All posts by Alvin Plummer

About Alvin Plummer

I'm working to build a better world, a world that blesses Christ and is blessed by Him. I hope that you're doing the same!

“Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

This is just a collection of links, noting how much work Christians – especially Christian Reconstructionists – need to do to repent and heal in regard to racism. Needful work: how can we grow to fill the world, if we still grip tightly to superficial differences amongst ourselves… and so neglect and diminish the real differences between those who are on the Lord’s side, and those who aren’t?

Be Killing Sin: The REAL Future of Christendom (guest post):

Cherishing Idols

Why doesn’t the Christian Reconstructionist movement grow and replicate itself? Why are we still reading and regurgitating Rushdoony, but not progressing past memorization and recitation of ideas? Because we are holding sin close to our bosom and it is killing us. We are remaining static, ever the same, never changing, never growing, showing that at our core we are opposed to our postmillennialist ideas. Instead of seeking to put in the work to change things when it hurts most, we accept the world as it is today. Instead of acting on how it ought to be and establishing justice in line with God’s Word, we merely talk a lot about it. When it hurts our pride or may potentially lessen our numbers, we won’t apply it.

Some of you may be aware of the kinist thread that has long run within Christian Reconstructionist circles….


Those whom we see as celebrities, we aren’t willing to rebuke because of the cost that comes with holding Scripture higher than we hold them, their word, their reputation, and their friendship. They’re not willing to give up unrighteousness, sacrifice a possible friendship, or stand for truth and justice. But this kind of sacrifice is central to the Christian life. So how can clinging to idols be “The Future of Christendom”? No, it will be the death of Christendom.
Today’s kinism would become tomorrow’s hatred of the foreigner and the sojourner, directly contrary to God’s Word on the matter as our nation turns away Christians and the lost from receiving help and hearing the Gospel on our very doorstep. We have much more to lose by holding this particular idol than who can marry whom. The impact of this belief has victims far and wide in expanding circles of harm. As our pastor once so wisely insisted, what we believe informs what we do. We must be willing and able to hear righteous rebuke, even from the little people. We must be willing and able to have our agendas, ideas, affections challenged and even destroyed for Christ. We must be willing to admit that God is true, and every man a liar, and where they err, we must rebuke them in loving loyal opposition, and when rejected, we must depart from them, handing them over to be convicted by the Holy Spirit, or left to their destructive sin.

D. A. Carson on the “hard case” of racism:

This acknowledge would, I think, be in perfect keeping with the warning by which Carson closes this section, which is worth our attention here at the outset: “certainly we must not be perceived to be knee-jerk reactionaries who are dragged into racial reconciliation kicking and screaming, bringing up the end of the pack, the last to be persuaded” (p. 107). The sad truth is that for the majority of their existence, the conservative Protestant and Evangelical churches have only arisen to the level of being dragged kicking and screaming at their better moments. Much of the time was instead fierce opposition. I would happily join Carson’s warning here with a 100,000-watt bullhorn: if our lampstand has not already been removed over this issue, now is the time to get sanctified on it.

The anti-semitic fringe of the American Right:

There are of course anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic. Some of them are Jews. Some are Orthodox Jews who believe that biblical Israel will not be re-established until the Messiah comes. So, they do not accept the equation of Israel with the modern State of Israel. On the movie screen, a good example of this outlook – maybe the best – is the Hasidic rabbi in The Chosen (1981) who speaks contemptuously in 1948 of “Ben-Gurion and his henchmen.” He was an anti-Zionist.

But the ex-site member slipped up. He made it clear that he was talking about a race, not a political special-interest group.

“Did Ron ever declare a similar distaste for black supremacists? Zion supremacists? Cino supremacists? Latino supremacists? Did he denounce the oft-stated aims, visions and exclusivity of their racially and ethnically focused organizations – several of which receive gov’t. protection and largess?

He let his guard down. His bile spewed out. He was not talking about a political defense against a misuse of government money to benefit a special-interest group. That was what Ron Paul always talked about in Congress. No, they have race and ethnicity in mind.

This is white supremacy, and it is a curse of the political Right. It has been for a century.


The Left has had its share of anti-Semites. If the Left did not give him a free ride, Karl Marx would be notorious. In his tirade, On the Jewish Question (1844), he waxed eloquent.

“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”


Can you imagine some untenured professor going into print with something like this? He would be removed from the classroom within 24 hours.

