Men, who breed their children so profanely, teaching them, by their examples, the newest oaths that were last minted in hell. Such families are nurseries for hell; and though God, by an extraordinary hand of providence, now and then snatches the soul by conversion from among them; yet generally, they die as they live, going to the generation of their fathers, where they shall never see light.
John Flavel, The First of 12 ways to Hell and Remedies Thereof

1) God normatively marries predestined means to predestined ends. The predestined means of God to reach the predestined end of a mature body of Christ is for faithful parents to raise their children in the covenant, constantly giving them the Gospel of Christ, and encouraging their children’s role in the advancement of the present Kingdom. Year after year, parents are to teach and live before their children God’s faithfulness to them and their faithfulness to God in every area of life. By such means Christ raises up a faithful army from generation to generation.

2) If children are born into Christian homes the best way to do to them what is done to Flavel’s pagan children is for the pagans to separate Christian children from their Christian parents, much the way that that the 14th century sultans separated Christian sons from their parents in order to turn them into Janissary troops who would be used to destroy Christianity. However, the brilliance of the current separation of Christian children from their Christian parents is that it has been organized in such a way that Christian parents think it is good and all together normal.

3) Revivalism broke this uniquely reformed idea that God’s ends are predestined via predestined means. What revivalism did was to change the emphasis from the Lord Christ raising up faithful and successive generations through faithful parenting and faithful catechizing in and by the Church to an emphasis where people “get religion” through a lightning bolt emotional experience that had some loose association with some kind of Gospel message. Revivalism made the predestined means to God’s predestined ends of a Holy Church a flash in the pan, emotion-filled experience. Revivalism completely stripped away the long and sustained teaching that created a Biblical mindset and a Biblical character that had been typical of reformed church, family, and community and exchanged all of that for 30 – 45 minutes of exposure to the hooping and hollering of some barely educated evangelisa combined with the psychological pressure that comes from feeling momentarily guilty that yielded, more often than not, a quick adrenalin shot of remorse. Surely, it is not difficult to see that the kind of Christianity created by the revivalistic and crusade model is far different than the kind of Christianity created by reformed covenantalism if only because in the revivalistic and crusade model emotions were tweaked while worldviews were left barely challenged. As a result generations of Christians were created whose Christianity was limited to a sometimes vigorous and oftentimes misplaced pietistic moral stance combined with a soft sentimentalism minus any consistent or unanimous notion that such a thing as a Christian mind exists. This”sludge” that became Christianity was a far different entity than the Christianity that inspired Cromwell’s Roundheads or Knox’s Scotland, or Appalachian Scots Presbyterianism.

4) Since God marries means to ends, as we see suggested in the quote above by Flavel, we must come to terms not only with the fact that wicked children are the result of wicked parents but also that wicked children can be the result of Christian parents who did not meet their covenantal responsibilities to the covenant seed God gave them. Further, we must face the fact that the reality that so many covenant children abandon Christ is not only due to the fact of irresponsible parents but also because of faithless pastors and churches. Pastors have failed parents by not instructing them that the Christian life that they must hand on to their children is more than just a bare profession of Christ combined with a non-understood morality and a particular squishy sentimentality absent a mind that seeks to think God’s thoughts after Him in every area of life.

5) Flavel points out the human cause and effect between wicked children and wicked parents. Should we not think that in a healthy church atmosphere there should be a similar human cause and effect between righteous children and righteous parents? Yes, indeed, salvation is by grace alone, but the teaching of Scripture is that the expectation should be that grace runs in family lines. Where it doesn’t run in family lines, where faith isn’t passed on from parents to children generationally, where the covenant seed is lost in the incredible numbers as the covenant seed is being lost today in the West, it is not the case of God’s unfaithfulness but ours.

6) I am doubtful that the trend of losing our children will end until the family unit is once again strengthened. Currently, almost all family responsibilities are farmed out to other cultural institutions. Children grow up today with a family structure that is little more than a bed and breakfast. Parents ship out their responsibility to shape and teach to state schools. Many parents ship out the responsibility to feed and clothe to government programs like WIC, school lunches, and ADC. Parents ship out their responsibility to influence their children to their children’s peers.

