condemned to pay all the expenses. This sentence should be publically announced.”
  • Jacques Gruet, who accused Calvin of being a heretic, was tortured and beheaded.
  • Miguel Servetus, who attempted to censure Calvin’s teachings was burned at the stake after being denied a lawyer in his defense.
Galiffe, who diligently researched the records of that time, goes on to tell us just how excessive were the crimes committed by “this tyrant priest who submitted Geneva to the most infamous servitude”. For example, the number of judgments by public tribunals normally made in one year in Geneva “was easily surpassed in a single month or even a week under the rule of Calvin. Often there were many of these spectacles in a day.” He reports that during Calvin’s violent grip on Geneva, the following are directly attributed to his direct influence, “One counts thirty executions of men and twenty-eight of women, subdivided by method of death. 13 persons hanged, 10 beheaded, 55 quartered, 35 burned alive after being tortured.”
Historian Jean Tet adds to this his own research, revealing that “from 1542 to 1546, which was the softer period of his government, we count 58 capital executions, 76 banishments, and 900 imprisonments.” One would think these were reports of the Grand Inquisitor of Rome, rather than the Protestant Reformer seeking to restore the church to its pure form. So I leave it to my readers to decide. Do the facts of history demonstrate that John Calvin was a saint or a tyrant? Whatever my readers decide, we must deal with history, even our own history, honestly- warts and all.

Friday, July 7, 2017

The Limits of Rugged Individualism

One of the oft praised characteristics of traditional American culture is that of “rugged individualism.” The idea of a strong self-willed, I can do it on my own man or woman is seen as the ideal citizen of a free nation. While there is some truth to this characterization, and we certainly should promote personal responsibility, individualism has limitations, and those limitations are imposed on it by God Himself. Individualism is a double edged sword. One the one hand, when expressed as personal responsibility, it compels someone to work hard to achieve goals without relying on government programs and handouts. It was this sort of individualism we see most clearly in the first American settlers. They had no big government money feeding them, clothing them or providing for medical care when they fell ill. They understood they were on their own when it came to putting food on the table, clothing themselves, and shaping their destiny in this new land. This is positive individualism.  As the young nation grew this character was passed on, but gradually became weaker and weaker as technology made life easier and government grew in size, becoming a surrogate provider. Generally speaking, what remains of this individualism today is the negative application of it.
In the current climate of Relativism and Cultural Marxism individualism possesses none of the self sacrifice or recognition that the individual is responsible to God for his attitudes and actions. The negative individualism of today rejects all moral responsibility. It rejects:
  • Moral duties to owed fellow citizens
  • Moral duties owed to parents, elders and ancestors
  • Moral duties owed to children and posterity
  • The moral duty of justice
  • The moral duty of good faith and honesty
  • The moral duty of biblical compassion
  • The moral duty of thankfulness to God
Because this negative individualism rejects the duties and responsibilities naturally attendant to the concept, it lends itself to the gradual erosion of individualism itself. Negative individualism, rather than encouraging and engaging in the positives of the concept, places the responsibilities squarely on the shoulders of government. Government is the psychological salve, the replacement of the conscience for those who live a negative individualism. When a people do this they inevitably give away their freedom, since freedom is not the ability to do whatever one would like to do (which is what negative individualism promotes), but the freedom to do what one should. Having unburdened themselves of the things they should do, they sell themselves into slavery. Most assuredly government will supplant the moral duties of man, but not without the consequences of any government given such power- totalitarianism. Where once government served the needs of man, it now asserts its primacy over man and his needs. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Screwtape Proposes a Toast:
That invaluable man Rousseau [‘the father of the totalitarians’] first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, you remember, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our [demonic] side) we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state.”
Granted, our natural inclinations are to resist moral responsibilities, since we are born under the bondage of sin and inherited depravity. Moral duties are, however, present in our conscience as a reminder that we do not live for ourselves alone, nor are we answerable only to ourselves for our actions and attitudes. Without these moral duties at work in our lives we become self-centered individuals who must be controlled by the State to prevent us making decisions that would harm our society. Such governmental control always renders the individual of lesser importance, or, in fact, of no consequence, to the life of the State.
“What is life? Life is the Nation. The individual must die anyway. Beyond the life of the individual is the Nation.”- Adolf Hitler
What we must be aware of is that the Cultural Marxists do not advocate for a positive individualism, but for a negative individualism in pursuit of a totalitarian state. This is what is behind their advocacy of LGBTQ rights, gay marriage, transracialism, transgenderism, abortion and other so-called “individual rights” and the many demands on government for reparations, funding of health care, and social welfare. The end game is slavery and an end of all moral expectations on the populace, so the State can determine what is moral on our behalf. It is nothing less than the eradication of the very individual they claim to represent. How many will cooperate with their own enslavement remains to be seen.
"The Christian is called, not to individualism but to membership in the mystical Body. A consideration of the differences between the secular collective and the mystical Body is therefore the first step to understanding how Christianity without being individualistic can yet counteract collectivism."- C.S. Lewis