To see how the Left squirmed, take a look at this attempt to evade the obvious by the Western Socialist in 1960. It responded contemptuously to a list of Marx’s anti-Semitic statements presented by Dagobert Runes. Runes had a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Vienna. He was the translator of Marx’s essay. He was a distinguished philosopher. He showed how Marx never wavered from his language. Marx referred to his intellectual adversary Ferdinand Lasalle as a “Jewish nigger.” Marx was a racist. For evidence, see the book by an ex-Communist scholar, Nathaniel Weyl, Karl Marx: Racist (1979). It had to be published by a conservative book publisher, Arlington House. No academic publisher would touch it. Used copies cost hundreds of dollars. For a good survey of Marx’s racism, read the article by economist Walter Williams, “The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx.”

Hitler is the most famous of the Left-wing anti-Semites, or would be if the Left had not successfully re-written history to turn him into a Right-winger.

As an aside, Peter Hammond is entirely too close to those crooked-cross people. If Christian Reconstructionists want to grow — in blessings, numbers, influence, excellence — we can’t tolerate such people in the camp. They must repent, or they must leave.

“Screw the optics,” and other dangers of the anti-“cultural Marxism” crusade

Some are also not so secret, or at least like Robert Bowers, they crack, and the secret gets spilled, along with a lot of blood. “All Jews must die” was accompanied by a social media post that said, “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

“Optics” here refers the public façade. The reference is to his compatriots who believe like he believes, but keep up a politically correct (enough, anyway) façade, and use code language to keep their secret. Bowers, however, snapped: screw the façade, it’s time for some solution, at least. He was tired of hiding his antisemitic hate behind acceptable conservative and Christian labels. He was tired of playing that game. Fighting “Cultural Marxism” within the system had to give way to some real solution to the real problem.

This is the danger of theological and ideological movements (and their associations) such as I have described and called out in the links above. They are tied to historical and social realities that are far more dangerous than the façade indicates. There is chaos just below the surface. These movements are flirting with fire right near the fuse, and the leadership is either blind or does not care. Both are recipes for a tragedy.

One of the telling (to me) evidences of how widespread these feelings may be is the unimaginable silence against them among so many key conservative Christian leaders. This very well may be an indication that there is some knowledge that many among the donor base of many organizations still hold anti-miscegenation, racist, or anti-Jewish sentiments. Speaking out against these topics would mean a blow to the flow of funds from so many traditionally conservative readers.

“Casino Jack” and the evils of the Evangelical Industrial Complex

I have now for many years watched the nature of conservative news reports, emails blasts, email list rentals, campaigns, click bait, rage porn, conservative red meat, political junk for sale, etc., not to mention the big movement orgs like pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-religious liberty, pro-police, anti-drug, and many others. I don’t think that I buy very much of it anymore, let alone get impressed or riled up. I think it is virtually all fake. At the bottom of most of it is someone personally lining their nest, building an empire, enjoying power, fame, and illicit sex. Payoffs and abortions follow this sort of life. There are a few who are motivated by ideological reasons, usually with fringe elements at the root. Most are not.

Jesus said we will know the true sheep from the ravening wolves “by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15–20). For all of their well-written ad copy, all of the appeals to fear about what “radical leftists” are threatening and how they will destroy this country if we don’t act now, all baptized in fine veneer and Bible language, there is not one single major accomplishment on behalf of conservative or Christianity that any of them can point to in the living memory of anyone who reads this.

The only major advancement on any major issue that conservatives have seen since WWII was the reduction of corporate taxes from the insane heights of the FDR era. That’s it.

By their fruits you shall know them—and they don’t have any fruit.

I suggest that genuine reconciliation on race, as described below, would produce fruit.

A defense of my defense of Mohler’s slavery report

So, it is important not to engage in the straw man of calling this an endless attempt at repentance. It is not. We could take plenty of space explaining what role it does fill, but simply noting the difference here is important. So, for people who ask, “How many times do we have to keep repenting?,” the answer is, “Once.” Now, can we talk about sanctification, building relationships, growing in grace and holiness together in the body? Can we talk about bearing one another’s burdens, the mind of Christ, the rule of love, giving, empathy, unity?

And that is how Christian Reconstruction can inherit the future.


Successfully Fighting Poverty

From North, and quoting from his article The Source of All Blessings (and Curses)

Socialists refused to explain the Industrial Revolution in terms of capital markets, freedom of contract, the defense of private property, and free trade. Natural resources: that’s what made the difference. That was why Russia back in 1965 was going to overtake the West, one of these days, Real Soon Now. Or South Africa would, if a man like Nelson Mandela could ever gain political power. Or Rhodesia would, if a man like Robert Mugabe could ever displace Ian Smith.

But there was this nagging problem: Hong Kong, which has no natural resources. Its people got very wealthy after 1945. Hong Kong was a bothersome factor for the socialists of the world. Its success had to be explained in terms of something other than natural resources, which it did not possess. It also had to be explained in terms of something other than socialism, of which there were few traces.

