Communism-The Anti-Thesis of the Global Synthesis Monday, Apr 1 2013 

Lest I be accused of simply showing the logical connections between Hegelianism, Yankee Capitalism and Communism, I offer Mr. Sutton’s work as evidence of a historical connection as well.

Having laid the foundation for my rejection of Karl Marx’s Communism and his Roman Catholic Theology Proper, I would like to now demonstrate to the reader how his Neoplatonic-Roman Catholic Dialectic fleshes out in application.

I will be initially quoting from the Manifesto of the Communist Party first published in 1848.[1] Of course, Marx does make some valid criticisms of Yankee Capitalism which I will also include.

The CM says,

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.”[2]

This is striking! I would not have taken Marx to be the kind to actually point this out. Truly, Yankee Capitalism has made the individual the primary concern of society and that individual is then not to see his family as his primary base of concern but himself. His life’s goal is then, not to maintain his race, his family and his religion, but to travel the earth to whatever distance necessary to follow  Commerce and War. This has fragmented the old national and racial bonds between men and made life nothing else but Commerce and War. Marx has no improvement because his economic is simply a reaction to the Yankee Capitalism (Thesis and Anti-Thesis) and thus when the Yankee Capitalist is in need he looks not to his family but to the State which greatly pleases Marx. We will see these many agreements between Yankee Capitalism and Marxism.

Agreement #1 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism reject the primacy of the Family and Racial obligations.

The CM complains,

“A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. ”

There is too much commerce, and Communism bares a great deal of guilt in it. In an interview with the late Aaron Russo, Russo pointed out that the Rockefeller’s were behind the American Women’s Liberation movement (A Communist Movement) in order to  influence the other half of the population to be involved in public work so that there would be an increase in commerce and taxes.[3] Women used to take care of the home and raise the children in order to maintain the private social order and now they are helping to feed the State and the Yankee War Machine.  Do we now see how Communism and Capitalism work together?  Secondly, the Southern Plantation system was the best system to compete with Yankee Capitalist Industries which we will see later. This system has also been destroyed by Communist Propaganda and the now Popular demand for equal rights. Again, Communism helps Yankee Capitalism.

Agreement #2 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism wanted the destruction of the Plantation and slavery.

Agreement #3 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism want the women working due to universal equality.

The CM complains again,

“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

Except in Southern Agrarianism and moreover, the absolute free labor system has still failed to stake the interest of Capital in their labor. The labor of Capital is now as disposable as a Coke Can. I deal with this in greater detail here.

The CM  makes a great point,

 “The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”

Only in a society that believes in universal equality and women’s suffrage. Do we not then see how our problems continue to be sociological and not economical? This has greatly contributed to the genocide of White European peoples in the last 60 years. The modern white woman cares little for family and is now consumed with her career. They care little about having children and raising a family.[4] This has devastated our race.[5] And though the modern white man sees little significance in preserving his race, in a very short time he will be face to face with a majority colored population that does care about race and wants nothing else but to see the white race annihilated.  When white people become a minority in a land they are not respected for their humanitarian efforts. They are a hated and persecuted minority.[6] Atheism and liberalism is the end of a people. It is genocide!

The CM states,

“In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.”

This turned out to be a total lie. Communist society turned out to end the existence of the laborer. The problem is men are totally depraved and when all the property was given to the state who was supposed to virtuously disperse all equally, the State starved millions of its own people and massacred millions more. You see Capitalism and Communism is Thesis and Anti-Thesis. The Synthesis, the true purpose behind all, is Global Government and a massive global population reduction.[7]

Agreement #4 Global Government

The CM complains,

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

I would agree with this because the Yankee Capitalists practice their version of wealth re-distribution primarily by way of usury.

Agreement #5 Wealth redistribution.

The CM states,

“But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.”

Notice, Marx does not deny that his Communism promotes community of women. His point is, yes, we believe in community of women, but this in no way means that we are INTRODUCING the idea. Now, I agree firmly that Yankee Capitalism promotes too much luxury, idle-ness and immorality. Dabney spoke to this issue in great detail from pages 301-330 in Defence of Virginia which I cataloged here.  The Southern system maintained a reasonable restraint on the excessive wealth and luxury of the rich while not falling into the trap of Communism.

As a side note, I would ask the reader to think of anyone they have know who abstained from sex before marriage. It is an unheard of phenomenon in the Yankee ruled United States.

Agreement #6 Community of Women and widespread fornication.