Monday, July 3, 2017

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

The cover of a "Christian Grindcore" CD.
My readers will know by now that I am a harsh critic of Modernity and all that pertains to it. Recently I had a personal realization of an area in which I had unwittingly fallen prey to one of the fallacious philosophical principles of Modernity; that of utilitarianism. What is utilitarianism? It is simply the belief that actions are deemed to be right or good if they benefit the individual or the majority. To some extent I had fallen victim to this error, and many others have as well. Allow me to explain.

In discussing the issue of music in the church, and then expanding that to the Christian music industry, I found myself defending forms of music that could only be described as chaotic, discordant, and reflective of the spirit of Modernity in sound, all because these were “Christian” bands and I had witnessed people converting at these concerts. Upon reflection (I actually woke up around 4:30 am thinking about it.), I realized that my position was inconsistent with the principles I hold dear. That is, the principles of order, beauty, and harmony that mark any real art, properly defined. This would, of course, include music. Therefore I am persuaded by eternal truth to reject those forms of “music”, despite their seeming effectiveness. It seems to me just as, if not more, plausible that God had acted on those individuals I witnessed converting despite the well meaning, but misguided efforts of the “Christian” band.

A thing is not good simply because it achieves a desired effect. It is only to be deemed good if it arises out of the characteristics of the divine. It is good if it conforms to God's expressed will for humanity, if it reflects the qualities of order, beauty, and harmony, and if it brings people to a knowledge of the Gospel. These are the qualifying marks of a good thing.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
- Proverbs 14:12

When we look at the ideology of Cultural Marxism, what we see in all its ugliness is utilitarianism in action. Or when we study the formation and theology of a religious cult, we see utilitarianism in action. Utilitarianism is to blame, in part, for the atrocities committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot, and a host of other atheistic dictators throughout human history. We must, as faithful disciples of Christ, avoid the error of utilitarianism at all costs, lest we be led into Modernity unwittingly.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Love Discriminates: Social Responsibility in the Execution of Agape

I am certain the title of this article got your attention. Likely your impulse reaction was to think that love does not discriminate. After all. this is what Modernity tells us, and it is all too often what is preached from pulpits worldwide. It is, however, a gross error, a socio-political Trojan Horse, and needs to be addressed with brutal honesty. In the biblical sense (and this is the only sense that really matters), love is not simply an emotional state or mere pity. There are several Greek words used in Sacred Scripture that are all translated love, but this English word itself does not do these distinct Greek words any justice whatsoever. Let us examine these Greek words and their true meanings before we proceed.

1. Eros- This word is best understood as sexual passion. This word can be taken in the positive sense that we Westerners are likely to afford it, but the Greeks intended by it a loss of control, and therefore saw it as a negative.

2. Philia- Brotherly love, such as one has for his comrades in arms, or a best friend.

3. Storge- A familial love, such as that which exists between parents and a child.

4. Agape- Selfless love, or the love (expressed as charity) that one affords the stranger or even the enemy.

Understanding each of these helps us to understand various statements of scripture as they were intended to be understood; that is, within their context. For the purpose of this article we are focusing on Agape, since this is the love that is most misunderstood.

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”- Mark 12:30-31 (ESV)

The word translated love here is actually Agape, which can be defined as the charity shown to the stranger. 

As stated at the outset, it is an oft used maxim in Modernity that love does not discriminate. This fallacy is used to lend force to arguments for gay marriage, homosexuality, lesbian relationships, bisexuality and any other disordered form of relationship Leftists wish to indulge at the moment. True love, however, absolutely does discriminate, otherwise it is not love, but merely infatuation, obsession, pity, or pure lust on some level.

There is no sense in which loving the enemy, for example, absolves us of the responsibility to love our neighbor-citizens. If bringing someone into my nation threatens its stability, culture, or the safety of my neighbors, then I must find the best way in which to fulfill the Lord's command without violating others rights and safety- part of their highest good. In the case of our example, foreign aid would be a good way to do so, donating to a relief fund, volunteering for some such society that works to help the given people group, etc. None of these options cause us to violate Christ's command by ignoring the highest good of those in our own nation. 

