The Global Fertility Crash

“As birthrates fall, countries will be forced to adapt or fall behind. At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.

Population growth is vital for the world economy. It means more workers to build homes and produce goods, more consumers to buy things and spark innovation, and more citizens to pay taxes and attract trade. While the world is expected to add more than 3 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point. Falling fertility rates and aging populations will mean serious challenges that will be felt more acutely in some places than others…

Ultimately, no country will be left untouched by demographic decline. Governments will have to think creatively about ways to manage population, whether through state-sponsored benefits or family-planning edicts or discrimination protections, or else find their own path to sustainable economic growth with ever fewer native-born workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.”

The statements above are not from some Christian blog like this one that advocates for women marrying younger and having more children.  Instead, they actually come from a recently published article entitled “The Global Fertility Crash“,  written by Andre Tartar, Hannah Recht, and Yue Qiu for Bloomberg Business Week.

The estimates always differ between various government sources around the world in certain details.  They may disagree as to how much world population growth we will see in the next century.  Some sources show we may only grow by 1 billion people or less in the next century before the world population begins to decline.  Others show the world population may peak as early as 50 years from now.

But what all the studies agree upon is this.  In countries where women get college educations and careers fertility rates plummet.  In every single one of them.  Is is a very simple equation that no one can deny.

Women + Higher Education + Career = Falling Fertility Rates

Some might say “that’s fine, the world population is too high and needs to lower”.   That actually is not true, but let’s just go with that false premise.  When the world population shrinks from 8 or 10 billion to 2 billion over the next few centuries is that OK?  What about when it drops to 1 million?  What about when it drops to 100,000?

And this ignores a fact that this Bloomberg Business Week article states that “Population growth is vital for the world economy“.  This is just basic economics folks.  Population decline leads to economic decline which then eventually leads to the fall of governments and civilizations if that decline continues.

You see when you have a problem that is causing the decline of your people at a certain point you must address that problem.  And it will be addressed one way or the other.

It is an undeniable and indisputable fact that the fertility declines we see in Westernized nations are the direct result of women living their lives for higher education and careers instead of women living for the purpose for which God created them.

God did not say he made women to pursue education and careers and whatever made them happy.  But rather the Bible tells us in the passage below what God created women for and also men:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

God created man to image him, to live out his attributes, and thereby bring him glory.  And he created woman for man to bring man glory in her service and submission to him as man brings God glory in his service and submission to God.

It really is that simple folks.

We have lost our way as an American and Western civilization.

The Bible is crystal clear that women are called, not to higher education and careers, but rather to “marry, bear children, guide the house” (1 Timothy 5:14) and to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5).

The West Needs to Turn from Love of Self and Pleasure to Love of God

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God

2 Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)

This passage above from 2 Timothy is a perfect description of modern Western Civilization.   Our Western cultures encourage self love and rampant individualism instead of encouraging behavior that is for the best of one’s family and one’s country.  Blasphemy and children being disobedient to parents is common place.  We have unthankful and envious societies.   Mothers are without natural affection for their own unborn children and contract with doctors to murder their unborn children. Westerners are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.

Unless we turn from our rampant individualism and humanism and return to serving God and serving others instead of living only for ourselves our Western nations will fall.

The world has no answer to this problem of women having less children but the Bible does.  Restore women to their place in the home and restore God’s design of patriarchy which served human civilization for 6000 years before the rise of Feminism in the mid-19th century.

 

 

 

 

Our Existence as a Species Depends on Women Being Able to Murder Their Unborn Children?

“Our existence as a species really relies on women’s ability to be able to control their fertility. If women can’t control if, when, how many times to be pregnant, then they can’t control their education destiny and they can’t control their economic destiny and they can’t control their ability to really reach their full potential in society. And so, because of all of those things, I think abortion care is justice care.”  This is what traveling abortionist Colleen McNicholas claims is her motivation for traveling 400 miles per week between various abortion clinics to help where no abortionists are available.

McNicholas may help to murder up to 60 babies per day according to what she said in an interview with Kendall Ciesemier of Mic Dispatch.

Believe it or not I actually agree with one thing Colleen McNicholas said in the above statement.  We do need women to reach their full potential.   But the question is what does it look like for a woman to reach her full potential in this life?

Colleen McNicholas along with other feminists today believe that unless a woman has a college degree as well as a successful career outside the home, she has not reached her full potential.  But the Bible has a very different definition of what a woman reaching her full potential is.

The Biblical Definition of a Woman’s Full Potential

God did not create women to live for themselves and do whatever made them happy.  This is the lie that Christian feminists tell women today.  The Scriptures are clear that God did not make men or women to do whatever they wanted, but to fulfill his plan for his glory.

The Bible clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:9 that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  And the Bible tells us the larger spiritual purpose for which God created woman for man in the following passage:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

God created woman for man so that together they could model the relationship of God to his people and in the New Testament age – Christ and his church.  The Bible gives us details below of how a woman was meant to submit to and serve her husband and thus picture the church’s service to Christ:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Unless a woman is one of the few who have the gift of celibacy that they “may attend upon the Lord without distraction as 1 Corinthians 7:35 states, a woman can never reach her full potential as God has defined it without being married, bearing children and caring for the domestic needs of the home.

A woman reaching her full potential in God’s eyes has nothing to do with her having a college degree or a successful career outside the home. But rather it has everything to do with her fulfilling the purpose for which God created her which was to marry, bear children and care for the needs of her husband, her children and her home.