So, the socialists solved this problem by not discussing Hong Kong. “Hong Kong? Never heard of it.”

Socialist are power-seeking ignoramuses.

Yes, even more so than Muslims. Muslims are not so ignorant as to consider it a great victory to rip apart their children in their womb, nor do they insist that men can be women by merely saying that it is so.

There is thick-headed and stubborn… and there is willfully delusional.

Moreover: Islam has been around for 1,400 years, and even I am pretty sure that it can stick around for a few more centuries, even as the Gospel slowly pushes it out of its fortresses and high places.

In contrast, I doubt that politically organized socialism will survive past the 21st century. Islam can survive, even thrive, in a decentralized and chaotic environment: not so the stodgy, rigidly hierarchical, insistently bureaucratic, uber-statist Socialist.

Christians had better be better than either of these roads to hell, though!


Which would be the better policy to fight poverty:

Invest 10% of all profits?
Give 10% of all profits to the poor?

We know the answer: #1. Capital formation is the most powerful force in man’s history for the elimination of poverty.

The Bible, like all other religious books, does not command the reinvestment of profits. It commands charity.

Is there a cognitive disconnect here?

Actually, I don’t think so.

Charity is meant to humble the giver, as well as to provide seed money to the weak. The successful Christian is not innately separate from the unsuccessful Pagan. God showed favour to us – unearned favour – and charity reminds us of that.

I regard John Wesley as the person who did more to relieve poverty than anyone in history. He showed the way to wealth to millions of poor people who had not read Adam Smith. He preached this of money: Earn all you can. Give all you can. Save all you can. (Sermon #50, “The Use of Money” [1744], Part 6.)

Wesley preached to the poorest people in the British Isles. He spent most of his adult life on horseback. He preached sobriety, hard work, and thrift to those poverty-stricken people who came to be called Methodists. He changed the face of England. Within a century of his death, Methodists had become middle class. Then the denomination went theologically liberal. This would not have surprised Wesley. He had warned against the effects of riches in Sermon 126 (1790).

His followers experienced what religious orders and monks did throughout the Middle Ages: they got rich by practicing systematic frugality. That was why, every few centuries, there was a wave of religious reform among the mendicant orders that had sworn vows of poverty. Too much money was rolling in. The monks were enjoying the life style of the rich and famous.

Money is very useful.

But don’t let it kill you with its soft silk cushions and pretty, shallow pleasures.

Predators, Victims, and the Coming Whirlwind

The Monstrous Regiment recent put out a podcast on Predators and Victims, describing how trash like to detect, manipulate, and use the weaker and more submissive among us: usually women and children.

Women are the most likely audience: but God-fearing men should listen, and understand, so they can detect when someone is abusing their children right before their eyes.

Note that a lot of abusers like to wrap themselves in cloaks of authority: pastors, fathers, teachers, etc. Be watchful, and listen to the small when they complain. Take their word seriously.

This includes determining if the victim are speaking the truth, or lying. Wolves come in all sizes, ages, and come in both sexes: discernment and wisdom is needed here.

(In the Bible, false accusers receive the punishment that the accused would have received: something to think about. Especially as that law has never been rescinded.

The secular courts make it a point to ignore God’s standard of law and justice: Christians may not follow in the diseased footprints of such willful contempt of God’s will.)

If in your judgement, this warrants calling the police, do it. Lots of religious & educational organizations would prefer to close ranks to protect the corrupt, rather than crush that snake’s head. More than one family would prefer that the victim suffer, as well.

By the way, you might also want to look into The big double standard on child sex abuse no one is talking about: for some mysterious reason, the media loves scandals relating to priests and Christian institutions, but remain soft spoken or completely silent when child abuse occurs in the public schools.

As Joel McDurmon writes in his article:

There is a tremendous disparity between how the Roman Catholic Church is being treated and how the same offenses on a greater scale are being treated in both the law and the media. This is not only a sad fact, it is a huge immorality and abuse of trust itself.

The media virtually ignore both the offenses and the lobbying on the part of the public schools and teachers’ unions. In the few cases they do mention them, they do not mention the double standards already in the law. If they support a particular piece of legislation, they do not mention how that legislation may appear to target child sex abuse in general, but carves out special exceptions for public agencies—schools, police, etc. When the Roman Catholics object, it is implied they are opposing because they wish to protect the abusing priests, money, etc.

It is implied that they don’t care about the victims. I am not defending them on that charge, but I do wish to point out that it is really the law itself, the teachers’ unions, the bureaucrats, and the media all behind this double standard who really don’t care about the victims.

If they did, they would be pressing every bit as hard—or five times harder—where the problem is even greater. Until they do, they have no greater moral integrity than the pedophile priests or teachers themselves.