For those who are parents the following should help in understanding this principle. If you know that your child's school chum has parents who are drug abusers, or who are well known in your neighborhood for criminal activity, are you going to permit your child to stay overnight in that chum's home, or invite them to come live in yours? Not if you are a responsible parent! Why? You love your child, and because you love your child, you are discriminatory. It is the same on the national level. Christians must get over the Cultural Marxist programming as to what love is and is not, and begin to understand it from a decidedly biblical point of view. 

And back to the point of loving the enemy; how do we best love our enemies? Simply by sharing the truth of the Gospel with them, not affirming them in their false religion. This is the absolute best way to seek their highest good, not dragging the Trojan Horse into the city gates in the name of love. That is the opposite of love. It is contempt for your neighbor-citizens, for your nation and even for the one you portend to love.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

What is Christian Traditionalism?

I am frequently asked this question by fellow believers and non-believers alike. The word tradition invokes many images in the minds of readers, which images vary according to denomination, lack thereof, and political persuasion. In most cases I find myself having to correct a plethora of incorrect assumptions and guesses. So, then, what is meant by Christian Traditionalism?

1. Orthodox Christianity- At the very core of Christian Traditionalism is a belief in the ancient Faith. That is, the Christian Faith of the martyrs and saints throughout history, encapsulated in the great creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian), the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Apostolic Traditions of the Church that flow from our shared history up to the point of the first major schism. This faith has been called "paleo-orthodoxy" by theologian Thomas Oden. For the Christian Traditionalist this is what forms the corpus of what we call Western Orthodoxy; the teachings of Christianity found in all denominations which meet the criteria of these aforementioned sources. 

2. Christian Orthopraxy- Flowing from the same sources is orthopraxy, or right practice. That is, there are certain morals, values and ethics that dictate how we live our lives, and by which we are identified as disciples of Jesus Christ. If the behavior of any individual is at variance with these principles of the Christian life, they are out of step with orthopraxy. Beyond the personal aspects of orthopraxy is the communal worship of the Church. These are the rites of the faith, specifically, the two central sacraments, the Holy Eucharist and Holy Baptism. We have received, as part of the divine deposit of faith, the correct way in which to observe these, and we maintain fidelity to these ritual traditions. The proper matter, intention and form are important to the Christian Traditionalist. 

3. Principles of Christian Life- As mentioned previously, there are specific principles by which a Christian Traditionalist lives his or her life. These principles center on the proper biblical concept of the home, the family, gender distinction and gender roles, child rearing, vocation, personal conduct, the arts, healthy culture, and the relationship of the Christian to the State. As one can see, every facet of life is brought to the touchstone of Sacred Scripture.

4. Other Distinctives- The Christian Traditionalist is by nature non-egalitarian, anti-feminist, anti-Cultural Marxist, and anti-Modernity. They would support the traditional family owned farm over corporate "farms" where animals are treated like engine parts and force fed chemicals, or where produce is genetically modified, or even over the belching smoke of factories. The Christian Traditionalist would purchase organic foods from a local farmers market, likely grow their own vegetable garden, and if given enough land would grow enough to feed their family, including keeping a couple of cows, goats, and chickens. The soil is a gift from God to the Christian Traditionalist. They prefer the village life to that of the metropolis of Modernity and likely lean toward Christian monarchy and Distributism over democratic republicanism and capitalism. 

As you can no doubt see from this very brief sketch, the Christian Traditionalist is what some might consider a person in conflict with the times we live in today, and that is perfectly okay. While Modernity promotes abortion, chaos, irreligion, immorality and all that is ugly, the Christian Traditionalist cultivates life, order, faith, morality, and all that is beautiful. 

If any of this has resonated with you, I invite you to contact me for further discussion and resources.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Conservatism, Tradition and Christendom

Like many Christians, I have grown discontent and disillusioned with what passes for conservatism today. So-called “conservative” politicians in our government cannot seem to agree on the direction our country should be moving or what is best for the future of the nation. While they bicker, play political games with the perceived opposition, and generally ignore the mandate given them by the voters, the condition of our economy continues to circle the drain, our country continues to be infiltrated by hostile political forces under the guise of religion, our schools are a pathetic cesspool of immorality and Leftist propaganda, and the populace suffers from a general political fatigue-no longer trusting any candidate or politician to actually do what he or she promises.

What are these conservatives actually conserving? Is it 80s Reagan era economics? Is it “the Constitution” as they personally interpret it? What are these politicians we vote for over and over again really attempting to conserve? From the perspective of someone who is a true conservative, it appears they are simply conserving (or attempting lamely to return to) the liberalism of the past, whether that be of the 1980s, 1990s, or of the late 1700s. We do not need a return to such failed expressions of American liberalism, as it is these very policies that led us to where we are today. What we need is something far deeper and far greater.