The CM states,

“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

Now we are getting to the heart of it. Do we not then see how Yankee Capitalism was used to end our National Sovereignty? Agrarianism reasonably preserves the independence of a land. When a people know how to live off of the land, they are free in a way the modern man cannot possible fathom. If in the case of a global or international economic collapse, an Agrarianized population could survive without massive social unrest. But this kind of life is demonized and mocked in our media and entertainment venues.  Are we continuing to understand how our economic problems stem from much deeper sociological issues?

Agreement #7 Globalism-Both systems reject Genesis 9-11; Are we seeing why racialism is such a demonized idea in the West.

The CM states,

“What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.”

And this is not different with Communism. The ruling class in America shoves Communist lies and propaganda down our throats in this system. The two biggest pieces of propaganda pushed by our Communist Government is the Abolitionist propaganda against the South and Charles Darwin’s insanities. That the state controls the thinking of a people is no discovery by Communists. It is natural law, which is why the First Amendment and legislation like it is a fool’s illusion and always will be.

The CM states,

“What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other.”

And such it always will be. It is a biological reality that will never disappear. Why not then administrate it properly while keeping that exploitation as mild as it was in the South?

The CM states its core principles

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.”

With the abolition of all rights of inheritance (#3), the invidualism so indicative of Yankee Capitalism, is enshrined by the Communists. Gal 6:7’s application to families is then uprooted and rejected. #5’s affirmation of monopoly would make any Yankee Capitalist happy.

Agreement #8 The individual’s emancipation from familial or tribal responsibilities and benefits.

Agreement #9 The morality of Monopoly

In Frederick Engels’ Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith 1847 he attempts to lay down the ethical theory of the Communist movement stating in question 5,

“For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.”

Here Engels is espousing Teleological Ethics; more specifically Psychological Hedonism. This theory asserts that the Good is pleasure. On this view all people always desire pleasure and nothing else but pleasure. This theory is an illusion. Will the Psychological Hedonists refuse bitter medicine or a discomforting trip to the dentist to cure their ailment? Will they not suffer the pains of employment? All these do not give pleasure at the moment. If not an immediate pleasure, maybe then all people always desire or act towards a future pleasure?  Clark objects,

“There are many evidences that this is not true. A drunkard may know that guzzling his liquor will make him sick and give him a headache, but he guzzles. He desires the immediate pleasure and sacrifices the pleasure of tomorrow.” (Christian View, pg. 118)

The difficulties continue for secular theories because it can never be determined how a good desire is distinguished from a bad desire. And finally, the definition of pleasure as sensation falls prey to the hundreds of criticisms Clark has made to the entire endeavor of Empiricism.

Applied to society this theory evolves into Utilitarianism. This is the ethical theory that affirms that the proper moral action is one that produces the overall happiness for the greatest number. In utilitarianism, the individual must sacrifice his own interests for the interests of the whole or the state.  Clark summarizes the problem with teleological theories:

“It would be necessary to know not merely the immediate results of a given choice, but the more remote, and the still more remote into an indefinite future. It would be necessary to know the effects of the proposed action on every individual who might possibly be involved. And all these effects in their various degrees would have to be balanced against the same calculations made for each of the other proposed policies. Only after all these calculations had been completed could it be said that such and such ought to be done. But obviously these calculations cannot be completed. Therefore, a teleological system cannot conclude that one action rather than another is a moral obligation.” (Christian View, pg. 124-125)

Engels states again,

“Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:”.

These problems are results of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution’s rejection of Patriarchalism and its affirmation of universal equality, so pervasive in the Abolitionist destruction of Southern Plantations. Engels brings up an important issue. In Dabney’s Defence of Virgina, pages 325-326 we read the Southern reply,

“Now we emphatically and proudly admit that Southern society has not learned the frugality of New England; which is, among the middle classes, a mean, in-hospitable, grinding penuriousness, sacrificing the very comfort of children, and the kindly cheer of the domestic board, to the Yankee penates, Mammon and Lucre; and among the upper classes a union of domestic scantiness and stinginess with external ostentation and profusion ; a frugality which is “rich in the parlour, and poor in the kitchen. The idea of the Southern planter is the rational and prudent use of wealth to procure the solid

comfort of himself, his children, and his servants at home, coupled with a simple and unostentatious equipage abroad, and a generous hospitality to rich and poor. But we fearlessly assert, and will easily prove to every sensible reader, that slavery was peculiarly favourable to the economical application of labour, and of domestic