I don’t support removing all statutes of limitations. That’s dangerous. When groups as disparate as the Chambers of Commerce and the ACLU oppose that, it ought to make you at least think. I support public executions for convicted rapists, and the privatization of all public schools. But the double standards are not only sickening, they share in the guilt of the abuses they protect.

If we don’t rectify that, statutes of limitations won’t protect us from the forces within us that will devour us.

The big double standard on child sex abuse no one is talking about, by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Our culture have sown the wind, and the devastating whirlwind is building up nicely.

Don’t be there when it strikes.

Don’t be a party to evil… not by commission, and not by silence.

The Free Market as a Godly Institution

Now, with the atheistic dreck hosed off, we can look at the real foundations of the Free Market, (with a nice side order of Liberty).

Again, from North’s Christian Economics: Teacher’s Edition

(Well, first the man quotes Isaiah 45:18-19 as his header. Then….)


Point one of the biblical covenant is God’s transcendence, yet also His presence. This is the biblical concept of God’s original sovereignty. It asks: “Who’s in charge here?”

Here, we learn the following facts. First, God looked forward to the world beyond days one through three. He looked to an inhabited earth. In Genesis 1, we learn that on day four, He created the orbs in the sky. They would be used as the basis of calendars: signs, seasons, days, years. This looked forward to the creation of man. God needed no calendar. Man would. On day five, He created animals. On day six, He created man. God showed purposeful action. He had a plan before He began to create. This testifies to the existence of cosmic order. The universe has God-given purpose. It has had this from the beginning.

The West has been in rebellion of God’s standards and God’s purposes for the last two centuries. It is now dying. I assume that my readers have no interest in having their legacy, their children, die along with the System.

The purposeless man and family and culture dries, and blows away, and has no legacy on earth or in heaven. Not so who recognizes their God-given purpose!

The existence of purpose testifies in turn to the existence of design. God designed the universe. Charles Darwin was wrong. So was Immanuel Kant, who offered a theory of the evolved cosmos. The universe was created by a series of sovereign decrees by God. He spoke. The creation responded. He spoke it into existence out of nothing. Before the first day, God had a design for history.

Isaiah said that God revealed this to him: God had not spoken in secret about Jacob, meaning the nation of Israel. He had spoken openly. God then added: “I declare what is right.” is reveals the ethical aspect of God’s decrees, as well as His revelation regarding His decrees. He does not speak secretly. This is the work of imputation: declaring publicly that which conforms to God’s standards. These standards are inherently ethical: right vs. wrong.

There is no escape from Divine Law, Divine Ethics, the Holy Commandments. Even lying to yourself, or getting the Establishment to agree to your lies, merely insures both your death and that of the Establishment.

 The implication of this for economic reasoning, and all other social science, is this: there is no such thing as value-free analysis. But it goes way beyond this. All attempts to formulate a hypothesis of ethical neutrality for social analysis is an affront to God. It is saying this: “Neutrality is possible.” This means, above all, neutrality toward God. This is another way of saying that the creation was originally autonomous: no God-provided design. Yet this passage makes it clear that God’s design was the very foundation of the creation. It preceded the creation.

Christians, God-fearers, Covenant keepers… we are expected to be who we should be. And not what our “ethically neutral” God-hating enemies want us to be, want us to say, want us to do.

Be who you are!

Naturally, the Establishment will make sure you pay a price for your integrity. Truly understand both the strengths and weakness of your enemies, and act in a way that brings the most crushing victory for God and His Word.

The point is not so much to sacrifice yourself, or to be a martyr… even thought that may be a necessary price to get what God wants.

The point is to win as a soldier of God. Get the biggest victory possible, for a man in your situation, with your strengths and liabilities.

First and foremost for any consideration of the auction process of the free market, there was coherence to the design. All of the pieces fit together. The creation week was both systematic and sequential. At the end of each day except day two, God declared His work as good. These were acts of imputation: evaluating the outcome of His labor in terms of His design. Day by day, God fitted the pieces together into a systematic, coherent system. The week’s final day of creation was day six: the creation of man, and the announcement of the dominion covenant. This established a hierarchy: God >man> creation. I will explore the differences between humanism and creationism in Chapter 51, “Design vs. Darwinism.” At this point, I will say only this: Christian social theory must begin with an assertion of the under-lying coherence of men’s institutions. This is based on the biblical story of the creation week as purposeful, systematic, and coherent. Ultimately, the creation was covenantal. It had to do with ethics. This is why God declared to Isaiah that He speaks the truth regarding what is right.

God speaks the truth: His enemies do not.

