Monthly Archives: June 2016

Nations Face Judgement Now, or Later

From North’s Time to Unravel

One thing every Christian reader should be willing to affirm: nothing in the Bible should be an embarrassment to any Christian. We may not know how something should be properly applied in our day, but every law, announcement, prophecy, judgment, and warning in the Bible is the very Word of God, and is not to be flinched at by anyone who calls himself by Christ’s name.

We are dealing with a God who has already condemned hundreds of millions of people to hell, and now threatens to condemn at least four billion more: to exist in eternal agony, without hope, without peace, and without escape, forever and ever, amen. Any earthly judgment that He brings, or that He wants His people to bring as His lawful, ordained agents of both mercy and judgment, is just nickel-and-dime stuff compared to hell.

The doctrine of hell doesn’t embarrass any Bible-believing Christian; neither should anything else the Bible says that God did, does, or will do.

One way or another, one day or another, God and His Justice will get His Due.

A Christian Man, A Christian Society, A Christian State, A Christian Civilization simply declares that it’s much better to suffer temporary punishments now, than eternal punishment later.

This is what we need.

Majority Rule

Just for the record, Christian reconstructionists aren’t in favor of imposing some sort of top-down bureaucratic tyranny in the name of Christ. The kingdom of God requires a bottom-up society: self-government under God. It’s the humanist view of society that promotes top-down bureaucratic power. Reconstructionists are in favor evangelism and missions leading to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth’s inhabitants will place themselves under Christ’s protection, and voluntarily use His covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God’s law, then spreads to others through revival, and only later brings comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under God’s revealed laws.

Let’s get this straight: Christian reconstruction depends on majority rule. Of course, the leaders of the Christian reconstructionist movement expect a majority eventually to accept Christ as savior. If this doesn’t happen, then Christians must be content with only partial reconstruction, and only partial blessings from God. It isn’t possible to ramrod God’s blessings from the top down, unless you’re God. Only humanists think that man is God. All we’re trying to do is get the ramrod away from them, and melted down. The melted ramrod could then be used to make a great grave marker for humanism: “The God That Failed.”

If you weary of the rule of the Master Class, then you need the rule of Christ.

Not the rule of men, regardless of public acclaim, or their robes, or how many or how wealthy or how politically connected they happen to be.

The rule of Christ – nothing else satisfies, nothing else grants liberty, life, and a good hope for the future.


Vintage Novels

Vintage Novels: Travel Through Time and Space is a book review blog by Suzannah Rowntree. It’s quite knowledgable and informed, and I recommend it.

Also available on the blog is some books from Miss Rowntree, including the free book The Prince of Fishes, a retelling of the Fisherman and His Wife. Why not try it out, and see for yourself how good the writer is?

County Rights and Decentralized, Christian Government

From County Rights: ideal freedom in civil government

Chapter 3: “County Rights”

3.1 Local government in a free America

The basic premise of localism—and therefore, the basic premise of what I call “County Rights”—is that civil government power should be as decentralized as possible. This is the heart of the program. This section covers that principle of localism: the ideal of freedom and how we once had it in America.

Local Government in a Free America

We need to acknowledge that States’ Rights—though much better than all power being centralized in a large national government—is not a good enough answer to national tyranny. “States’ Rights are for sissies,” as a friend of mine says. Give me “County Rights.” That’s decentralized power. But lest my libertarian friends needle me by pointing out that counties can cajole and extort too, I prefer to argue that civil government power should be as decentralized as possible. If it is possible to have a well-ordered society with little government beyond the family and perhaps voluntary community organization, then we should welcome this.

As we shall see here, localism and decentralized power is the best expression of freedom in government, and it was the way America was originally founded. This is the way it used to be in America, and it worked. So I would like to discuss, briefly, localism or “County Rights” in both principle and practice.

In principle, limited and localized government is an outgrowth of specifically Christian thinking; particularly the demands that 1) rulers are not divine, but themselves subject to a higher law, 2) private property is to be protected and conferred with its own governmental powers under law, and 3) social relationships are based on legally binding contracts, 4) power tends to allow for corruption and should therefore be limited, checked, and safeguarded. In short, we have a society based on religious faith, property rights, honoring of contracts, and individual responsibility—all fundamental things derived directly from the Ten Commandments. And of course, with all of these things is assumed the right to life and the protection of life.


None of the above is guaranteed by a secular state: if only because they can redefine terms as needed, and so do so as they please, take what they wish, and kill when they want.

This kind of lawless behaviour has no place on God’s territory, and it is going to get shoved into the garbage bin of history. Thus, it is nature for Christians to be part of the shoving, and established a decentralized, local governmental philosophy instead.

One modern political philosopher noted the derivation:

The limited state is a creation of Christian thinking, particularly of Augustine. It arose from the fundamental experience of the Incarnation, the appearance of God in human form at a definite place and time of human history. Christian thinking about politics was based on a new discovery about the destiny of man: man lived in order to attain fellowship with God.”1

In other words, beyond the mere popular idea of Christianity, the idea of limited government is based in Christian theology: it is a political development based upon the previous theological development of the historic Church councils, particularly Nicaea (AD 325) and Chalcedon (AD 451). Because only Jesus Christ is the perfect man, and the only God-man, this means He alone has the final word of human jurisdiction. He is prophet, priest, and king. No human government, therefore, has the right to wield supreme or final power on earth, whether in family, church, or state. All people and all rulers must bow the knee to King Jesus, obey his commandments, and love one another as equals before God.2

Christians are to push for a limited government, because God has no time for the idolatry of the unlimited Saviour State.