supplies and income. The attempt to carry the freehold tenure of land down to the yeomanry, subdivides land too much for economical farming. The holdings are too small, and the means of the proprietors too scanty, to enable them to use labour-saving machines, or to avail themselves of the vast advantages of combined labour. How can the present proprietor of a farm of five or ten acres in France or Belgium, afford a

reaper, a threshing-machine, a three-horse plough, or even any plough at all ? The spade, the wheel-barrow, the donkey, and the flail, must do his work, at a wasteful cost of time and toil. But the Southern system, by placing the labour of many at the direction of one more cultivated mind, and that furnished with more abundant capital, secured the most liberal and enlightened employment of machines, and the most convenient “division of labour.” Moreover, the administration of the means of living for the whole plantation, by the master and mistress, secured a great economy of supplies. The mistress of Southern households learns far more providence, judgment and method in administering her stores, than are possessed by free labourers or by blacks. The world over, those who have property are more provident than those who have none. For, this providence is the chief reason why they have property; and the improvidence of the poor is the cause of their being poor. But even if the slaveholders had no more of these qualities, all can see that an immense saving is made by having one housekeeper for ten families, with one kitchen, store-house, and laundry, instead of ten kitchens, ten store-houses, and ten varying administrations of stores. A smaller supply of provisions secures a greater amount of comfort to all, and a great saving of labour is effected in preparation of food, and housekeeping cares. A system of slave labour is, therefore, more productive, because it is more economical.

In all this argument, the anti-slavery men keep out of view a simple fact which is decisive of the absurdity of their position. They shall now be made to look it in the face. That fact is, that in free States, a large portion of all those who, from their moneyless condition,ought to pursue manual labour, are too lazy to do so voluntarily. But they must live, and they do it by some expedient which is a virtual preying on means of the more industrious, by stealing, by begging, by some form of swindling, by perambulating the streets with a barrel-organ and monkey, or by vending toys or superfluities. Their labour is lost to the community; and their maintenance, together with their dishonest arts and crimes, is a perpetual drain from the public wealth. But slavery made the lazy do their part with the industrious, by the wholesome fear of the birch. Slavery allowed no loafers, no swindlers, no ” b’hoys,” no “plug-uglies,” no grinders of hurdy-gurdies, among her labouring class.”

In the Southern system the Planation provided a strong competitor for Yankee Capitalism. A Plantation using many slaves with community of property could afford the large industrial machines. This preserved agrarian society which kept us off of the globalist grid, while at the same time allowed us to enjoy and benefit from modern technology.  Do you see what happens when we think we are smarter and holier than God? Now, the unemployed Yankee black free laborers which Dabney complained of, are now  the modern day gangsters, drug dealers, and organized crime syndicates.

During the so-called Great Migration[8], blacks left the South in mass and moved into Yankee cities where they found little hope of lawful sustenance. In response, they formed themselves into Gangs.

The United States Department of Justice’s National Gang Center Bulletin, in a piece, HISTORY OF STREET GANGS IN THE UNITED STATES by James C. Howell and John P. Moore says,

“The second period of gang growth in Chicago commenced in the 1930s as the result of a steady migration of Mexicans and blacks to northern cities. Black immigrants arrived first, following the U.S. Civil War, to escape the misery of Jim Crow laws and the sharecropper’s life in the southern states. Between 1910 and 1930, during the “Great Migration” of more than a million blacks from the rural South to the urban North for jobs, Chicago gained almost 200,000 black residents (Marks, 1985; Miller, 2008),

giving the city an enormous urban black population—along with New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other Northeast and Midwest cities. From 1940 to 1950, the Chicago black population nearly doubled, from 278,000 to nearly 500,000  (Miller, 2008). Most of the immigrant blacks in Chicago settled in the area known as the Black Belt, a geographic area along State  Street on the South Side, where abject poverty was concentrated  (Wilson, 1987).

Large numbers of black workers were inspired “to leave family and friends and seek their fortunes in the North” (Marks, 1985, p. 5). But they faced formidable challenges. Many observers thought the black migrants were unqualified for the upward mobility paths that white immigrants had used in Northeast cities. However, “the reason for non-assimilation of Black migrants into American society was not because Blacks were non-urban or unskilled. It owed substantially… to racial segmentation of the labor force structured to keep them at what they had been recruited for, a source of cheap labor” (Marks, 1985, p. 22).