And women of ages past fully understood that this was what a woman’s full potential looked like.  This is why barren women were always so grieved.  The Bible speaks of what gave women their joy in the following passage:

“He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.”

Psalm 113:9 (KJV)

Is bearing children and keeping the house what brings women joy today? Sadly, the answer for the majority of women in our nation today is no.  And this needs to change.

We Need Women to Have More Children, Not Murder Their Children

We need women to have more children, not kill the ones they get pregnant with. Over the past half century since Second Wave Feminism of the 1960s and 1970s fertility rates of American born women have been consistently below the “replacement” level they need to be at.  Even liberal news outlets like Vox.com recognize this fact:

“The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1, enough to renew the population, is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US. By 2018, it declined again — to 1.72, another record low. “The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement for the last decade,” the new CDC report, which is based on more than 99 percent of US birth records, reads.

It’s not yet clear exactly what’s driving the trend, and the CDC authors don’t offer any guesses.”

But of course, to liberals, it is “not yet clear what’s driving the trend”.  Why? Because they refuse to admit exactly what is right in front of their faces.  Women are having less children because they believe the lie that Colleen McNicholas believes that a woman cannot reach her full potential without getting a degree and having a career.

They are told to spend their most fertile years pursuing education and a career and of course engage in all the sex they want along the way.  And then if they do happen to get pregnant, they can just kill the little inconvenient human life living in their womb.

And even if a woman did not ever have sex until she finished all her higher education and was well established in her career the stats show that such career women only have one or two children at most.  This is not even enough to replace the current population.

Will Humanity Go Extinct?

I do not believe humanity will go extinct.

The first reason I do not believe humanity will go extinct is because the Bible says so.  The Bible tells us in the following passages that Christ will return to a world with nations of men, maybe not the same nations we have today, but there will still be humanity here on earth and it will still be divided into nations.

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 (KJV)

In the Book of Revelation, we are given more detail on Christ’s coming reign on earth:

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Revelation 19:15 (KJV)

This is not the “nice guy” or feminized version of Jesus that all our liberal Christians friends like to portray.  This is the vengeful God of the Old Testament that liberal Christians like to pretend does not exist. In Christ’s first incarnation he came as a lamb to pay for the sins of the world, in his next incarnation he is coming as the Lion of Judah and as a conquering king.

But there is a second reason that the world will not go extinct which does not require the supernatural event of the Second Coming of Christ.  Even if Christ does not return in the next few hundred years or the next thousand years God’s natural law of reaping what we sow will not allow the current despotism of women in Western countries to continue.  And I will explain why next.

The population of individual nations, western or otherwise, can only fall so far before their governments will collapse and new governments will come into power to take measures to address the problem of low fertility.

The United Nations Report “WORLD POPULATION TO 2300” admits that if the low fertility rates of Western nations continue ,even with higher fertility rates in non-westernized nations, the total world population could begin to drop as soon as the year 2050.  And if women continue having low fertility rates the world population will drop from its peak just over 8 billion to just over 2 billion by 2300.

If you think the world population dropping by 75% is not going to cause political unrest, civil wars and revolutions across the globe you are very naïve.

Let me put that in perspective.  In World War II no country lost most than 25% of its population and most were around 15%.  No period in human history has seen a population loss of 75% except one which was the great flood recorded in the Bible.

It is in this world that many nations will finally recognize feminism for the cancer on society that it is and the despotism of women in Western countries will be overthrown and replaced with the historic societal order of patriarchy being reestablished.

There is a third possible way that abortion and the despotism of women will end.  And it would be the least bloody.   Conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims could simply outbreed liberals to the point that they have no political power.   It not an impossible scenario, as conservative religious families have far more children than liberal families do.  However, I must return to what the Scriptures say.  The Scriptures do not indicate that the world will get better and better before Christ returns.  It shows the world will get worse.  So, I am thinking this third possibility is less likely unless God means for things to get a little better before they get worse before his return.

Conclusion

Fellow believers, we can take rest and find comfort in the blessed hope of our Savior’s return.  One day he will wipe out all this evil.

But in the mean time we must do as the pro-life rally sign at the top of this article suggests.  We must mount a societal and political resistance to abortion at every place we can.   We also need to be educating our children about the link between abortion and feminism. Abortion was a direct result of feminism.

Rolling back abortion is the first step in destroying feminism and taking down the current despotism of women that exists in America and other Western nations.

We need to get out and vote for candidates that support a Biblical worldview which includes being pro-life. This means standing behind pro-life candidates for all public offices including President Trump.

Why Socialism and Communism Are Unbiblical

Yesterday President Trump stated at the U.N. General Assembly that “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and the destroyer of societies”.   He also stated that “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: Power for the ruling class”.

In my previous article on his speech, “President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism”, I stated that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.

In response to that statement I had a commenter write in making the following statement which ended with a challenge to me:

“Socialism and communism are political ideals, comparable to capitalism, which American Christians seem to collectively elevate. If you are going to say these first two are “denominations” of secular humanism, you must be able to defend capitalism as viewed through the same lens, or your argument is unbalanced. I’m curious to know how you would you back this up?

Yes, I can defend capitalism, not only from a political and economic perspective, but most importantly from a Biblical perspective and that will be the emphasis of this article.