(Well, like Satan, they prefer to speak half-truths… but sometimes, they go for the Big Lie tactic. )

God organized the world, visible and invisible, for our benefit. His enemies want this order destroyed, and a life-sapping chaos put in its place.

Officially, it’s to glorify man in place of God…

then you realize that it’s really just the Right Sort of men…

then , at the end, you finally realize that this unproductive, destructive chaos is meant to only impoverish, dis-empower, and finally kill off mankind.

They [free market atheists – AP] deny any element of planning with respect the creation. is leads to a major problem in persuasion. Most people find it difficult to imagine that there is any purpose, system, or coherence in an undesigned institution. is is why defenders of the free market find it almost impossible to persuade people regarding the efficacy of the evolutionary model for identifying how a totally free, undesigned, and unplanned market process is the source of the obvious benefits of the modern economy. Men think that coherence is the outcome of design. They cannot shake this pre-Darwinian outlook.

Free market atheists would rather have atheistic communist rule, rather than admit that the free market reflects the will of God, who designed it to bless and enrich all humanity.

Here is the key argument offered by Progressives and pro-government planning social Darwinists ever since Lester Frank Ward’s book, Dynamic Sociology, was published in 1883. They say that science has now replaced purposeless, impersonal evolution as the source of progress, not simply in the natural sciences, but also in the social sciences, especially economics. They have moved from the model of purposeless, impersonal evolution to the model of scientifically designed and directed evolution. They have replaced the biblical God of creation with a new divinity: scientific man.

Ah… I see that the Right Sort has just stepped into the room.

Christians must deny the Darwinists’ premise: the existence of impersonal evolution, whether cosmic or social. They must begin with this moral and legal premise: the personal responsibility of each individual for the outcomes of his decisions. The process of market competition is not impersonal. It was designed by God. God remains sovereign.

I like that bit the most: the personal responsibility of each individual for the outcomes of his actions.

Success in upholding your responsibilities are rewarded by God. Failure in doing what is required of you results in punishment. This is partially, but increasingly true in this world, and absolutely true in the next.

So, the Bible is necessary to restore covenantal accuracy, i.e., accurate imputation. So is illumination by the Holy Spirit. “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13).

Listen to the Holy Spirit. To recognize His voice, read and absorb your Bible, right into your soul.

Here is the fundamental point with respect to design. The humanly unplanned outcomes of the market’s auction process are legitimate whenever men have obeyed the economic laws of God. These laws are the outcome of God’s mandated authorization of the private ownership of property (Exodus 20:13). God is the economic planner. He provides coherence. He has an integrated plan for the ages. This includes every area of life. Nothing is left to chance. He has mandated institutional arrangements that establish the free market. The market has evolved out of these laws whenever men have obeyed them. The market order has been unplanned by human beings. But it is planned. The market is the outcome of human action, not human design. But the absence of human design does not disprove the existence of an economic plan that is purposeful, systematic, and coherent. This is why people can safely trust the free market in most instances.

They can more safely trust the free market than regulation by state bureaucrats.

Amen, and amen!

A buyer is part of God’s plan for the ages.


As someone made in God’s image, the buyer has purposes, just as God did in the creation week.


As an owner, he has a God-given right to bid. “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” (Matthew 20:5a). He may choose to bid for goods that he will consume. He may choose to purchase investments for future income. He may choose to give money away. The point is this: he has the ability to bid because he owns money. If he gained this money legally, no one should complain that he owns it. at is the distribution of income that God has planned. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew6:45b). More ominously:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God,for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head” (Romans 12:19–20).

To earn their heavenly – and earthly! – rewards, Christians must do what’s right.

The moral validity (point three) of market outcomes (point four) is assured by God’s design (point one) of the market. It is an extension of a series of biblical requirements: the principle of private property, the right of con-tract, the rule of law, future-orientation, capital investment, and accounting techniques. The morality of the market is derived from the morality of God’s Bible-revealed law.

And that is why the free market exists, so far as God is concerned.

Math, Design, and Life

From Why the Conclusion that Life Is Designed Really Is Inescapable

My recent book, Undeniable, makes the case not just that life is designed but also that this is obvious — you need no special training to see it. And yet, as with other obvious truths, some people prefer to deny this one than to fully embrace the attending implications.

For atheists to be in denial here isn’t surprising. Short of recanting, they have no option. For theists to eschew the claim that life is designed is much more puzzling, though, because nothing seems to force them to adopt that counterintuitive stance.

Most people in this second group are fairly described as theistic evolutionists, in that they accept the standard evolutionary explanation for how Earth came to be home to all the living things we see around us. But considering the magnitude of the difficulties that confront this standard view, why do they stand by it? Why do they prefer an oblique version of God’s creative action — where the created order created us — when the more direct alternative ought to sit well with them?

