Enjoy the day with your families.
Tag: Christianity
THE CHRISTMAS THEY HID FROM YOU
My kids and I were looking through a box of my grandpa’s stuff, and we found a book of Christmas hymns called “Well-Beloved Christmas Hymns”. And the only one of all 25 or so hymns I had even heard before was Bring a Torch Jeanette Isabella, and that one I’m only familiar with because one of my friends made a mashup of it, and Hark the Herald Angels Sing. That’s a song I’ve never heard on popular radio, and it is a fantastic song. The hymns in that book were all lovely, some better than others, obviously, but all about Christ Our Savior. This is what they took from us.
The best way to fight the subversion is to ignore it and replace it.
I’m not really a Christmas carol guy, as my preferred holiday music is Handel’s THE MESSIAH, but I have produced a new remix of THIS VERY NIGHT which is on UATV, and those who are not UATV subscribers can hear at Sigma Game.
The War on Happy Holidays
One of my favorite things about Christmastime in recent years is the way that the War on Christmas is in full and shambolic retreat. It’s heartwarming to see so many people treating the fake regard for the imaginary holidays with all the contempt and derision that it has always merited.
[Excessively vulgar derision removed. Sure, it’s funny, but edifying it is not. Any time you can be mistaken for South Park, you’ve gone too far.]
I can’t even imagine what the channers and memelords are going to do to the Diwali festival if anyone tries to shove that one down our throats…
He’s Not Entirely Wrong
Richard Spencer celebrates the subversion of Christmas music:
I, for one, really appreciate the Jewish contribution to Christmas music. This time of year wouldn’t be the same without “Rudolph,” “White Christmas,” “Chestnuts,” and more. As opposed to attacking this supposed “subversion” of Christmas, traditionalists should ask themselves why they are so unmusical, charmless, and boring and couldn’t compose any timeless songs.
Of course Spencer doesn’t care about the subversion; he’s not a Christian. And the 20th Century songs are quite good, for the most part, being catchy and well-compose. But that doesn’t make them any less subversive; their intent is to shift the focus of Christmas from the Christian celebration of the birth of Man’s Savior to rather less edifying topics, including snow, hoofed mammals with nasal abnormalities, and the urban shopping experience.
Silver Bells is absolutely and undeniably a charming song. That’s why it is successfully subversive.
Where Spencer has a point is when he observes that we Christians would do well to follow the lead of our gifted forebears and compose our own songs. We can’t possibly know if they are timeless or not, because only the test of time will tell. And, let’s face it, neither we nor the subversives will ever write anything as good as Adeste Fideles. But that shouldn’t stop us from doing our best to serve our King.
So, this would seem to be as good time as ever to share this new mix of This Very Night, complete with guitar and choir. If you’re a UATV subscriber, you can download the MP3 by clicking on the blue button.
Stars above shine ever bright
Angels sing with pure delight
Of Mary born this sacred night
Comes our savior, Jesus Christ
Shepherds hear the holy call
Heaven’s gift for one and all
In the darkness shines a light
A savior born this very night
Heartfelt prayers on Christmas eve
In His grace we now perceive
And by faith do we believe
The King of Kings shall we receive
Hallelujah raise your voice
In His birth now we rejoice
Come to Jesus, hear the call
He has come to save us all
Children gather ’round the tree
Hearts aglow with reverie
Love and hope and faith and glee
By this birth are we set free
Hallelujah raise your voice
In His birth now we rejoice
This is Christmas, heed the call
Jesus came to save us all
Happy Thanksgiving
Today is our annual reminder of two things:
First, to be grateful to God for the many blessings He has bestowed upon us, our families. And indeed, I for one, am very thankful for this community and the incredible opportunities it has provided me.
Second, an annual reminder of the imperative to a) sink the ships and b) never, ever, feed the migrants.