The heart of capitalism is private property rights. In a purely capitalist society, each person retains 100% control of their private property which includes all the money they earn from their ideas, use of their lands or other properties as well as their labors. America was founded on private property rights and capitalism and the Constitution originally banned the concept of income taxes.

The United States government, including the military, was almost completely funded by something Trump is using today to crack down on China – Tariffs (taxes on goods coming in from Foreign countries).

There were incomes taxes during the Civil War and some attempts at income taxes afterwards until the courts ruled income taxes to be a violation of the Constitution.  It was then that President Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the effort to put in a Constitutional amendment for an income tax promising it would only be a 1 percent tax on the very rich.  This resulted in the 16th Amendment being passed in 1913.

Fast forward just a couple of decades and then FDR raised that income tax to 95 percent on the rich to fund his Socialist makeover of America.  JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 70% and then Reagan did the largest tax rate drop in history lowering the top rate to 28%.

The Bible supports the concept that what a man earns is his and this God given right is found in the 10th commandment:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

The Bible speaks of it being God’s gift to man that he is able to work and then enjoy the fruits of his labor:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

In Matthew 20:15, Jesus when telling the parable of the land owner and his workers and how he paid them for different amounts of work said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

God authorizes the government only to takes pay for the salaries of government officials and the necessary functions of government.

“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:6 (KJV)

And this is also a tenant of capitalism that the government should only take taxes to pay for the services of government officials and things that government should be doing like building roads, bridges, law enforcement and the military.

The Bible also strongly encourages free will giving for the poor and Jesus Christ talked about giving to the poor in the Gospel of Mark:

“For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”

Mark 14:7 (KJV)

Notice two important concepts though that Christ taught about giving to the poor.  First, Christ said “ye have the poor with you always”, meaning we will never eliminate poverty in this sin cursed world.  Only God can eliminate poverty when he removes sin and makes the world anew.  Secondly, Christ reaffirmed that giving to the poor is to be done based on the free will of the giver when he stated “whensoever ye will”.

The Apostle Paul reaffirmed the concept of free will giving both for the poor as well as giving to support local churches when he made the following statement:

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

And God builds on this by admonishing those who are rich in this world to be rich in their giving:

“17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”

1 TImothy 6:17-19 (KJV)

Socialism and Communism trample the God given right of private property.  Communism does it to a greater extent than Socialism in that Communism allows no private property as all property is owned by and distributed by the state.  But Socialism still violates God’s law by having the government come in and seize a man’s private property and then distributing that property to another.

In essence both Communism and Socialism are the legalized theft of private property by government and the policies of these systems effectively nullify  God given private property rights.

God only gave the government power to tax to pay for government officials and the normal functions of government, not for re-distributive purposes.

In God’s design, the poor and those on the lower economic side of the scale are to be cared for by close family or even extended family and only if they don’t have family then they are cared for by the church.

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

Conclusion

There are four ways in God’s order, which is the natural order, that an individual may righteously gain property(including money).

1. By exchanging their direct labor or ideas to others to gain property or by lending out their existing property to others for their use. (Deuteronomy 24:15,1 Timothy 5:18)

2. By receiving such property as the spoils of war. (Deuteronomy 20:14)

3. By receiving an inheritance. (Proverbs 13:22)

4. By receiving a freely given gift. (Hebrews 13:16)

Socialism and Communism violate the natural order and God’s design by forcibly taking one person’s property and then giving it to another which did not earn such property.

And this is why President Trump is right that socialism and communism are “the destroyer of societies”.  They destroy societies for the same reason that feminism destroys marriages, because they violate God’s design of human nature and the rights he has given to mankind.

President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism

Today in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump used a very interesting word in his speech regarding globalism.  And that word was “religious”.  He stated that “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders causing them to ignore their own nationalist interests. But as far as America is concerned those days are over”.

President Trump probably does not understand where that “religious pull” from Globalism originates from. But as Christians we must under that the “religious pull” of globalism is a pull toward humanism, and specifically secular humanism.

Secular Humanism – the Religion that Claims Not to be a Religion

Secular humanists deny that Humanism is a religion, yet Humanism has all the core tenants of a religion.  It worships something and it has a system of values just like a religion does.

Humanists claim that because they do not worship a deity or believe in the supernatural, that humanism it is not a religion.   But you can worship something that is not supernatural or a deity.  And that is exactly what Humanism does.

The Bible speaks of Humanism in Romans 1:18-27 (KJV):

“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Does this not describe what we are seeing today in our world?

We need to recognize that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.   They all have the same end goals even though they may slightly disagree among themselves as to how to get to those goals.

Humanism is a religion that denies the existence of God, even though God’s existence is plainly seen in nature.  It is a religion that worships education making people think they are wise when they truly are fools.  It is a religion that glorifies nature rather than glorifying God.  It worships “created things rather than the Creator”.  And it leads to rampant sexual immorality including homosexuality and transgenderism.

Some Christians have tried to claim that they are “Christian Humanists”.  The unfortunate reality is that while a humanist a few centuries ago simply meant someone who believed in “free inquiry” the secular humanists morphed this into something much broader while making atheism its foundation from which all humanist values flow.

Paul Kurtz , the Council for Secular Humanism founder, wrote the following in “The Humanist Alternative” (pg 82):

“Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”

Professing Christians must come to the realization that the tenants of humanism along with the tenants of its evil spawns like environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism do not mesh with a Biblical worldview.  They are completely contradictory.