There can be only one Lord, and only one Source of the Law… and wealthy, politically connected men don’t make the cut.

Lies, Damned Lies…

…and Statistics seem to be an integral part of the liberal argument against guns.

But we had to wait for Ryan McMaken of to unveil what’s going on behind the numbers, in their fine article The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to “Developed” Countries.

Much of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of cherry-picked countries with lower murder rates and with fewer guns per capita. We’ve all seen it many times. The United States, with a murder rate of approximately 5 per 100,000 is compared to a variety of Western and Central European countries (also sometimes Japan) with murder rates often below 1 per 100,000. This is, in turn, supposed to fill Americans with a sense of shame and illustrate that the United States should be regarded as some sort of pariah nation because of its murder rate.

Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are  countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

Prejudice about the “Developed World” vs “the Third World”


But these are the only countries the US shall be compared to, we are told, because the US shall only be compared to “developed” countries when analyzing its murder rate and gun ownership.

And yet, no reason for this is ever given. What is the criteria for deciding that the United States shall be compared to Luxembourg but not to Mexico, which has far more in common with the US than Luxembourg in terms of size, history, ethnic diversity, and geography?

This is obvious after it has been pointed out. Indeed, Our Betters make this ‘mistake’ so many times, so consistently, that it is obviously not a mistake, but an integral part of the Narrative.

While ignorance about true global poverty, life expectancy, and family planning are no doubt a source of some of these wrong-headed comparisons, one doesn’t need to be the world’s biggest cynic to recognize that the US is only compared to a selective list of countries because doing so offers a biased view of the United States that makes it looks like an especially crime-ridden place.

Nothing shall be permitted to challenge the Narrative!

Indeed, it makes more sense to compare the US to other states in the  Americas than to Europe or Japan. The US and most Latin American countries were settled in similar time periods. They are frontier countries settled mostly by European immigrants that displaced a native population (to varying degrees), and most of them gained independence from European imperial nations in a similar time period. They tend to have ethnically diverse populations, and many have been impacted by the slave trade that ended in the 19th century.

European countries share very few of these qualities in common with the US.

So, it would seem that the old diktat of “thou shalt only compare US murder rates to the approved ‘developed’ countries” is based on really no objective standard at all. And we should stop doing it.

If we’re honestly trying to evaluate the nature of crime and violence in a comparative atmosphere, we cannot limit ourselves to a handful of countries that have very little in common with the US beyond a handful of economic indicators.

Scholarly Christians should learn from the Scholarly Austrians… assuming that there are any Christians that care to use their brains as the weapon God intended.

Laldy for the Scots

A rather promising website, Laldy is dedicate to the Scots goals of Faith, Family, and Freedom. The creator of the website, Colin Gunn, is a good Christian media man, a rarity in this world… unfortunately. I hope to find more good things from Laldy!

If you’re interested too, there’s a contact form on the front page, for a Summer 2016 launch. Find out what’s going on!

Catholic Homeschooling

So with Seton, the Catholics bring homeschooling into their homes – something affordable for devout homes, instead of the aging brick & mortar system.

And when do the Protestant denominations get with the program? Or will we stand with the atheistic perverts of State schooling until it goes bust and sinks into the sea?

If you aren’t willing to wait for the Republican cheerleading squad to get its act together, there’s always Ron Paul….

Social Justice

From Freedom in Welfare:

You tell me, why in the world should anyone living a maxed-out, debt-ridden, gluttonous lifestyle be entitled to one cent of taxes taken from someone else for their retirement? I understand that there is a genuine charity case in the poorest of the poor and the truly vulnerable (but we can easily address that problem), but don’t tell me it’s moral and necessary and right to tax anyone for the benefit of someone else who squandered their entire income all their life, never saved a penny, and lived as high a lifestyle as they could along the way. No one owes that person anything, and they deserve to reap the benefits of their own immoral decisions. They should live the latter part of their lives in financial distress as a fitting punishment compensating for their earlier wastefulness. If you want “social justice,” that’s social justice.

Social Justice is coming…

…and when it arrives, the Loving Ones aren’t going to like it. Not one little bit.

Throughout the article, Dr. McDurmon pounds on the need for serious sacrifices, if you want to be independent of the welfare state. His site, American Vision, is one of the hardest Christian weblogs out there, and I am confident that the majority of his readers will dismiss any such talk out of hand.

That doesn’t make his words any less true.

Nor does it change the fact that we should make the needed sacrifices now, while times are still (relatively) soft and we can choose the timing and extent… instead of being forced into sacrifice mode a la Venezuela, without any ability to prep or acclimatize.

I write my blog for the cadre of hardened, victory-minded Christians: it’s not the best blog for them, not nearly close – that would be Specific Answers – but I know who I like, who I support, and who I want to prosper.

So I implore my readers: read Freedom in Welfare, chew on it, think on how to put it into action in your life, and get ready for the day of victory.

If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family–anything you like–at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder. — C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength

The day of small things is coming to an end: we need to get equipped for the next phrase in the expansion of the Kingdom of God.