How on earth are atheists supposed to operate, if they don’t get a helping hand from apostates from within the Church? Rest assured: the day Christians get serious about exalting God and upholding His Laws, is the day the (official) number of atheists in the West (and probably throughout the world!) crashes back to the sub 1% range.

The approach I’m advocating is much simpler than the one you’re critiquing, Hans. Without worrying about how the thing in question came to be, we merely consider what must be in place in order for it to do what it does. No detailed answer is needed. All we have to do is imagine the list of requirements that would constitute a complete specification — details of overall shape, material or chemical composition, internal structure, chemical or mechanical processes, connectivity, and so on. By recognizing that these conditions are too restrictive to be met by accident, we establish that accidental causes cannot have brought the thing into existence.

And that is made easy by the fact that it takes only a modest list of modestly improbable requirements for success to be beyond the reach of chance. Once again, the reasoning here is that small fractions multiplied by the dozens always result in exceedingly small fractions.

With respect to the hypothetical human statue, the only escape from this conclusion is to argue that a rugged outcrop of marble would have to be altered by weather in only a few reasonably probable respects in order to convert it into a sculpted masterpiece. But this is so clearly and demonstrably untrue as to close off that escape decisively.

Likewise, with respect to the claim that blind natural causes converted primitive bacterial life into oaks and ostriches and orangutans, the only escape is to argue that conversions of this kind require only a few reasonably probable alterations. But, again, this is so clearly and demonstrably untrue as to close off that escape decisively.

And as we all know, the random creation of a masterpiece statue is so low as to be either flat-out impossible or a miracle.

And if it’s a miracle, it’s no longer random.

Earning Hatred for the Free Market

And now, we see even more clearly how the morality-free godlessness of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (and those who followed him) gave strength to the moralizing godlessness of today’s collectivists.

From North’s Christian Economics: Teacher’s Edition. (The bold is mine)

Here is a key philosophical problem faced by humanistic defenders of the free market. They begin with individuals who make choices. This is methodological individualism.

That is, they start with the will of Man, not the will of God. “Strictly in the name of an objective standard, which we can all agree on” said the atheistic snake with a smile…

They attempt to build the intellectual case for a coherent social order as the outcome of these decisions. e problem always arises with the question of ethics: right vs. wrong. It also comes with the question of political economic policy: good vs. bad, which is ultimately an ethical issue, but may seem to be merely pragmatic. There is no way logically to get from a multitude of opinions and decisions to a unified program of action. There is no way logically to get from microeconomic evaluations to macroeconomic policy. The policy decisions are at bottom ethical. Free market economists feign ethical neutrality. Defenders of economic planning by unelected state bureaucrats then announce that they come in the name of justice. Justice is based on morality. They get a hearing by the public and by politicians.

Trusting in Right-wing Enlightenment man-worshipers (who inevitably become State/Power worshipers, in time) is a fool’s game.

Free market economists attempt to counter this criticism of value-free economic theory by appealing to efficiency: reduced waste. Supposedly, everyone is in favor of reduced waste. Supposedly, this shared opinion is value-free. But it isn’t. There is no agreement on which waste should be eliminated. There is no agreement on what constitutes waste. The economist’s concept of efficiency always has a hidden component: an appeal to better and a rejection of worse.

Establishment Men prefer to slip in their beliefs (and covert, but intense, hostility to Christ) by appealing to objectivity and reality and science and reason.

“But who gets to decide what is objective, what is reality,
what is scientific, what is reasonable?”
“The Right Sort, of course!”

Critics of the free market respond: “Better for whom? Worse for whom?” They invoke social justice for the common man. They claim that state bureaucrats must intervene into the auction process in order to create new economic incentives that will motivate capitalists to change their scheduled output. Here is their argument. “The free market favors the strong, the rich,and the well educated. It discriminates against the weak, the poor, and the poorly educated. Good men must therefore intervene by means of state power on behalf of these people.” Defenders of the so-called social gospel then invoke the Bible’s trio of victims of injustice: the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. Critics of the free market claim the moral high ground. This is a politically powerful line of reasoning. The vast majority of voters want to think of themselves as people of high moral ideals.

Because of their devotion to atheism and their hatred of Christian ethics and law — remember Adam Smith’s refusal to ground the free market in the fact that God owns the world,  and He commands us not to steal! — the solid majority of Right-wing Enlightenment God-hating free market academics have no way to challenge Left-wing Enlightenment God-hating collectivists… who are still quite able to moralize at will, in the name of the People and the Leader.

That’s why von Mises – despite his intelligence and his bravery – was unable to break the hold of the collectivists. Rothbard, with his Aristotelian Natural Law beliefs, was a great deal better than von Mises’ Kantian atheism: but still, Rothbard was fundamentally Humanist, not Christian.