President Trump – God’s Imperfect Instrument Against Humanism

President Trump is not a perfect man.  He claims to have faith in Christ but he certainly is not a perfect Christian in either his understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith. And sadly, President Trump, like many professing Christians and churches today, is not completely unstained by the evil influences of humanism.  He has shown support for some feminist tenants as well as support for the LGBTQ community.

However, God has used him to be great defender of Israel as well as the rights and freedoms of Bible believing Christians here in the United States.  God took a man who was previously pro-abortion and turned him into the greatest defender of unborn human life this nation has seen since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.

Speaking on the topic of innocent unborn human life President Trump made the following statement today at the U.N. General Assembly:

“Americans will also never tire in defending innocent life. We are aware the many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right through tax payer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery.   Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life. Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God.”

There is absolutely no denying that God has chosen President Trump at this point in history as his imperfect instrument.  Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Jewish people look at President Trump as they did King Cyrus who helped them rebuild Jerusalem. Listen to what the God said about King Cyrus:

“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Isaiah 45:13 (KJV)

And Cyrus was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination and he was not even a Jew.  But God used Cyrus as instrument of his will and that is exactly what he is doing in raising a warrior in the form of President Trump to take on globalism and environmentalism which are major pillars of humanism.

President Trump’s Stand Against Globalism

President Trump made the following declaration regarding globalism and the threat it poses to freedom:

“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over this large magnificent plant, the truth is plain to see.  If you want freedom take pride in your country.  If you want democracy hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace love your nation.  Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.  The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well-being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.

Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration.  Each you has the absolute right to protect your borders. And so of course does our country.”

Again, this is one of those areas where President Trump may not even realize the full extent as to why globalism is bad.

Yes, globalism threatens freedom because whenever you consolidate power,  freedom is lost.   This is why America’s founders believed in limited government and breaking up powers between the federal, state and local governments.  And even when the power was divided between these three levels, they believed that the ultimate power rested in the people.

But there is more to why globalism is bad then just it threatening freedom. It also threatens God’s institution of nations which was one of three of the institutions he created.   In the following three Scripture passages we see that is was God who divided mankind into nations giving them each a different language and sending them across the face of the earth:

“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Genesis 11:9 (KJV)

“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:8 (KJV)

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Acts 17:26 (KJV)

Humanism Aims to Destroy the Three Institutions God Created

As we have just shown from the Bible, the concept of a nation state, which President Trump so strongly believes in, is one of three institutions which God created.  And those three institutions are the family, the church and the nation.  He created each of these institutions for different purposes and divided powers and responsibilities between these three institutions of society.

SecularHumanism.org states the following in an article entitled “What is Secular Humanism”:

“secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.”

As we can see from the statement above, Humanism seeks the destruction of the traditional controls of the patriarchal family, the local church and the concept of nation states.   Their goal is to replace these traditional God given institutions with an atheistic, individualist and globalist society.

Humanism’s War on The Church

For over 150 years, humanists have been successfully waging a war on local churches both from without and within.  In the late 19th century humanists infiltrated the churches from within causing them to doubt the Bible which lead to the great modernist controversies and the rise of Christian fundamentalism to fight it.  In the 20th century they began attacking churches and Christianity in schools using the courts.  They were successful in having prayer and the Bible banned from schools and threatened churches with losing their tax-exempt status if they spoke out on political issues or if they publicly supported politicians who supported their values.

Humanism’s War on Biblical Gender Roles

During the same period humanists were attacking the churches, they also began attacking traditional and Biblical gender roles as God designed them with the rise feminist groups in the mid-19th century.  The roles of women in marriage and society began to be challenged and God’s order of male leadership in society, the church and home was undermined. This of course led to a weakening of marriage, the family unit and sexual morality.

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to stand against the rising tide of gay marriage advocates.  While this reflected the will of the American people at the time, it outraged the left and especially those in Hollywood.  Hollywood elites looked to a new plan to gain public support for gay marriage.  They started incorporating more gay characters into TV shows and movies and documentaries as much as they could to desensitize the American public to the gay lifestyle.   After almost 20 years of Hollywood doing this, national polls showed that public sentiment regarding gay marriage had changed and gay rights advocates took their case to the Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage thus legalizing it in all fifty states.  Chief Justice Roberts in his decent on the courts gay marriage decision knew exactly what would happen because of the decision when he wrote:

“Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”

In essence the court set the stage for many future court battles between the First Amendment which guarantees free speech and the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs against against the 14th amendment which guarantees due process and equal protection(this is what all discrimination laws and cases are based on).  In other words the battle is between freedom of speech and religion verses discrimination.

Humanists believe that the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs takes a back seat to discrimination concerns.  Those on the right whether they be libertarians or evangelical Christians believe that the exercise of one’s free speech rights and religious beliefs trumps discrimination concerns.

And these are the battles that we are seeing raging in our courts over the past 4 years.  Our side has  had some victories and the Humanists have had their victories.

Humanism’s War on the Concept of Nation States

One of the first law’s that America passed was the 1790 Naturalization Act which stated that only “free white person[s] … of good character” could become citizens of the United States.  While these laws would today be considered “racist” they were in fact in keeping with the tradition of nations throughout history that protected their dominant ethnic groups as a unifying factor of a nation.