Today, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, amidst solemn dignity and quite honor, was interred at Arlington National Cemetery. Lecter, youngest scion born to a import – export royal family, was posthumously feted by friend and foe alike. Born in 1932, Lecter toiled in the long shadow cast by his famous and self denying family. With great humility and self abnegation Hannibal served mankind with aplomb and earnestness.

Lecter eventually discovered the cure for Cancer and even those who tenaciously fought against his eventual discovery of Cancer’s cure eulogized him with great fondness. Dr. Orrin Snatch, one of Lecter’s competitors said; “I fought with him and loved him like a brother.” Dr. Ray Stanforth Quail, former Vice President of the AMA, and another of Dr. Lecter’s opponents rendered up this panegyric to Hannibal Lecter; “though we were enemies in the medical guild Hannibal was a man who took the time to remember the names of my children and the dates of their birthdays. My children still remember with fondness how Dr. Lecter had them for dinner on their birthdays year in and year out when they were small, always serving New England Lobster with fava beans and a nice Chianti chaser.” New York Times Magazine medical writer Dr. Fred Kline spoke of Hannibal saying, “It is just the most amazing thing about Hannibal that he could joke about his cannibalism. It’s not that he didn’t feel remorse about the death of his victims, but that he still always saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.” Dr. Don McLean, a peer of Hannibal’s but yet another man who opposed Lecter’s search for the cure for cancer offered this encomium to the memory of Lecter, “Hannibal was an institution within an institution. Whenever there was an event or anything like that, he had a remarkable way of sending out a little note or calling your family or something like that.” Dr. Moe Sliden, current Vice President of the AMA and co-laborer with Lecter praised him by saying; “In working with Lecter I was a witness to history.”

The unfortunate thing during this time of national grieving is that some hate filled people have not been able to look past the assorted vices of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, choosing instead to nurture their hatred by refusing to understand that a man of such greatness, like Lecter, must be allowed his occasional idiosyncratic behaviors. All these hate filled people can do, while looking at greatness, is to point out the speck in the great man’s eye. It is an open question, given the presence of these hate filled people, if America will ever be able to produce another Dr. Hannibal Lecter again.

Despite the haters and naysayers there is hope that the US will be able to pass a health care bill as a memorial to Dr. Lecter. In light of all of his work for the betterment of humanity, the realization of socialized Health care was long an aspiration of Dr. Lecter’s. Lecter’s lifelong hope was that victims would be well taken care of.

MEMO

From: The Right Hand Of Allah
To: Messengers Of Allah In North America
Subject: The Islamification Of North America

Jihadist,

We greet you in the name of Mohammad (PBUH).

By now you all now of our incredible success in Europe with our Islamification project. In Europe we have played the part of patience and through our immigration and breeding strategy we have the infidel beat back and trying to stall for time by means of political compromise with us. It is only a matter of another generation, at the most, until we are the ones running London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, and all of Europe. Allah has given us a great victory here.

Now, we turn our eyes upon North America and as we do we continue to look to Allah to make us victorious. However, as we know, Allah’s ways are not always the same and we have become convinced that Allah intends to cover that continent by a different means than he has covered Western Europe. We will, of course, continue to fund the building of Mosques and Islamic centers in North America. Already our Mosques are dotting the heartland of America from Toledo, Ohio to Cedar Rapids, Iowa and thousand other rural points. This map chronicles our success in this regard.

This represents the positive side of our mission however the reason that we are writing is we want to introduce you to the way that we intend to deal with what has historically been our greatest opposition and that is Christianity.