It will be up to Christians to bring liberty, and prosperity, and peace to the world. Great ideas are worthless if they don’t change reality, for the better.

The free market’s secular defenders counter the critics by arguing that the market really does not discriminate against the weak, the poor, and the poorly educated, but the voters rarely believe this line of reasoning. Why not? Because the free market’s defenders are explicit deniers of the morality of any kind in economic reasoning.

Battles are best won when the other side unilateral disarms. Like the libertarian free marketeer who hates the command, “Thou shall not steal.”

(Not because they object to the command itself: they just hate the One who gave it. They would prefer that the law be grounded in the power of the state, so the Right Sort — the Aristocracy, the Party, whatever — can carve out “select, reasonable, limited exceptions” for themselves. “For Reason of State/the People/the Race/the Church,” as always.)

Or when lazy, faithless, cowardly Christians point-blank refuse to expand the Kingdom of God to cover all things, sure that Satan will win every battle (Such faith in the power of the snake!), hoping that Jesus Christ will let them flee the Fight for the Light with some escapist Rapture belief system.

They are trying to counter critics who take what the critics claim is the moral high ground. Economists do not claim for themselves the high moral ground. In fact, they explicitly deny that there is any such thing as moral ground in economic analysis.

Such dedication to their hatred of God and His Commandments! Now, if there were only some victory-minded Christians who were dedicated in the love of God and all of His Commandments.

Regardless of the worthless, diseased opposition of some childless, craven, walking-dead, pointedly anti-Christian elite.

Economic analysis is value-free, they say. They usually lose this argument in the court of public opinion. They should lose it.

That’s North’s italics there, and rightly so.  “They should lose it.”

It is an illogical argument. From the moment that an economist recommends any public policy, he is smuggling value-laden criteria back into economic analysis. So, there is no level playing field between the free market’s advocates and the free market’s critics. The defenders of supposedly value-free economic reasoning are at a huge disadvantage from the outset.

Just as it should be. But they don’t mind: these value-free market economics don’t mind losing, so long as the victor agrees that God Should Just Shut Up.

The critics assert that the auction is inherently immoral. It is rigged in favor of the powerful, the rich, and the well educated. It is therefore unfair to the downtrodden. The market is actually a means of “trodding” them down. The market is not neutral, they say. It is downright immoral.

The defenders remain silent on this argument. They deny that morality has anything to do with economic analysis. en they appeal to economic efficiency. They appeal to comparative rates of national economic growth. They pretend that the statistical indexes used to calculate this are in some way morally neutral rather than expressions of ethics-laced opinions regarding what is to be counted as economic growth and what is not, such as the value of women’s unsalaried labor in their homes. The voters refuse to believe in either the possibility or the desirability of value-free economic analysis. They want justice for the downtrodden, especially when the politicians promise to force the rich to pay for this, leaving most voters unscathed.

Always the foul stench of theft, when these collectivists start speaking of money.

Christian economics denies the possibility of value-free analysis of anything, let alone the central economic institution of the modern world, the market. The defender of the free market says: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” The Christian economist adds this: “There ain’t no such thing as value-free economic analysis.” This assertion places a huge responsibility on him. He must do two things. First, he must show how the market process is at bottom moral. Second, he must show that all economic analysis is at bottom religious. In Part 2, I attempt the first task. In Part 6, I attempt the second.

Go get ’em, North!

Why Free-Market Atheism is Loathed

The very first field in the West to completely cut God off was not mathematics, but economics. “For Mammon is a jealous god…”

Yet, even though Right-Wing Enlightenment flavours freedom under atheistic-secularist cover delivers the goods, it lacks any moral foundations, and so the general population rightly doesn’t trust it.

While the Left-Wing Enlightenment has no more time for God than the Right-Wing, they are much more willing to use moralizing language to justify their power-grab… and the public, eager for some moral justice, laps it up.

To quote extensive from Gary North, in his book Christian Economics: Teacher’s Edition:

Christian economics denies that the economy is autonomous. It also denies that economic laws are autonomous. Everything is providential.

Humanistic economists see the economy as autonomous. They see all law as autonomous: economic law and natural law. Law is not created by God. Economic laws are not really laws, they insist. They are patterns imposed by scarcity and men’s interactions with scarcity, including civil laws. These explanations are not convincing to most people. Most people want to believe that the world is governed by ethical cause and effect. They want to believe that there are moral laws, not just statistical patterns. They want to believe in God, not an autonomous universe. is is why they are attracted to humanistic statist economists who preach that the economic world should be operate in terms of moral purpose. Humanistic free market economists deny all this.

They find that most people do not believe them.