After the Civil War, Socialist Humanists began the new narrative that America was a “nation of immigrants”.  This is when “the melting pot” ideology began to spread. America’s motto of “E pluribus unum” which is found on our nation’s currency originally referred to the 13 colonies becoming one nation.  But the 19th century socialist humanists reinterpreted this famous American phrase for their own multicultural and globalist goals. They changed the mean of “E pluribus unum” from a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one to “Out of many nations one nation”.  The idea was to water down America’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture with many other religions and cultures to break down the unity of the American nation.

Humanists won a major victory with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  While there were certainly issues with Jim Crow laws that needed to be addressed the law undermined private property rights and the freedom of association.   It also laid the foundation for gay rights and now transgenders are trying to use it to shove their wicked ways in the faces of Christian business owners. Humanists won another major victory with the 1965 Immigration Act which abolished racial quotas which favored immigrants from northern European nations.

In the 20th Century, American Humanists began using the courts to push their humanist agenda on the nation.  If they could not pass a law to get what they wanted, they would simply go to a court and find judges who would agree with them.  American humanist judges used the philosophy of “if the words of the Constitution don’t say something, just reinterpret the words to make them say what you want”.

But in more recent years Humanists have taken off all pretenses and they are calling for the outright abolishment of national borders in their quest for globalism and a one world government.  In 2015, a year before President Trump was elected to office, the Atlantic ran an article entitled “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely” with the sub heading being “No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time”.  Trump ran on exactly the opposite premise and won the 2016 election in large part because it.

We as Bible believing Christians must take a stand.  We must get out and vote. We must use all the legal means at our disposal to fight back against the humanist assaults on our God given liberties.  That means Christians need to engage in law suits using the first Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and religion to protect themselves and their businesses from Humanist lawsuits.  We need to use the very legal weapons that Humanists use against us against them.

We must defend and uphold God’s three institutions of the family, the church and the nation state.

Some on both the right and left have called this a “cold civil war” while others have called it “the Second American Civil War”. And I agree with them in those descriptions.  That is exactly what is happening in our nation and we must face this reality.

We must stop allowing leftists to paint us into a corner and shame us for believing such “radical” concepts like the one Mark 10:6 states that “God made them male and female”.  God did not make people transgender; the corruption of the sin nature makes people transgender.

We must stop allowing leftists to redefine what love is by saying that that two men or two women can love each other in the special way that God only meant for men and women to do in marriage.  We must acknowledge that there are some kinds of love and some kinds of desire that are indeed “vile affections” according to God’s Word in Romans 1:26.

We must stop allowing leftists to tell us that we are acting “inhumanely” for believing a nation should have borders that are enforced.

President Trump today also raised another God given right that we should not be afraid to defend:

“The United States will uphold the right to keep and bear arms. We will uphold our Second Amendment.”

The Bible affirms the God given right to self-defense in passages like Exodus 22:2 and Nehemiah 4:14 and we read in Ecclesiastes 3:3 that there is indeed “A time to kill” and in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is “a time of war”.

And just as God used a non-Jewish person in the form of King Cyrus to accomplish his will, so too we as Christians must be willing to form political coalitions with those who hold to and believe in liberty and freedom as we do.  We must be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who defend basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.  We should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who still believe in the concept of a nation state and national borders. And we certainly should be able to stand with anyone who stands for the life of the unborn.

 

 

 

Discharged from Military Due to False Accusations of Sexual Harassment

“I was recently separated from the military under a GENERAL administrative separation, and the result was the loss of both my GI Bill and Unemployment benefits (due to accusations of sexual harassment). Maybe you can help me through the healing process, and perhaps fighting back on this. – glassadonis”

glassadonis,

I am sorry to hear of your troubles. The unfortunate truth is that when it comes to sexually related crimes our judicial systems, both civilian and military, have basically thrown out the American, English and Biblical concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

The Bible tells us the following about God’s standard for establishing guilt for committing a crime:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”

Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

Under God’s standard of justice, there had to be a minimum of two witnesses to a crime for it be established.  And if the two witnesses were proven to have lied then the same punishment that would have happened to the accused would happen to them.  Imagine if we had that standard today?  I don’t think we would have all these false accusations of harassment.

Does this mean that sometimes guilty men will go free? Yes.  But God considered it a greater injustice for an innocent man to be convicted than for a guilty man to go free. This used to be the standard of American justice for all crimes.

But today we have given women a free ticket.  They can falsely accuse any man they want with no proof and they suffer nothing for it.  And when it comes to sexually related crimes – the person accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.  If you can’t find multiple witnesses to prove your innocence, then you are guilty.

All you can do is fight back with lawyers the best you can and even then you may not prevail.

When you have done everything you can to fight back and prove your innocence yet still you suffer wrongly for something you did not do, then you must look to Christ’s example of “suffering wrongfully”:

“19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.”
1 Peter 2:19-20 (KJV)

I am very sorry that your military career was destroyed by the false accusations of this woman. But what you don’t want to do is get stuck in a pattern of self-pity and bitterness.  That will only hurt you and prolong you getting on with your life.  There is an old saying about bitterness that is very true.  “Being bitter at someone is like taking poison hoping for the that person to die”.

Give this injustice to God.

We’re Not Here Because of Men At All?

According to Elizabeth Warren “we’re not here because of men at all”. This is what she said this last Monday to a roaring crowd of over 20,000 people who came to hear her speak at Washington Square Park in Lower Manhattan.