The origins of Chicago’s serious street gangs can be traced  to blacks’ disproportionate residency in socially disorganized  inner-city areas, dating back to the period between 1917 and the early 1920s (Cureton, 2009).12 “As more and more Blacks populated

Chicago, there was an increase in delinquency among Black youth as well… As one might anticipate, these activities invariably led to Black youth hanging out together and forming cliques, major ingredients for the formation of street gangs”  (Perkins, 1987, p. 20). In addition, “athletics played an  important role in the development of early Black street  gangs” (p. 21). The games fueled conflicts between rival teams. By the mid-fifties, Black street gangs “began to vent their frustration and perpetrate violence against the Black community.” (Pages 6-7)

As for their impact today, the FBI’s, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends[9] states,

“Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others”.

This is not to imply that all Gangs are black but the point I think is clearly made. The Yankee Abolitionism failed miserably if it was ever meant to succeed and our predictions of how Abolition would morally and socially affect the blacks has been fully vindicated.


“Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.”

Now this is an important issue to discuss. Did the Protestant Reformation and the Scottish Covenanters establish Democracy in their rejection of the Divine Right of Kings? No.

I deal with this in my A Treatise on Ethics and Politics pages 7-10.[10]


“Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.”

Here we see the clear Communist agenda behind Abolition and the 20th century Civil Rights movement. It is then, no surprise that the first major author to use the word “Racist” was a Communist named Leon Trotsky.[11] The Bible clearly teaches against a general mingling of the races.[12] If you think this is Southern white racist propaganda I refer you to  Frederick Engels’ The Principles of Communism 1847 where he states,

“In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.”[13]

The so called Civil War was nothing short of a Communist Revolution as I have cataloged in detail.[14]

Communism truly is the Economic Theory of Big Industry. Engels says,

“That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.”[15]

Firstly, the paradox in this all, is that Industrialism was proved to provide an inferior standard of living than Southern Agrarianism for the working class. Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross states,

“Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[16]

And again,

“The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[17]

And again,

“U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[18]

Secondly, Engels appeals to absolute freedom. This brings me back to my primary objection to Marxism’s Metaphysics and Anthropology which I wrote earlier.[19] This system is inherently Luciferian. All over Marx and Engels, you will find this obsession with “Freedom”. Engels states in our present consideration,

“The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.” (7)…

“The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.” (9)…

“Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day.” (20)…

“Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. ” (20)

Marx and Engles are fundamentally concerned about keeping man free from any sort of social determinism. The paradox in it all, and this is right in keeping with its Hegelian roots, is that this “freedom” is socially established with the cruelest of compulsions and  ends up “freeing” man by stripping him of all that it is to be a person. It dissolves his personality and humanity into a social collectivist monad.  As soon as the Protestant Reformation was established in England, there was a huge Cultural explosion with the Elizabethan Era. And then with the Treaty of Westphalia the Western World was brought into the modern period and with it, the greatest Western literature and music ever composed.

What did Communism produce? Nothing but death! No one worthy of note! No Shakespeare, no Bach, no Rembrandt.

Communism has unlocked the gates of hell. Just to stick with the labor aspect, under today’s Capitalist-Communist Hegelian Dialectic we have child slave labor with the Walmart-China connection, a huge world-wide industry in trafficked Sex Slaves, and a massive Prison slave system, which said prisons are now privately owned![20] Yankee Capitalism indeed!

Just like in England, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, we have a pro-Jesuit Charles II-like Government, all the more willing to spread immorality and gross persecution upon Anglo Protestantism.  I have cataloged the gross immorality in our country here, here and here. To add another staggering statistic, a recent CDC Fact Sheet, Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States states,

“CDC’s new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the United States each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone.”

Communism’s racial policy has also unleashed an inquisition upon the Anglo and European peoples:.

Take these Social results of Communism along with their Southern inquisition[21] and their many 20th Century Inquisitions [22], I wonder why the modern civilized man even allows these people rights of citizenship and  assembly. Could it be because he himself is a Communist but doesn’t have the guts to take it consistently? Could it be that the modern man will have no other choice but to return to Southern Agrarianism for his survival and emancipation from a Global Empire? Could it be that the South will rise again?  The South MUST rise again.

[17] Ibid., 5

[18] Ibid., 126

Atheism and the Occult; Kissing Cousins? Saturday, Mar 16 2013 

A brief examination of Europe before the Reformation, will reveal an ignorant, superstitious, and idolatrous people subordinate to the Vatican.[1]

This period is described very well in the 1953 movie, Martin Luther. See 1:20-3:30

Here we see that the Dark Ages thrived on a synchronization of Christianity and gross pagan superstitions.