The Christian witness in America has grown weak from a deterioration that has come in its Churches from the decadence that characterizes Western culture as a whole. Our goal is to to Islamify America without waking the sleeping giant of Christianity. To do this we want you, as our agents, to channel money to some of their Seminaries and Churches who teach a Christianity that will compliment our interests in North America. This variant of Christianity, called Two Kingdom Christianity, serves our interest in two ways. First, it insists that the Church does not and should not speak to the public square. It believes that its Holy Book only speaks of Spiritual things and how one might prepare themselves for heaven. Of course this serves our interest by allowing us, as the agents of Allah, to incrementally bring Sharia law and Islamic education to North America without howls of protest from their Churches or their ministers. Second, it serves our interest because its spokesmen teach that whatever social order is in place the Christians in their congregations must support. This means that once we become the cultural gatekeepers they will be a compliant people willing to gladly pay the Jizyah tax, submit to Sharia, and to render up their children to our educational efforts.

Because this is true we want no strong arm efforts from any of our sleeper agents. We believe that if we will spread money to the Westminister West Seminary and the respective churches that it plants and the men it graduates that they will do the work for us of continuing to make a way for our intent to Islamify their culture. Their current lack of resistance to our greatest competitor for global dominance, Cultural Marxism, is proof to us that they will not stand in our way once we conquer the Cultural Marxist infidel that are creating the vacuum that Islam will rush into once it is seen that a religion-less social order can not thrive.

After your great efforts around the world we know that what we are asking will perhaps be the greatest challenge of all. Seldom have we asked you to give money to those who have historically been our enemies. But you must keep before you that these Two Kingdom people are a far different Christian people than the people of Charlemagne or the people of Godfry of Bouillon or the people of the Christian King, St. Louis. You must keep before you that these people have made this life the enemy of their souls and have no expectation that their God has any explicit interest in this world.

So, once again, you are to fund Westminster West and the Seminaries and the Churches that it will build from the funds that you are sending them. Here is your first check.

Only one word of warning. If you mistakenly give any of this money we are sending you to Kuyperian or Theonomic versions of Christianity you will be immediately recalled and reassigned to something you will find dreadful. Those versions of Christianity are anathema to our agenda in the West.

In the name of Mohammad (PBUH),

The Mullah’s of the Right Hand Of Allah

When a one to one correspondence obtains between the health of a Nation’s citizenry and the Gross Domestic Product, which always exists when the State is paying everyone’s Doctor’s bills, the State suddenly develops an probing interest in making rules that will insure that the medical costs it is on the hook for are kept low. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune what we can expect, if the State succeeds on socializing health care, is a scenario where the State will be micromanaging every detail of our lives since all of our lives can be, in a direct or indirect sense, tied to health considerations. Do you like to snowboard? Well, snowboarding has health risks and therefore the state has an interest in regulating snowboarding. Do your Christian convictions cause stress in your neighbors? Well, stress has health risks and therefore the state has an interest in regulating your Christian convictions. Do you have to much sex resulting in to many children? Well, sex and children result in healthcare costs and therefore the State has an interest in regulating both your sex frequency and the number of children you can have. The possible permutations that will result in a Statist grasp of American freedoms are infinite when you allow the State to socialize health care. If the State socializes health care the citizen will stand in a new relation to the state, and that relation can be fairly described as one where the citizen will live and move and have his being in the State.

The reality described above is why the debate on Barack “Nat Turner” Obama’s health care proposal must shift to a debate on socialism vs. some kind of free market approach. However, in this debate we are already holding the short end of the debate stick since so many who are protesting Nancy Pelosi’s health care proposal are the recipients of Statist graft. As I view the senior citizens protesting what Barney Frank wants to do with the nation’s health care I wonder how many of them are on Medicare or get a check from Social security. In order to debate from the high ground against John Conyer’s health care ruin we must advocate a true solution that calls for the incremental end of Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Corporate Welfare, and all other programs that are in clear violation of the 10th amendment of the Constitution. But as Americans aren’t willing to do that because they have already been compromised by embracing varying degrees of socialism to their bosoms the end consequence to this health care debate I fear is the eventual embrace of a greater degree of socialism. Socialized healthcare will pass someday soon because Americans already accept the principle of socialism from which it stems.