She even emphasized the word “men” so everyone would know what she meant.

Now those who will try and defend Warren against charges of man-bashing or misandry will say she was just trying to show the accomplishments of a great woman.

Here was her statement in a larger context:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women

So, what did one woman — one very persistent woman, backed up by millions of people across this country — get done? Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Abolition of child labor. Minimum wage. The right to join a union. Even the very existence of the weekend”.

Warren was using this area, not far from the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory where 146 people, most female immigrants, lost their lives in a fire in 1911 to highlight the life of a woman named Frances Perkins.

Frances Perkins (1880-1965), was a socialist who worked in the woman’s suffrage movement. She witnessed the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire first hand and later went on to become FDR’s labor secretary and the first female cabinet member.  Perkins was indeed the brainchild behind much of FDR’s new deal leading up the drafts for Social Security, minimum wage laws, union laws and child labor laws.

So, what is the problem with what Elizabeth Warren said on Monday?

First, she did not say “we are not here to celebrate famous men, but to celebrate a famous woman”.  That would have been fine.  When she said “We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women” the “here” she meant was the modern culture and society we live in.  A society that has a 40-hour work week, social security, child labor bans, unions and a minimum wage.

The problem is that while it might sound cool to say “we’re not here because of men at all” the fact is Francis Perkins worked with FDR and without FDR’s larger vision, charisma and political mastery Perkin’s ideas may have never come to past.

So, no Elizabeth Warren – you were there, speaking in our modern social welfare state, because of a woman AND a man, not just because of a woman.

And is that not the case for all us in this life? We live because a man and a woman came together as God designed them to do.

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”.

1 Corinthians 11:11 (KJV)

But now that we have established that we are in fact “here” in a modern social welfare state because of both men and women we must ask ourselves another question.  Were the changes that the New Deal brought about a good thing for America?

Was the New Deal Good for America?

In their article “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression”, Jim Powell and Burton W. Folsom made the following observations of FDR’s New Deal:

“The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, unemployment in the United States had soared to an unprecedented 16.3 percent. In human terms that meant that over eight million Americans who wanted jobs could not find them. In 1939, after almost two full terms of Roosevelt and his New Deal, unemployment had not dropped, but had risen to 17.2 percent. Almost nine and one-half million Americans were unemployed.

On May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!

the National Recovery Administration, which was Roosevelt’s centerpiece, fixed prices, stifled competition, and sometimes made American exports uncompetitive. Also, his banking reforms made many banks more vulnerable to failure by forbidding them to expand and diversify their portfolios. Social Security taxes and minimum-wage laws often triggered unemployment; in fact, they pushed many cash-strapped businesses into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to produce, raised food prices and kicked thousands of tenant farmers off the land and into unemployment lines in the cities. In some of those cities, the unemployed received almost no federal aid, but in other cities — those with influential Democratic bosses — tax dollars flowed in like water.”

FDR’s agenda was not just bad economic policy, but it was actually an attack on some fundamental principles that America was founded on.  Burton Folsom explains this in his article  “Which Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression?”:

“According to Charles Merriam, vice president of the NRPB, “[I]t should be the declared policy of the United States government, supplementing the work of private agencies as a final guarantor if all else failed, to underwrite full employment for employables. . . .” That idea launched what Merriam and the NRPB dubbed “A New Bill of Rights.” FDR would call it his Economic Bill of Rights. Included was a right to a job “with fair pay and working conditions,” “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all.”

New Bill of Rights

FDR viewed this Economic Bill of Rights as his tool for guaranteeing employment for veterans (and others) after World War II. But it was more than a mere jobs ploy; it had the potential to transform American society. The first Bill of Rights, which became part of the Constitution, emphasized free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion and assembly. They were freedoms from government interference. The right to speak freely imposes no obligation on anyone else to provide the means of communication. Moreover, others can listen or leave as they see fit.

But a right to a job, a house, or medical care imposes an obligation on others to pay for those things. The NRPB implied that the taxpayers as a group had a duty to provide the revenue to pay for the medical care, the houses, the education, and the jobs that millions of Americans would be demanding if the new bill of rights became law. In practical terms this meant that, say, a polio victim’s right to a wheelchair properly diminished all taxpayers’ rights to keep the income they had earned. In other words, the rights announced in the Economic Bill of Rights contradicted the property rights promised to Americans in their Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.”

A guaranteed income, “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all” sounds like something we are hearing today from many Democrats whether they deny the “Socialist” label or not.  As the old saying goes “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”.

This ideology is not new.  Its been tried time and time and again and it continues to fail.  It fails because it violates how God has designed human nature and it also fails to take into account how sin corrupts God’s design of human nature.

How the New Deal Hurt American Culture for the Worse

People are told a false narrative today that before the New Deal there was no social safety net when in fact there was.  The social safety net was the one that God designed – which was the family and the church.

The Scriptures tell us that God has declared that it is the family and the church that are to care for the poor and needy. The first level of God’s social safety net is the family.

“4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God…

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

1 Timothy 5: 4 & 8 (KJV)

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

And it is only if a person has no family to help them, that the church should then step in to help the poor.  And then this giving for the poor is to be given of one’s free will, not under compulsion.

“6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 (KJV)

Even in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel where God commanded giving for the poor, there was no such thing as tax collector.  The giving was freely done by individuals to help the poor and needy around them.