Here are the covenantal questions.
1. Who’s in charge here? God, autonomous individuals, or the state?

2. To whom do I report? The free market or the state?

3. What are the rules? Private property rights or central plan targets?

4. What do I get if I obey? Profits or a medal?

5. Does this outfit have a future? On what basis?

There is no agreement on the answers to these questions. The answers are a matter of worldview. They are a matter of faith.

The Lord and God of the actual universe rewards those who obey Him, in truth and love and an unshakable faith.

Other Lords and other Gods claim to do the same. They may even succeed, for a time. (Even North Korea outperformed South Korea until the early 70s!)

And then the long-term, inescapable consequences of their idolatry kicks in. At the end of the day, the State simply doesn’t have the cash or the power to hold back God’s Law-Word for all time.

And in the meantime, the prices of their earlier mistakes — mistakes the prideful leaders of the nation don’t like to repent of, or even admit they were mistakes — keep on piling up.

All debts incur interest, financial or otherwise. And all debts will be paid in full, financially or otherwise.

I have built a case for economic coherence in terms of an analogy: an auction. But I have argued more than this. I argue that a local auction is a microcosm of the international auction known as the free market. Put differently, the microeconomics of a local auction is the macroeconomics of the free market. The reason why microeconomics is a valid representation of macroeconomics is because there is only one system of economics. It applies locally and internationally because its organizing principles are the same: private property, open entry, and the legal right to make a bid. The fundamental operational principle of an auction is this: high bid wins.

The heart of the auction process in the free market is the profit-and-loss system. There is a system of bidding: buyers vs. buyers, sellers vs. sellers. Out of this system comes an array of money prices. These prices reveal the limits of human action. Everyone asks himself: “What can I afford to pay?” People have subjective preferences. People order these hierarchically: first,second, third. People’s subjective preferences are limited by objective prices.

People look ahead. They plan for the future. They buy and sell in the present as a way to deal with the future. Out of these plans come profits and losses. For the buyer, a profit is found when he pays less than what he was prepared to pay: consumer’s surplus. For the seller, profit is a net return after all expenses have been paid: seller’s residual. The quest for profit drives the free market economy. Profits are positive sanctions. Losses are negatives sanctions. These sanctions determine winners and losers. This system of sanctions is inherent in the free market. They are endogenous. They are not applied from any institution outside the free market. They appear to be autonomous. They are not autonomous, as I showed in Chapter 12 of the student’s edition.

Christian economics shows that a higher morality undergirds the market process. The market does not rest on autonomous and non-moral patterns. It rests on the laws of God against theft.


If you want to understand the differences separating the rival schools of economic opinion, start with this premise: “ e high bid should win . . .most of the time.” Pay attention to the qualification: “most of the time.”Why not all of the time? Here is where self-professed ethically neutral economists sneak ethics into their analyses.

The wise Christian will make a special note of this paragraph, which is worthy of bolding:

Christian economics shows that a higher morality undergirds the market process. The market does not rest on autonomous and non-moral patterns. It rests on the laws of God against theft.

The Divine laws against theft are in force, always.

(Adam Smith — as a good Right-Wing Enlightenment Man —  grew to increasingly avoid Divine Law: that’s why the Wealth of Nations is grounded in the division of labour, and not the real foundation of economics, property & ownership rights and the laws against theft.

“The better to avoid the question, Whose the Original Owner? and Who Created the LAws Against Theft?”

This misdirection immediately led the Left-Wing God-haters to declare “A bureaucracy of well-trained professionals can better allocate resources than the free market!”

And thus, the rise of Communism, the Welfare State, and all the rest of the lies, oppression, and murder Adam’s Smith’s wilful error led to.

Straight from the time Eve (and then Adam) stole the fruit from a certain tree… up through the time the Aristocracy rewrote the laws of the country to legalize their crimes of theft, murder, perversity, and corruption… right up to today’s “theft by majority vote” Collectivists (both left and right wing).

The Laws of God are in full effect.

And how do I know this?

They are, slowly or quickly, enforced.

Christians today must prepare for the day their nations are bankrupted, as they refuse to pay the enormous debts they promised, and renegade from fulfilling their promises and obligations one way or another.

  • A few may openly default, but most will just eliminate their welfare payments. The truly poor will be cut off first, then the military, and then the middle class. The corporate welfare programs will be very last to go.

Christians must retain their liberty, and avoid the slave chains of long-term debt.

(Except, if with careful consideration, productive business debt. And maybe housing debt, if ti can be fully paid off in a short time, say seven years.)

Also, Christians must avoid being ensnared by welfare paychecks: those paychecks are based on lies and theft, and they will be cut off when you most need them. If the government offers you a pension, take it, but don’t trust it.