It’s truly astonishing to look back at history and see how many problems various peoples have caused themselves by their inability to understand the inevitable long-term consequences of their actions. And yet, here we are, watching the same obvious mistakes being made again and again in real-time.
Nevertheless, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
The Return of Christian Nationalism
Andrew Torba has a new site up, and I have to say, he appears to have refined his thinking on the subject in a correct and positive manner as opposed to the civic nationalism that had crept into his book on the subject.
THE CHRISTIAN IDENTITY OF AMERICA
Christian Nationalism is not a new invention; it is a return to our true heritage. For centuries, America was explicitly Christian in law, custom, and identity.
WHY WE REJECT THE TERM “JUDEO-CHRISTIAN”
The term “Judeo-Christian” is a modern political invention, not a biblical one. It functions as a vague civil-religious umbrella that papers over real theological differences.
Christianity is not an extension of modern Judaism; it is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets through Jesus Christ.
The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Church—not unbelieving Israel—is the continuation of God’s covenant people. Christian Nationalism is therefore Christian, not interfaith. We affirm the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of the New Testament, and the mission of discipling the nations.
He’s absolutely correct. The differences are not just real and theological, they are fundamental and represent polar opposites. The term itself is not merely a contradiction, it is an oxymoron. While the values of the European Union are, without question, “talmudic” as stated by the EU’s High Priestess, Ursula van der Leyen, the values of Western civilization, the European nations, and America are 100 percent opposed to that satanic globalist babelism, the evil fruits of which are conclusively in evidence today.
The great Swiss Christian nationalist Gonzague de Reynold addressed this very contradiction between the Satanic elevation of the State over Man and nation on the one hand and the Christian elevation of Man’s soul over the State in 1938:
The notion of the common good has its source in the Christian conception of Man, and here is how it can be defined: the ensemble of natural and human conditions that permit man to live according to the needs of the individual, but according to the demands of the person, in order to accomplish his destiny which is to cross earthly life to assimilate himself to God. Thus, the common good must have ceaselessly before its eyes this last end of our human associations, this final and total perfection of our human being.
All earthly things are below the human soul. But it is certain that the human soul, as long as it remains incarnate, needs these things, and that the vital impulse takes in these things its point of departure. They must therefore be ordered to the human soul, to the person.
And this order is called civilization.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Devon Eriksen implies that Christianity caused the fall of Rome. It’s not a view that’s original to him, but it’s obviously false.
Rome didn’t fall because the Romans were decadent and had orgies. They were the most decadent, and had the wildest orgies, at the height of their power. Rome fell after they became Christian.
No, Devon, Rome fell due to mass foreign immigration. No historian takes Edward Gibbon’s thesis put forth in his great The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire seriously anymore. The idea that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire is obviously false because both Christianity and the Eastern Roman Empire continued for centuries.
Not So Much
Renounce Satan, his servants, and all his pomps. Especially when his servants ask you to endorse them.
Denninger Rejects Conservatism
I’m very far from the only right-wing figure to shake free of the mainstream gatekeepers of the right and reject both the title and the substance of the false political posture of being “conservative,” and for much the same reasons that Karl Denninger points out:
No, I am not a “conservative.”
Why not?
Well, what is it that “conservatives” are allegedly attempting to conserve? That is the seminal question of course, much as someone who claims to be “liberal” should be expected to answer — “What is it you are allegedly attempting to liberate?”
“Conservatives” are certainly not attempting to conserve, for example, the fundamental principle of The Rule of Law. Were they, being allegedly in power at the federal level today, every health care provider who is discriminatorily pricing (e.g. “negotiating” the amount a procedure is paid based on who the insurance firm is, a blatantly felonious act for more than 100 years under 15 USC Chapter 1) would be commercially destroyed and all their directors and officers would be under indictment and facing forfeiture of their entire corporate body of wealth along with all of the wealth each and every director and officer has amassed.