And this is one the big divides between Leftists and those who believe in freedom.  In his article “Whatever You May Think of Republicans, Don’t Call Them ‘Stingy’” John Tamny writes:

“Republicans are greedy. They’re “out for themselves” as evidenced by their reflexive support of “tax cuts for the rich.” According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the GOP is the party of “hate.”

Conversely, it’s safe to say that the Democrats are rather charity minded. Figure that their voting habits are invariably informed by compassion for the have nots. Democrats feel, and their intense emotions are deep when it comes to correcting what they see as societal injustices of the economic variety.

Except that such an impression about charity and charitable giving would be incorrect

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.” Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors “who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.” As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.”

As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooks’s study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income.”

In other words, most Leftists, Socialists and Democrats are only generous with other people’s money.  While most Conservatives and Republicans who believe in the God given right of private property, are highly generous with their private property in helping the poor and needy around them through their churches or private charitable organizations.

And this was one of the worst impacts of the New Deal on American culture.  People no longer saw it as their duty to take in their parents or other relatives in their old age. Extended family members no longer saw it as their duty to care for the poor relatives.  And this affected giving and participation in church charitable organizations as well.

This change gave powers and responsibilities that were meant for families and churches to the government and in the process this change weakened both the institutions of the family and church.

No, Socialists Did Not Give Us the Weekend – God did

I just had to chuckle when I read Elizabeth Warren’s statement that Francis Perkins and the New Deal gave us “the Weekend”.  Actually, it was God who gave us the concept of the weekend.

“9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates”

Exodus 20:9-10 (KJV)

Now we know under the New Covenant that we do not have to take our day of rest on Saturday, we can do it on Sunday or even another day of the week.

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”

Colossians 2:16 (KJV)

But the concept of a day of rest, a “weekend” of sorts, was God’s design. And Americans believed in this long before the New Deal. In fact, it was illegal in many parts of the United States to work on Sunday throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and even in the first half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

Elizabeth Warren was flat wrong that society has come to where it has only because of women and not “because of men at all”.  Men have cooperated with and helped women and women have cooperated with and helped men to get us where we are today.  And where we are today is not good thing from God’s perspective.

I would argue that men cooperated with women in many ways that they should not have.  One of the biggest mistakes men cooperated with women on was in voting for woman’s suffrage in 1919 and 1920.  After woman’s suffrage, the New Deal helped to further weaken the place of the family and the church in society.

And just as feminism has proven to be a failure, so too has socialism.  Every time socialism is tried, it fails.  And in the same way that feminism can only exist on the backs of men if they allow it, so too social welfare states can only exist based on the success of capitalism within their nations.

On the subject of child labor laws, I would encourage you to read Jeffery’s Tucker’s article for the Mises Institute entitled “The Trouble With Child Labor Laws” .  And on the subject of Minimum wage laws you should check out this article by Jon Miltimore entitled “The New York Times Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00” .

Terrorism – An Evil That Should Unite All of Us

Within a span of less than 24 hours two terrorists coming from polar opposite political ideologies sought to terrorize the civilian population of the United States leaving 31 people dead and about 50 injured.  The first terrorist to strike was a 21-year-old white supremacist named Patrick Crusius on Saturday just after 10:30 AM.  He drove 10 hours from Allen, Texas to El Paso, Texas to carry out his heinous act of terrorism in Walmart where he opened fire with an AK-47 rifle killing 20 and wounding 26 more.  Then in less than 24 hours after just 1 A.M. a 24-year-old Antifa supporter and self-proclaimed “leftist” named Connor Betts killed 9 people and wounded 27 others in Dayton, Ohio.

About 20 minutes before Patrick Crusius launched his terrorist attack on the Walmart in El Paso, Texas he posted his manifesto online as to why he was doing it.  His reason could be summed in the following statement from his manifesto:

“This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion… makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here.”

Patrick Crusius purposefully targeted El Paso because he knew that it was 80 percent Hispanic and he wanted to make sure he killed Hispanics. As of this morning 2 more victims have died bringing the death toll to 22 people killed by this murderer.

He stated his dismay toward both Republicans and Democrats for their inaction.

In the manifesto he would later go on to say that it would be unrealistic to have all non-whites leave the United States and that instead the United States would have to eventually be broken up into different territories for the various races in order to keep unity among the various peoples.

But he was not consistent in his ideology either.  He supported the concept of a universal basic income to offset people losing their jobs due to automation and he also spoke of his concerns over the destruction of the environment – both of which are leftist positions.

Heavy.com  managed to scrape Connor Betts Twitter posts before Twitter took his account down.  He made statements like the following:

“Kill every fascist”

“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding”. 

Betts was a Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders supporter as well.

Connor Betts agreed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s assessment of ice detention centers as “concentration camps” and stated “Cut the fences down. Slice ICE tires. Throw bolt cutters over the fences”.

The commonality we can see in both these cases is that both these killers sought to terrorize the citizens of the United States to bring attention to their political views and causes.

Terrorism Is Never Right

After the Charlottesville in August of 2017 I wrote an article entitled “We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism” and in that I spoke of the fact that terrorists come from many different races, religious and political backgrounds.

In that article I gave the following definition of Terrorism:

“Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change.  Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.

It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands.  Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.

So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.”

What Patrick Crusius and Connor Betts did fits this definition to a tee.

I will restate here exactly what I said after Charlottesville in 2017:

While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.