This is precisely the culture that the Jesuits are creating in the West. Atheism has paved the way for the return of Paganism. I have already shown the clear Jesuit agenda to create a secular movement to destroy and replace the Reformation.[2] [3]

In the late 1980s Geraldo produced a documentary of sorts on the rise of the Occult in America. See the 28 minute mark where the now well-known Satanist (And Military Officer ) Michael A. Aquino, admits at  28:55 that Satanism has been the end of an Atheist journey for many people and  that Atheism was the stepping stone into membership in the Occult for many.

I also found this interview with Satanist Peter Gilmore interesting.

At 0:45-0:55 he says that Satanists start out as atheists and then discover that they are their own gods. Gilmore states that Satanists are materialists at 6:45. Interestingly enough, Satanic priests are also called The Black Pope (3:57,5:33); just like the Jesuit General!  

In an interview with prominent Satanists many years ago The First Family Of Satanism, the Satanists bragged that Christianity will soon be dead and the Bible will soon be considered a myth. This is the deception. The Jesuits have deceived the Secular world into thinking that they are ushering in another Enlightenment with human progress and education. Wrong! We are getting and we will continue to get the grossest superstitions and we will be back right back to the Dark Ages very soon.

Look at the so called Protestant Churches today. The discipline of Doctrine, Theology, and simplicity of Worship has been replaced by irrationalism, emotionalism and outright chicanery.

Instead of producing the greatest minds in the world, as we used to, to our international pride, so-called Protestantism now produces scandals and outright charlatans.

The Charismatic Movement itself operates off of the exact same type of superstitions that ruled the Dark Ages.

 This influence has been infused into Christianity by the rise of New Age Pagan Philosophy and New Age Pagan Philosophy is the result of the Darwinian deception. As we will see, Darwinism is really an old Pagan view of Anthropology and Soteriology. The following are very well referenced documentaries by Christian apologists speaking to these very issues.

When I lived in South Carolina I worked with a very vocal Atheist Activist. I have worked with many Atheists and I have been shocked by their hypocritical allegiance to the Occult. Very often I found them reading the Horoscope section in the Newspaper and seeking the advice of Tarot Card Readers and Astrologists.  

Is this just a coincidence? I don’t think so. The Jesuits want to plunge our Protestant Civilization into ignorance and superstition so that they can unleash a new technology and convince us that they are aliens or have some kind of alien divine power so that we will give them unchallenged submission. This will be the platform to saddle the Old Holy Roman Empire onto the world once again.  I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Secularism is not Enlightenment, it is Counter-Reformation Propaganda.

Awesome Debate! Jared Taylor and Tim Wise debate “Merits of Racial Diversity” Wednesday, Sep 19 2012 


I have to agree with most of what Taylor says but I will say some things:

1. Taylor’s reliance on genetics as his basis of racial behavior, a type of atheistic Behaviorism, is anti-christian. The Augustinian Christian Anthropology is that human behavior is determined by the soul not the genes.

2. Taylor is questioned if he has any Christian biblical basis for his position, and he replies by refusing to answer saying that religion is a private thing. That is definitely anti-christian.  This comes into play later in the debate when he is questioned on the de jure obligation of racial separation. Taylor had pointed out that his position is Universally acknowledged in the history of the world and universally wherever one finds racial, national, linguistic and religious diversity, one finds unnecessary conflict. The Infidel Guy read a commenter who asked Taylor why his is  should be taken as an ought. I don’t think he gave a satisfactory answer to this. This is where my position, as a Protestant Christian improves. Genesis 11 demonstrates a divine mandate for racial separation. Nigel lee demonstrated that the NT never abrogates this mandate.

3. I will have to agree with Wise at around the 1 hour and 20 minute mark that the emphasis on white-ness is destroying real culture. I completely agree. I am in no way advocating any kind of White Facism. My racial separation is for the purpose of maintaining the Christian and primarily the anti-Roman catholic Christian History of my ancestors in the British Isles.  We need to go back to maintaining our English-ness or our Scottish-ness or our  Dutch-ness. God established more than one language and nation within the Japhethite race and those historical distinctions need to be preserved not just our racial identity.