Nor does it stop with health care; under 8 USC Section 1324 every entity who has solicited, harbored or transported illegal immigrants into the United States and suborned perjury through false asylum claims would also be under indictment, subject to civil forfeiture (bye-bye Catholic Charities and dozens of others) and every single one of those people who made such a false claim and is here would be notified that they have 24 hours to get out or be prosecuted for perjury and permanently barred from the United States if, upon examination, their claim is in fact bogus.
Never mind the recent “article” discussing why car insurance is so expensive in many states — ignoring those here illegally driving with no license, insurance and often unable to speak English — and of course in some cases causing wrecks. The insurance companies love this of course because being limited on percentage of revenue by state insurance commissions they are for any set of actions that causes more wrecks or more expensive wrecks since that’s the only way for them to make more money. Since such people have neither money or insurance the only place they can get the funds to fix the car (and fix you) is from you, the law-abiding citizen.
How about Somali migrants? There’s enough fraud already uncovered for dozens or hundreds of indictments. Hell, even back in 2008 this was known when 80% of claimed family relations were proved false by DNA testing! Exactly how many of these people have been expelled? There is no right to be here if you gained entry through fraud, so why haven’t we thrown all of them out if we now have a so-called “conservative” Immigration and State Departments?
Conservatives didn’t conserve the ladies room; they didn’t even manage to conserve the distinction between a man and a woman. They’re certainly not going to conserve either the U.S. Constitution, the United States, or Great Britain. If conservatism is not rejected, they won’t conserve the European nations either. Or, most likely, humanity itself.
This is why I describe myself as a Christian Nationalist rather than a conservative. First Jesus Christ. Then family. Then the nation. But everything, literally everything, springs from the Living Word, including the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. If you don’t understand that, or refuse to accept that, you cannot possibly hope to understand very much about the world around you.
And anyone who urges you to adulterate any of those three things is speaking in obvious deceit and seeking to destroy all three, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how he justifies his falsehoods.
In answer to Mr. Denninger’s question, what liberals are seeking to liberate, whether they realize it or not, is literal Hell on Earth.
Denninger on Heresy
Even the Boomers are rejecting the religious subversion of the American right now:
I’ve talked about dispensationalism a few times in various formats over the years on this blog and how it is utterly unsupportable when it comes to calling someone “privileged” from the standpoint of Christianity particularly as applies to Jewish people and/or Israel.
But Tucker Carlson went there in his recent show and in fact echoed what I’ve said for a long time: As a Christian if you espouse this you have committed Heresy and worse, you’ve stated a belief that those who disagree will be literally killed by God.
Tucker is right, by the way.
Israel, like every other nation, can deal with us as a peer and with respect but at no time will I or should anyone else consider them to have any means of “control” over the United States
Ever.
Period.
Full stop.Tucker further points out something even more important, which is that while heresy is an offense before God (assuming you believe in it, of course) when committed by people in political power, such as Lindsey Graham, it becomes something much more-serious in the secular world.
I think it’s a very easy and straightforward question for any honest individual. When do you consider America to have been more blessed?
- Prior to 31 January 1949
- After 31 January 1949
If your answer is (1), then there obviously is no reason to accept the Dispensationalist heresy or the subordination of Americans to any foreign people. And the point is further underlined by a historical question. When would you consider Spain to have been more blessed?
- Prior to March 31, 1492
- After March 31, 1492
The Golden Age of Spain is generally considered to begin in 1492, marked by the end of the Reconquista, Christopher Columbus’s voyages, and the publication of Antonio de Nebrija’s Grammar of the Castilian Language. It ended around 1659 with the Treaty of the Pyrenees, though some extend it to 1681, after the death of Pedro Calderón de la Barca.
Now, keep in mind that I don’t accept the Dispensationalist metric in the first place. I certainly don’t regard heretical theology as a sound basis for making decisions about financial budgets or foreign policy. But it’s always most effective to answer one’s opponent in the terms he is capable of understanding.