Saul Alinsky, the Father of community organizing, is the methodological ghost behind the Barack Obama phenomenon. One will increase their understanding of Obama’s methodological approach to advancing controversial policies only by understanding Saul Alinsky’s worldview as it is contained in his book, “Rules for Radicals.”

Alinsky was a follower of Antonio Gramsci who held, unlike traditional Marxism as interpreted through Lenin, that the overthrow of the West would not be achieved by a revolution committed to rubbing raw the economic friction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but rather that the unraveling of the West had to pursue an agenda that was committed to exhausting the Christian capital that was informing the culture of the West. The Gramscian revolution would be culturally totalistic as well as continuous. For Gramsci, following the Hegelian dialectic that holds that progress is defined by perpetual change, the long march through the cultural institutions never ends. Revolution is perpetual.

Alinsky, taught that those radicals committed to overthrowing the status quo society must look like they grow up out of the people. This meant that though people may hold Marxist revolutionary views they must take on the look of insiders. Alinsky wrote, “true revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process.” Here we see that Alinsky taught that radicals must become moles, burrowing their way into places of influence through deception and acting.

This willingness to disguise ones true nature in order to advance a radical agenda means that Alinsky students like Obama and Hillary Clinton (and much of the Democratic party for that matter) can never be trusted in terms of what they say. The Alinsky method teaches them that, ”An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth“ truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations” Elsewhere Alinsky taught that ”The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” Notice that the Alinsky method which Obama and Hillary have swallowed teaches a purely pragmatic approach to truth and ethics. Being good Marxists and Alinskyists they will pursue their agenda dialectically. Any concession by Obama will only be granted until a better time arises to gain back what has been conceded. The thing we must note here is that when dealing with people trained in this kind of mindset there should be absolutely no expectation that these people will operate according to some kind of Christian code of truth, ethics or honor. These people are Alinsky radicals and we can only trust them to act like an Alinsky radical.

Now interestingly enough even though the Alinsky trained radical does not have a absolutist code of truth they will engage in moral argumentation to advance their agenda. The reason this is done is because they understand that the people of the West who are hearing them are not operating with the same ethical relativism with which they are. An example of this is Obama’s disingenuous moral arguments regarding death care welfare. Being an Alinskyite, Obama doesn’t have a moral bone in his body but he knows other people do so he wraps his appeal for death care welfare in the tones of virtue and morality. Obama is a man who learned from Alinsky that, ”you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.” Of course this is an appeal right out of Satan’s book as he likewise clothed his appeal to Eve with moral arguments.

Another reality that we must contend with as we are dealing with an Alinsky trained man is Alinsky’s teaching that the community agitator (organizer is a euphemism) is a man who is constantly calculating the reaction of the opposition to the agitators action. Alinsky taught, ”The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions.” Now the reason that this is so vital to understand with the current administration is that I believe Obama is sending in his Union Brown shirts into these town-hall meetings calculating that a reaction will arise from his enemies (the American people) that will allow him to take a strong-armed response under the pretense that he must protect Americans from the excesses seen in the town-hall meetings. In short I think Obama, as a Alinsky student, would love to see things get out of control at these town hall meetings, as long as the chaos can be blamed on his opposition.

Obama’s whole person and being is defined by his marxism. That Marxism has come to him through Frank Marshal Davis, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright and others. The question with Obama is not whether or not he will act in a Marxist fashion but rather the question is what kind of Marxists do we have on our hands. I believe the facts point to the reality that Obama is a Gramscian Black liberation theology Marxist. This means he will always seek to advance the Marxist agenda but with the purpose of advancing first and foremost the interests of the black population that have bought into this view of cultural Marxism. This means that the man will act duplicitously at every turn. This means that traditional Christianity will be attacked by this man at each opportunity.

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that the only real way to defeat this ideology is by 100 proof Christianity and there aren’t a good deal of people around drinking that these days.