Samuel Clarke on Acts 13:33; Was the Son Really Begotten in Eternity or in Time? Wednesday, Sep 5 2012 

Samuel Clark said in his Modest Plea,

“There are indeed figurative and metaphorical senses, wherein persons may very elegantly be said to be begotten or generated into a New State when they are invested with some extraordinary New Powers, Thus God is said in Scripture to have Begotten us unto a lively Hope by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead [1 Pet 1:3-DS]. And to Christ himself, upon his being raised from the Dead, he saith, (Acts xiii;, 33,) Thou art my Son, This Day have I begotten thee. But never was That, stiled in any senfe a Generating or Begetting, before which the person generated was Every thing he could be after it; A Generating, which implied in it “- No Change at all, no not so “much as in any Mode of Existence; “No Change “more, ”  than there is in “God the Father “ himself, upon Every ” New Act”‘ or Exertion of his Power. What the Writers before and at the time of the Council of Nice, call the Generation of the Son ‘, always means a Real Generation…by which he was really…generated from  the Father by his Power and Will.”

The “Real” Zeitgeist Challenge Debunked Friday, Jul 27 2012 

A Full Exposition and Defense of a Scripturalist-Scottish Presbyterian Political Theory; Table of Contents and Introduction -1 Friday, Dec 9 2011 

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 The Basis of Magistracy and Sovereignty

Chapter 2 Separation of Powers

Chapter 3 Diatribe Against the Enlightenment and the So-Called American Founding Fathers

I. Social Covenant Theory (The Reformed Establishment Principle) vs. Social Contract Theory

II. Establishment vs. Pluralism

III. Kingship of Christ

IV. Toleration Related to Human Nature

V. Pluralistic Toleration vs. Unified Religion

VI. American Christian Constitutionalists

Chapter 4 Self Defense and the Right to Bear Arms

Chapter 5 Submission to Lawful Authority and Civil Disobedience

Chapter 6 A Christian’s Lawful Participation In the State

Chapter 7 Taxation

Chapter 8 Ethics

I. Orientation

II. Theonomy

III. Natural Law

IV. Capital Punishment


Treatise on Politics

“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in  their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour  have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD” (Ps. 149:6-9). (kjv)

 “Christ is also armed with an iron scepter, by which to bruise the rebellious, and is elsewhere described as stained with blood, as slaying his enemies on every side, and not being wearied with the slaughter of them. (Isaiah 63:2.) Nor is it surprising, considering the obstinacy which universally prevails in the world, that the mercy which is treated with such indignity should be converted into severity. Now the doctrine laid down in the passage admits of being rightly applied to our practice, in this way, that what is here said of the two-edged sword, applies more especially to the Jews, and not properly to us, who have not a power of this kind permitted; except, indeed, that rulers and magistrates are vested by God with the sword to punish all manner of violence; but this is something peculiar to their office. As to the Church collective, the sword now put into our hand is of another kind, that of the word and spirit, that we may slay for a sacrifice to God those who formerly were enemies, or again deliver them over to everlasting destruction unless they repent. (Ephesians 6:17.) For what Isaiah predicted of Christ extends to all who are his members, — “He shall smite the wicked with the word of his mouth,  and shall slay them with the breath of his lips.” (Isaiah 11:4.) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalm 149:9)

Greg Price’s valuable work Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, the Basis for Civil Resistance (Still Waters Revival Books Site, [accessed July 2011]) will be quoted authoritatively as it is, in my opinion, the most precise and comprehensively studied work that represents the Scripture’s teaching and the Scottish Reformation. Each quotation from Price will have a “GP” Reference.

The first mention of human government is found in Gen 10:10, the kingdom of Nimrod in the land of Shinar. Picking up from many pagan ideas, the Anchoretic Church culminated in an Anti-Christian establishment, “The Holy Roman Empire” that was destroying civilization. In God’s providence and good mercy, he delivered us from the peril of Romanism and the Divine Right of Kings through the Protestant Reformation. Since the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Luciferian Fraternity of the Jesuits, has does everything it can to topple the Protestant Established Nations that stripped Papal power to a humble state in the 16th and 17th Century.  The following will be an exposition and defense of the Protestant view of the Civil Magistrate.

The Refutation of Aristotle in Mary Louise Gill and Gordon Clark Monday, Sep 5 2011 

In 1989 a conference was held at Oriel College, Oxford entitled ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics’. Top educators that specialized in Aristotelian Philosophy gathered at the time focused on a primary subject: How do we understand unity and identity in Aristotle’s doctrines of substance, matter and form? Mary Louise Gill delivered a devastating expose of the impossibility of determining an individuating principle in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Not surprisingly, Dr. Clark had beaten her to the punch in his first Wheaton Lecture given in November 1965; though Gill’s expose’ gives far more detail than Dr. Clark’s Lecture. Theodore Scaltas also contributed his ”Substantial Holism” to the Oriel College conference which I will give attention to…


I have provided the rest of my paper at my other website. It is entitled Aristotelianism Refuted

Thomas Aquinas’ Use of Romans 1:19 in Summa Theologica Saturday, Aug 27 2011 

Q1. A.6. Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?

“Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause—not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him—“That which is known of God is manifest in them” (Rom. 1:19)—but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom.”

Here he takes it to mean the Light of Nature in the Empirical Scholastic sense.

Q. 12. A. 12 Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?

“On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 1:19), “That which is known of God,” namely, what can be known of God by natural reason, “is manifest in them.”

I answer that, Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God “whether He exists,” and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

Reply to Objection 1: Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know “what it is”; but it can know “whether it is.”

First, Aquinas refers this to the Light of Nature in the Empirical Scholastic sense. Second, his reply is contradictory, because as he has said many times, existence and essence are the same. His view of Simplicity cannot distinguish between what it is and whether it is.

Q. 56. A. 3 Whether an angle knows God by his own natural principles?

“On the contrary, The angels are mightier in knowledge than men. Yet men can know God through their natural principles; according to Rom. 1:19: “what is known of God is manifest in them.” Therefore much more so can the angels.

I answer that, The angels can have some knowledge of God by their own principles. In evidence whereof it must be borne in mind that a thing is known in three ways: first, by the presence of its essence in the knower, as light can be seen in the eye; and so we have said that an angel knows himself—secondly, by the presence of its similitude in the power which knows it, as a stone is seen by the eye from its image being in the eye—thirdly, when the image of the object known is not drawn directly from the object itself, but from something else in which it is made to appear, as when we behold a man in a mirror.

To the first-named class that knowledge of God is likened by which He is seen through His essence; and knowledge such as this cannot accrue to any creature from its natural principles, as was said above (Q[12], A[4]). The third class comprises the knowledge whereby we know God while we are on earth, by His likeness reflected in creatures, according to Rom. 1:20: “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” Hence, too, we are said to see God in a mirror. But the knowledge, whereby according to his natural principles the angel knows God, stands midway between these two; and is likened to that knowledge whereby a thing is seen through the species abstracted from it. For since God’s image is impressed on the very nature of the angel in his essence, the angel knows God in as much as he is the image of God. Yet he does not behold God’s essence; because no created likeness is sufficient to represent the Divine essence. Such knowledge then approaches rather to the specular kind; because the angelic nature is itself a kind of mirror representing the Divine image.”

Again, Aquinas refers this to the Light of Nature in the Empirical Scholastic sense.

Q. 167. A. 1. Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?

“Reply to Objection 3: The study of philosophy is in itself lawful and commendable, on account of the truth which the philosophers acquired through God revealing it to them, as stated in Rom. 1:19. Since, however, certain philosophers misuse the truth in order to assail the faith, the Apostle says (Col. 2:8): “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men . . . and not according to Christ”: and Dionysius says (Ep. vii ad Polycarp.) of certain philosophers that “they make an unholy use of divine things against that which is divine, and by divine wisdom strive to destroy the worship of God.”

Again, no explanation on how an innate revelation can be empirical.

According to Gen 2:17 and 1 Tim 2:14 Adam understood the concept of moral law and the concept of death. Adam had never seen anyone die. This eliminates the possibility that “Our natural knowledge begins from sense”.

What Every Western Scholastic Must Read First Saturday, Aug 20 2011 

A Theological Introduction to the Mystagogy of Saint Photios by Joseph Farrell

On the issues of Divine Simplicity, the Confusion and Impossibility of Distinguishing the Nature from the Will, the Similarities between Plotinus’ One and the Western Scholastic doctrine of Divine Simplicity and its complete incompatibility with Christian Trinitarianism, exposed in a masterful way by Farrell.

Athanasian Christianity vs. Western Scholasticism both Roman and Protestant Friday, Aug 19 2011 

As most of you know I am a Scripturalist Puritanic type, and I am a Scripturalist fundamentally because I am not so naive as to believe that Protestants can take the same doctrine of God and Epistemology from the Roman Church and somehow bake Protestant pies with it. As I cataloged in my article on Dr. Clark’s rejection of Divine Simplicity this issue is at the heart of the difference between Dr. Clark and the Scholastics and Vantilians. The following is from Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) Discourse 3.64-66