American conservatism lacks something the Left possesses in surplus. That is, cohesive principles that transcend time. The Left is very much grounded in the principles of Cultural Marxism, and those principles have been pursued unflinchingly since the Bolshevik Revolution. The methodology by which these principles are advanced changes depending on time, place and circumstance, but the principles themselves never change and they bind the Leftists together such that they are a political force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile conservative politicians flail about, promising their constituents that they will surely achieve the goals set for them the next time around. And when the next time around comes along, they repeat the same thing, sure that the voter has no other choice but to hope this time will be different. They defend themselves by pointing out things are “harder than I thought”, or that the opposition is just too influential or powerful to overcome in this current House or Senate, even when they hold superior numbers. And yet, the Leftists have no such problems.
Let's face the reality here: main stream conservatism has failed. We need an alternative that is based on cohesive, transcendent principles, and which possesses a history of success that we can point to and people can rally around. This alternative will of necessity view Modernity and Cultural Marxism as enemies to be eradicated, and not ideas that are somehow just as valid and deserving of a platform. Not all ideas are equal, and not all ideas are healthy. Some must be opposed and removed from the bloodstream of a healthy organic society. As Pope Pius X wrote:

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared.”

Modernity is the first enemy of this alternative movement. Our socio-political alternative must look to those traditions of our past culture that made our nation strong, that contributed to the spiritual and temporal health of its people, and established faith, morality, virtue and ethics as the traditional foundations of our society. Modernity demands the destruction of all that is traditional, as these traditions only serve as reminders of our national identity and what made our culture and nation great. Modernity fights tradition precisely because without tradition, a nation begins to deteriorate, having no foundation for its identity. Thus art, architecture, music, clothing, marriage, the unborn, entertainments, and a host of other traditions are laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and finally destroyed. The church, which was once the vanguard of Western social and political values, is regarded as an antiquity, a worthless institution outside social programs that contribute to the Leftist cause. Like all other traditions, faith is undermined by advancing the religion of Organized Naturalism, and propagandizing college students with the idea that belief in God is archaic and ignorant. This leaves the door open to Cultural Marxism. Our alternative to conservatism must oppose Modernity by advancing tradition in all these areas, by demanding its members get back into the church pews, live their faith, and financially support the church, and by loudly and demonstrably opposing the forces that seek to undermine them. The answer to Modernity must be Tradition!

The second enemy is Cultural Marxism. Once a nation has imbibed Modernity and its lies, Cultural Marxism moves in to fill the void where a people's traditions and faith once were. With that vanguard gone, people begin to look for something to believe in, something to give them identity and meaning again. Cultural Marxism is a progressive thought disease, and appeals to the basest of human desire (Inherited Depravity), encouraging people to indulge those disordered desires and curiosities. We can see the progression from the Flappers of the 1920s, who encouraged women to smoke, use foul language, and engage in sexual promiscuity, to the Hippie Movement of the 1960s, which encouraged sex, drugs, false religions, and a full blown Marxist worldview. Those former hippies are now the politicians and college professors of today, and are passing on the Cultural Marxist poison to new generations, who now have taken the next step in the progressive disease to redefine marriage, deny biological gender, deny racial or ethnic identity (transracialism), deny the humanity of the unborn, and who-unlike their hippie precursors-seek to end freedom of speech through the terrorist Antifa movement. Our alternative movement must respond with the eternal truths of the Christian faith. It was these universal principles, gleaned from Sacred Scripture, that once made the cultures and governments of Western Europe and the United States the greatest in human history. The advancements in the sciences, arts, philosophy, and medicine to emerge from these cultures set the pattern for all future developments of value to not only these specific cultures, but the entire world. Such principles establish the truth about biology, gender identity, humanity, and provide a worldview that recognizes God as the supreme arbiter of what is healthy for a nation. These universal principles transcend time, place and circumstance, and provide the strongest and most sure basis for any future national survival, not to mention will act as an antidote to the poison coursing through the cultural body of the West today. The antidote to Cultural Marxism must be Christendom!

Until we, who have up to now self identified as conservatives, commit ourselves to breaking with the failed policies, procedures and political games of the current motley crew pulling the strings of power, we will be very unlikely to see any meaningful change. We must face the reality that a "new" movement is necessary. A movement back to the principles of a healthy organic culture and nation, a movement that is perhaps even providential at this point in Western history. Anything less is an exercise in futility, and a slow descent to a very dismal future. Deus Vult!