Socialism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Violent Video Games and Guns Are Not the Cause of Terrorism

We have heard already and will continue to hear in the days and weeks to come that Donald Trump and anyone who believes that the people of United States have a right to determine who comes into their country are the cause of the massacre which occurred in El Paso, Texas on Saturday.  We will also hear how gun rights and violent video games caused this massacre as well.

But the fact is we who believe in the concepts of nationalism and national sovereignty and the right to keep and bear arms are no more responsible for what happened in El Paso than Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were responsible for what occurred in Dayton, Ohio.

So, what caused these deaths in both El Paso and Dayton? Two things.

The first is Mental instability. A mentally stable person does not go out and shoot up a crown of innocent people whether to make a political point or just make a name for himself.

The second is the ideologies of White Supremacists and Antifa.   Both groups believe in using violence to achieve their political goals.  White Supremacist groups believe in using violence in an attempt to intimidate minorities in America.  Antifa believes in using violence to silence nationalists, conservatives and any other group which does not support their globalist and socialist goals.

My Position on The Issue of Race

Anyone who has read this blog for a long length of time knows that I have written extensively on the topic of race.  We as Christians cannot avoid it and we cannot sweep it under the rug.

Victor Davis Hanson in his article for the National Review – “America: History’s Exception” writes:

    “The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity. Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.”

I believe, like nations of the past that attempted to “unite diverse tribes” we too have “fared poorly”. We had a civil war and multiple riots and societal upheavals over the issue of race in America.

Whites have attacked Blacks and Hispanics, and Black and Hispanics have attacked Whites for many years.  And it is absolutely true that racially based crimes have spiked in recent years and the vast majority of those has been committed by whites against racial minorities.

But the question is this, is this because of Donald Trump or something else?

In High schools, colleges and universities Whites are attacked under the guise of “Whiteness” programs.

Whites have been bombarded now for several years with major news outlets telling them things like “The US white majority will soon disappear forever” and books like Robert P. Jone’s the “The End of White Christian America” .

And let us not forget the targeted assassinations of predominately white police officers in 2016.

All of these kinds of events in recent years are like kindling in the furnace of White Supremist groups and this why the attacks from these groups have increased. Again, it must be stated that these things I have just mentioned do NOT justify such attacks or make them right in anyway.

It has been wisely said that life is 10 percent, what happens to you and 90 percent how you react to it.  Some Whites react to the attacks on Whites, “Whiteness”, “White Privilege” and proclamations of the coming demise of the White majority in America with jubilee and celebration.  Others like White Supremacist groups lash out in violence.  The overwhelming majority of Whites remain silent for fear of being associated with violent White supremacist groups.  And a small minority of Whites, of whom I am one, speak out against both White supremacists as well as those who attack Whites simply for not being ashamed of their ancestry or wanting their ethnicity to continue to thrive in America.

Think about this for a minute. If any white person expresses even the least concern about their shrinking numbers in America, or if a white person encourages other people to have more children because their fertility rates have been lower – that person is denounced as a White Supremacist.

In other words, the only way to not be called a White supremacist today is if you are totally cool with the White population in America shrinking and you vehemently condemn “whiteness” and “white privilege”.

Do I think like White Supremacists and White Nationalists that Americans of northern European decent have some divine right from God to be the majority ethnic group in America? Of course not!

But then let’s ask another question.  While no group has some divine right on America, does every ethnic group in America have the right to encourage its ethnicity to grow by having more children? The answer is YES.  Yet in America every ethnic group in America can try to encourage its growth except whites.  For whites to do so is racist and evil.  There is no logic in such condemnation.

And this also goes to political concerns. It is a well-known fact that various ethnic groups tend to cluster in the neighborhoods in which they choose to live, the people whom they choose to date and marry, the churches they attend and even which political party they vote for.  Even in large liberal cities which are by far the most multiracial areas, if you go down to the neighborhood level there is almost always a majority race in that neighborhood.   If you don’t believe me just check out all these facts I have listed from multiple university and other sources that studied racial segregation as it still exists in America today.

In other words, most people marry someone of their own race, most people attend a church whose overwhelming majority is their race, most people tend to live in neighborhoods that are mostly their own race and when people vote they tend to vote with their race.

And in America most minority groups tend to vote as a block for liberal, progressive and big government policies while a large majority of whites tend to vote for more conservative policies.

So, the racial divide is very much a political ideology divide as well.

But now I want to relate this back to Patrick Crusius and the terrorist act he committed in El Paso on Saturday.  Again, whether we are White, Conservative, Republican, Nationalist, 2nd Amendment believers or if we share any societal or political concerns that this madman had this does not mean our concerns are evil because this man committed an evil act based on some of those same concerns.

We can be ashamed of what he did without be ashamed what we believe and who we are.

Conclusion

In Ecclesiastes 3:4 the Bible tells us that there is A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance”.  We should weep and mourn for those who lost loved ones in both these heinous terrorist acts.

We as Bible believing Christians should absolutely support our government in what will be a greatly increased battle against White supremacists who would seek to commit heinous acts of terrorism like Patrick Crusius did this last Saturday.

And that means as Whites, as Conservatives, as Republicans and as Nationalists if we hear someone threatening to commit an act of terror, we should immediately report it to the police or FBI. And we can only hope that those on the left will report suspected Antifa terrorists and that the FBI will pursue Antifa terrorists like Connor Betts with the same vigor.