“64. Therefore if the works subsist ‘by will and favour,’ and the whole creature is made ‘at God’s good pleasure,’ and Paul was called to be an Apostle ‘by the will of God,’ and our calling has come about ‘by His good pleasure and will,’ and all things have come into being through the Word, He is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living Counsel of the Father, by which all these things have come to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm. ‘Thou hast holden me by my right hand; Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel.’ How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself ‘by good pleasure and will,’ like every one else? unless, as I said before, in their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or through some other . Who then is it through whom He has come to be? let them fashion another Word; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of Valentinus ; for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many-headed heresy of the Atheists is discovered to issue in polytheism and madness unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly belong to things originate and creatures. Is it not irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things originate to the Framer of all? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father before the Word? for if will precedes in the Father, the Son’s words are not true, ‘I in the Father;’ or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold but a second place, and it became Him not to say ‘I in the Father,’ since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself subsisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they servants ? but He is Lord of all, because He is one with the Father’s Lordship; and the creation is all in bondage, since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas it once was not, was brought to be.

65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should say also that He came to be by understanding; for I consider understanding and will to be the same. For what a man counsels, about that also he has understanding; and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He says, ‘Counsel is mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength .’ For as strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel; but they fable that there is with God , as if a habit , coming and going , after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom; and they leave nothing undone, and they put forward the ‘Thought’ and ‘Will’ of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said what was said to Simon Magus; ‘the irreligion of Valentinus perish with you ;’ and let every one rather trust to Solomon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, ‘The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens.’ And as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made.’ And as by the Word the heavens, so ‘He hath done whatsoever pleased Him.’ And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians, ‘the will of God is in Christ Jesus .’ The Son of God then, He is the ‘Word’ and the ‘Wisdom;’ He the ‘Understanding’ and the Living ‘Counsel;’ and in Him is the ‘Good Pleasure of the Father;’ He is ‘Truth’ and ‘Light’ and ‘Power’ of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that the Son is ‘by will,’ says virtually that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the Word which is incompatible with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father’s will , but of His Essence Itself, saying, ‘Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence .’ But if, as we have said before, the Father’s Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, ‘This is the Son originated at My will,’ nor ‘the Son whom I have by My favour,’ but simply ‘My Son,’ and more than that, ‘in whom I am well pleased;’ meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and ‘in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.

66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the pleasure of the Father and not with the Father’s will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things.’ For as not ‘from will’ did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not ‘from will,’ yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the Father’s pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son is the object of the Father’s pleasure, is the Father the object of the Son’s love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of ‘counsel,’ intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, ‘He might not have been,’ is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as saying, ‘The Father might not have been good.’ And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative  by nature; and to say, ‘The Father’s good pleasure is the Son,’ and ‘The Word’s good pleasure is the Father,’ implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father.”

Yet can Western Scholasticism affirm Athanasius’ fundamental Orthodoxy distinguishing the nature from the will?

Thomas Aquinas said in Summa Contra Gentiles,

Moreover, since every agent acts so far as it is in act, God, Who is pure act, must act through His essence. Willing, however, is a certain operation of God. Therefore God must be endowed with will through his essence. Therefore His will is His essence…From this it appears that God’s will is not other than His essence.” I:73:4 and I, pp. 243, 242- From Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor by Joseph P Farrell.

No. The doctrine of absolute divine simplicity eliminates the possibility of distinguishing the will from the nature. Will the Scholastics admit it?

I was criticized for quoting Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles from a secondary source. Here is the entire Chapter in full from Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles I.73.

“Chapter 73


[1] From this it appears that God’s will is not other than His essence.

[2] It belongs to God to be endowed with will in so far as He is intelligent, as has been shown. But God has understanding by His essence, as was proved above. So, therefore, does He have will. God’s will, therefore, is His very essence.

[3] Again, as to understand is the perfection of the one understanding, so to will is the perfection of the one willing; for both are actions remaining in the agent and not going out (as does heat) to some receiving subject. But the understanding of God is His being, as was proved above. For, since the divine being is in itself most perfect, it admits of no superadded perfection, as was proved above. The divine willing also is, therefore, His being; and hence the will of God is His essence.

[4] Moreover, since every agent acts in so far as it is in act, God, Who is pure act, must act through His essence. Willing, however, is a certain operation of God. Therefore, God must be endowed with will through His essence. Therefore, His will is His essence.

[5] Furthermore, if will were something added to the divine substance, since the divine substance is something complete in being it would follow that will would be added to it as an accident to a subject, that the divine substance would be related to it as potency to act, and that there would be composition in God. All this was refuted above. Hence, it is not possible that the divine will be something added to the divine substance.”


Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: