Woe to Those Who Call Evil Good

Not that there was ever any doubt about the convergence of the Anglican Church and its gay, female fake priests.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said being vaccinated against coronavirus is a moral issue. Asked during an interview with ITV News At Ten if being vaccinated is a ‘moral issue’, the archbishop said: ‘I’m going to step out on thin ice here and say, yes, I think it is.’

He added: ‘A lot of people won’t like that, but I think it is because it’s not about me and my rights. Now obviously there are some people who, for health reasons, can’t be vaccinated – different question – but it’s not about me and my rights to choose. It’s about how I love my neighbour. Vaccination reduces my chances – doesn’t eliminate – but it reduces my chances of getting ill and reducing my chances of getting ill reduces my chances of infecting others. It’s very simple.

‘So I would say yes, to love one another – as Jesus said – get vaccinated, get boosted.’

Thus proceedeth the fall of the Anglican Church. Born in divorce, died vaccinated. And if the Gates of Hell prevail over it, you know it isn’t part of the genuine Church, it is judeochristianity.

Stay strong in your faith. Stay strong in your “immorality” in the eyes of the wicked.


That Sounds… Familiar

The gatekeeper selected for France’s nationalist right is certainly utilizing some interesting rhetoric:

We’re now on to the issue that drives Zemmour’s political mission and fuels his incendiary campaign. ‘Immigration is war,’ he says, hitting his rhetorical stride. ‘They want to invade our European countries. That’s all. It’s nothing else. It’s war.’

‘Do you think Macron is deploying migrants as a weapon of war?’ I ask, fishing without a licence for a newsline.

‘I don’t think he has such malicious intent,’ he replies. ‘He’s not Erdogan. No, you mustn’t exaggerate. I just think that he is, how can I put, ideologically in favour of immigration.’

Zemmour has for some years been a leading public intellectual in France, a popular historian as well as a television provocateur and one of the country’s most famous journalists. He litters his speech with great quotes: ‘As Victor Hugo said… As Voltaire said… As Chateaubriand said…’ He speaks in newspaper columns: press his opinion button and he’s off. His eloquence is almost hypnotic.

Macron, he goes on, is gripped by ‘an individualistic ideology. He thinks every individual is basically the same and can live everywhere. Of course, he will enforce rules here and there, but fundamentally…the existence of peoples to him seems outdated.’

Does he blame the economic liberalism of Thatcher and Reagan for the excessive individualism to which Macron subscribes? ‘I wouldn’t say that,’ he replies. ‘It’s more a deviation from Christian humanism. As Chesterton said: “It’s Christian virtues gone mad.”’

Western societies, Zemmour suggests, have ‘simply forgotten that in Christian humanism there is indeed the respect for the individual but that is rooted in a culture, a religion, a people, a land… [today] we have the individual who is sacred, very well, but who is completely isolated from his people, his historical context, his customs. You see it is believed that individuals are interchangeable, that they are only consumers. It’s an economistic view that I don’t share. I think that people are first of all a product of their culture, their people, their customs.’

I rather like Zemmour, but I don’t trust him in the slightest and not merely because he isn’t French. Remember, Macron once talked a semi-reasonable game too. And “Christian humanism” is a half-step toward “our judeochristian values”. But the biggest problem is the way in which a journalist is suddenly being taken seriously as a political candidate. It’s rather as if the Republicans suddenly put forward Ben Shapiro for the 2024 presidential nomination because he was so accomplished at “owning the liberals”.

As the Germans and the Russians learned, nationalist leaders who aren’t actually of the nation don’t tend to work out very well for anyone involved.

The Four Clashing Civilizations

Even Francis Fukuyama now accepts that his End of History thesis was incorrect, and that Sam Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations model is much more descriptive of the real world. But this clash is not, as this article states, a coming clash, it is an ongoing one.

It is often argued, mainly by those in the West, that the current geopolitical rivalries can’t be compared to the Cold War, because there is no clash of ideologies. Communism has been vanquished and capitalist triumph is eternal.
Their view is one of the ‘end of history’, as proclaimed by the scholar Francis Fukuyama. The problem is, Fukuyama proclaimed the triumph of liberal democracy more than three decades ago. It’s fair to say the world has moved on a little bit since then.

It is hard to deny that ideological competition is now making a comeback. And it looks as though in the coming decades the clash of ideologies will only become more intense. All three contemporary great powers – the United States, China, and Russia – are competing for more than material power. Representing distinct ideological faiths, they are also in competition for human souls. There is also a fourth competing ideology – radical Islamism – but it is now disembodied and lacks a ‘carrier state’ after the defeat of its most vociferous advocates.

The US now champions a liberal-progressivist ideology, which, in its most extreme version, is known as wokeness. In wokeness, the two main ideological strands of the modern West that have their origins in the European Enlightenment – liberalism and communism – finally reunite after a bitter internecine feud. When the opponents of wokeness compare it to radical Bolshevism, it is not without reason. In its fight against structural oppression, wokeness is ultimately about destroying social hierarchies for the sake of justice – and at the expense of order.

Taken to its extremes, this new Western ideological struggle for equity and equality leads to universal homogenization, inevitably destroying the diversity of social and even physical identities. In a novel by Mikhail Sholokhov, one of the characters, a fiery Bolshevik, was dreaming about a post-revolutionary world in which the borders come crashing down and people intermarry so there are no dominant and oppressed groups any more: “everyone’s appearance will be pleasantly brown – and everyone will be the same.” This Russian Bolshevik from the 1920s could join the woke squads in Seattle or Bristol in the 2020s.

China and Russia are often lumped together as ‘fellow autocracies’. But, in fact, Beijing and Moscow stand for very different ideological models. China’s is a synthesis of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist socialism blended with traditional Chinese ways, such as Confucianism and legalism, all boosted by advanced digital technology. The West increasingly fears China not only due to the growth in Beijing’s economic and military power, but also because modern China’s hugely successful record of development seems to validate the CCP’s ideology….

Putin’s Russia has its ideals mainly in the past. That’s a major reason why the ideology of modern Russia appeals to many right-wing conservatives in Europe and North America who see Russia as the last major state that adheres to the values of what used to be European Christian civilization. Putin’s Russia has another advantage. Among the competing ideologies, it is the most appealing aesthetically. This may be because for Putin’s state, order is prioritised over justice.

This is a useful, and generally accurate summary of the current state of the civilizational clash. But what it leaves out is the religious and ethnic angles which actually delineate the lines of grand strategic conflict. Although it is now based in the US, the Western power is neither American nor liberal-progressive; it is not even Western, but actually a satanic shadow power in which the dominant ethnicity is Jewish and the ambitions are global. Russia is the Christian nationalist power, and China, under Xi and his Wangist ideology, is the virtuous pagan nationalist power.

This is why the Promethean-ruled US is already engaged in a virtual war with both nationalist powers and the other globalist power. The Prometheans are at war with China because China broke its alliance with them in 2015. They are at war with Russia because Russia, as a Christian nation, rejects their satanism and because Russia escaped their influence in 2000. And they are at war with their fellow globalists in the Dar al-Islam over the territory of Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular, even as they use them to suppress Christian nationalism in Europe.

The reason Trump is so furiously hated is because he represented – however well or poorly – the Christian West’s attempt to break free of Promethean rule. Whether he failed or whether he is still engaged in some sort of secretive Q-like battle is irrelevant to understanding the shape of the overall situation; he is the West’s equivalent of Putin and Xi, ergo he represents the fundamental danger to the shadow power.

And the fundamental weakness of the Prometheans is that, unlike the other three powers, they do not represent a true civilization. They are not, technically, even civilized, as they have never progressed beyond tribalism. This is why they so reliably fail once they achieve enough power in a society to become responsible for it, as they do not know how to maintain a civilization, let alone build one. It is always much easier to destroy than to create.


They Tried to Cancel Thanksgiving

But even The Wall Street Journal is having none of it.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board announced that the paper will continue with the publishing of its annual Thanksgiving editorials despite efforts by the left to cancel them.

In a Monday op-ed, the board declared that efforts by progressives to stop the publishing of the “racist” 1620 account of the first Thanksgiving, as well as a mid-20th century “contemporary contrast” of American progress, would not succeed and that The Journal wouldn’t “bend to political demands for censorship.”

“No doubt it was only a matter of time. The progressives have come for our annual Thanksgiving editorials. They won’t succeed, but we thought we’d share the tale with readers for an insight into the politicization of everything, even Thanksgiving,” the board wrote.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board announced that the paper will continue with the publishing of its annual Thanksgiving editorials despite efforts by the left to cancel them. It noted that the pair of editorials had been run every year since 1961 without complaint.

Whether you can bring yourself to admit it yet or not, the wicked elite that presently rules the Imperial USA through the fake Biden administration and the finance-media complex is seeking to eliminate every last vestige of Christianity, Heritage America, and American history from the United States, and there is no element of it too small to ignore.

This elite are the heirs of the Bolsheviks who did the same thing to the Russian people – in some cases, they are literally their grandchildren and great-grandchildren – which is why the history of the Soviet Union provides an accurate road map for both their evil intentions as well as their inevitable failure.

So be thankful to God this Thanksgiving that at least you are given to know the truth about the historical situation facing you, your family, your nation, and your faith.


Inversion is Not Cohesion

Go ahead, attack the source if you like. But you cannot escape or circumnavigate the fact that a) these inversive creatures are literally textbook evil by every Christian definition, and, b) they are committed to child abuse.

Hungarian Jews protest law against sharing content on homosexuality with minors. Largest federation of Jewish communities in country criticizes ‘gay propaganda law,’ saying no one should be discriminated against or outlawed because of their identity.

“The Mazsihisz, as a Jewish group, firmly believes that all people are inherently pure and their emotions do not make them unclean,” the statement read. “No one should be labeled impure, be discriminated against and certainly not outlawed simply because of their orientation or identity. Such classifications destroy social cohesion and our sense of belonging.”

Apparently we’re supposed to believe that the only legitimate reason to discriminate against people anymore is their vaccination status….

Anyhow, if one believes “all people are inherently pure”, then one is obviously and totally incompatible with people who believe that everyone is sinful and fallen short of the glory of God. Furthermore, inversives don’t belong in any Christian society, so any appeal to a “sense of belonging” is not only irrelevant, it is misplaced.


Gatekeeper U

Because the universities don’t already have enough thought police, the world-healers are setting up a new fake alternative, featuring a fake conservative New York Times journalist as the nominal figurehead:

The University of Austin has been hailed as a milestone for open discourse, but it’s hard to be too enthusiastic about it when you consider high-profile backer Bari Weiss’ track record of not welcoming dissenting views.

Writer Bari Weiss has become a figurehead among the left-leaning intelligentsia who eschew modern “wokeness” in favor of classical liberalism. She solidified her status as a bold defender of diversity of thought when she publicly resigned from The New York Times, citing a hostile work environment rife with pressure for ideological conformity. Following that, she was called a “self-styled free speech martyr” by the Financial Times, and is reported to have even compared herself to Galileo Galilei, who was forced by the Catholic Church to renounce his scientific views, lest he be burned at the stake.

Now, Weiss has announced she will be part of a team of similarly disaffected intellectuals in founding a new institution, the University of Austin (UATX). Other figures involved include enlightened liberals™ such as Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt. Currently, the project is in its early stages and hopes to offer a summer program for students in 2021, but graduate programs are planned for launch in 2022 and 2023, with an undergraduate college to follow in 2024.

However, while many supporters welcomed news of the university and its claim to stand for free expression and open conversation, one can’t help but notice the ironic ideological homogeneity of those involved. And similarly, despite her rebranding as a stalwart defender of free speech, those familiar with Weiss’ career will note that she has not always been so welcoming of dissenting views.

And interestingly, it’s not just those to the left of Weiss who so far have been excluded from UATX, but those to the right as well. Many conservatives may view Weiss’ condemnation of the woke left as a tacit embrace of right-wing thought, but as recently as 2018, that is far from the case.

In a piece on the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) for the New York Times, Weiss spoke disparagingly of Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones, and even repudiated Dave Rubin, a popular interviewer who frequently engages with figures who have views different than his own, simply for platforming those she views as “controversial.”

Weiss’ tenure at The New York Times may have been a lifetime ago as far as the internet is concerned, but a quick glance through her cohorts at the university raises doubts as to whether her disdain for the dissident right has changed with her new-found appreciation for diversity of thought.

As conservative commentator Michael Knowles pointed out, despite the attempt by leftist publications to paint UATX as some right-wing thought experiment, in actuality, there are only two conservatives currently attached to the project, neither of whom has been known to stray from the right-wing talking points deemed acceptable.

This omission by the university’s team is especially strange considering the statement of principle put out by Kanelos specifically decries the treatment of conservatives in academic institutions: “Over a third of conservative academics and PhD students say they had been threatened with disciplinary action for their views. Four out of five American PhD students are willing to discriminate against right-leaning scholars.”

For a group that seems to lament the exclusion of right-wing thought from academia, the team at the University of Austin have so far done little to remedy it.

This so-called “University of Austin” is simply the latest, and grandest, gatekeeper grift intended to intrigue clueless conservatives and direct them and their resources away from Christian nationalism. The pseudointellectuals who serve as the poster children are complete mediocrities – you can read my 13-part response to Peter Boghossian’s hapless and unconvincing effort to redefine the concept of faith, entitled The Fifth Horseman, if you want a detailed look at the quality of thinkers on offer – and this is little more than another attempt to invade the territory they used to deride as flyover country.


Adjust Your Expectations

Bruce Charlton explains that failure is the objective, negative consequences are desired, and the end result is destruction:

We are all finding it difficult to get to grips with this new post-global totalitarian world administered (ultimately) by demonic powers (and their mindless human hosts, servants and slaves); because it operates on the basis of an inverted value system which is not a natural way for us humans to think.

The difference is that (unlike Men) demonic powers are motivated by the desire to destroy whatever is Good, whatever is God’s creation.

For example, the birdemic-response, including the mandatory peck program, has led to major sectors of the economy, of national functioning, of essential provisions, being in increased danger of being rendered useless or even destroyed.

This makes the nations weak, impoverished, increasingly chaotic. This is negative feedback, indicating that what is being done is doing harm – and that we need to stop doing it.

Normally, negative feedback would lead national rulers to stop doing it. But these times are not normal.

When the global rulership is under demonic control, such negative consequences are regarded as A Good Thing. Since the demonic powers desire to destroy God’s creation and every-thing Good – they are delighted by evidence of increasing national weakness, and by the increased sufferings and death of human beings.

For demons; what we humans regard as Negatives are, in fact, The Plan.

This is why conservatism, which in normal circumstances is merely unsuccessful, is completely unable to comprehend what is happening right in front of conservative eyes. All their finger-wagging, all of their warnings about dire consequences, are entirely useless, because they fail to understand the significance of what it means for the servants of Satan to call good evil and call evil good.

The Death Seekers don’t fear death, they seek it. And they most certainly don’t fear yours! There can be no accommodation with them. There will be no accommodation with them.

They can, they must, and they will be defeated. But they will not be defeated by conservatives. They will not be defeated by secularists. They will only be defeated by Jesus Christ and those who serve him.

Seeing Through Shapiro

It’s been 16 years since I first pointed out that Ben Shapiro is a gatekeeper, a liar, and a fraud, but finally Christians and other influencers on the Right are seeing through his deceitful act.

Ben Shapiro hates Christ, rejects Christ, and is therefore by definition Anti-Christ. Christians should not be lending their time and money to this man. They should be sharing the Gospel with him instead and praying for his acceptance of Jesus Christ the King of Kings.
– Andrew Torba

Ben Shapiro wrote a new book telling us the real enemy we face, which is the “authoritarians,” both on the left and on the right, like the Jan 6th protestors who tried to overthrow our government so they could personally seize power over all of us. Nobody buys these books. I’ll bet Ben Shapiro has fewer honest fans than I do. But he has a $24 million dollar budget for his website, to run a massive staff, to spew all of this. And he does that all while a grossly criminal, illegal conspiracy, commits crimes which are not just technically illegal, but which utterly savages the very essence of the concepts of American freedom, privacy, and the United States Constitution. And Shapiro is a knowing paid agent of this enemy. And he is getting paid very well for it.
– Anonymous Conservative

Now the Zoomers are starting to publicly call him out.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So in 2019 you went on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and you had a religious conversation with him. You were asked about your view on Jesus Christ, and you said “Jesus was a Jewish rebel who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and was killed for his trouble.” My question is, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and the roman governor even said it first that he was not guilty of any crime. So, given all of this, how can you argue that he tried to lead a revolt against the Romans.

SHAPIRO: Right, so I mean, you’re assuming, so I said, from the Jewish perspective, right, I’m not arguing from the Christian perspective, I presume that nearly everyone in this room knows the New Testament better than I do.

I do know the Jewish perspective on Jesus better than most people who are Christian, right, because it’s the Jewish perspective on Jesus. The Jewish perspective on Jesus does not accept the historicity of the gospels, if it did, then we’d all be christian, right? So the Jewish perspective on Jesus is that like many people at the time and this was true throughout that entire period, there were a lot of Jews who were attempting to lead political revolts against the Romans. The Jewish definition of a Messiah is very different from the Christian definition of the Messiah. The Christian definition of the Messiah and of Jesus is of course a unification of God and man, right? This doesn’t exist in the notion of Jewish philosophy. In Jewish philosophy, the Messiah is a person who accomplishes particular goals according to Maimonides: the gathering of the exiles, the reestablishment of a Davidic kingdom, the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel, right? So from a Jewish perspective, if someone was trying to be the Messiah, they would be a political figure. When I said that he was killed for the trouble, that was not demeaning of him. I assume that if I had been living at the time, I also would have been attempting to lead a revolt against the Romans, just like half the Jews were, right? This is why the temple was destroyed, this is why Jews were put into exile, several times, so that was not a smear against Jesus as a Jew, it’s just a recognition that Jews don’t believe in Jesus as a divine figure. And if we did then we’d be Christian.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, then I probably would’ve changed the phraseology of that, because, then again, if that was the case, then he would’ve been going against Jewish law, and since that would’ve made him a political figure, then he would’ve been going against Jewish law, not Roman law.

SHAPIRO: No, leading a revolt against the Romans wouldn’t have been going against Jewish law either. We don’t want to get into a long, complex debate over what Jews think about the historicity and the take on Judaism that’s in the Gospels. That’s a pretty long conversation, honestly it’s really interesting and it’s kind of fascinating, but under Jewish law, even if you read the New Testament, Jesus’s claims aren’t punishable under Jewish law by death, actually.

What a despicable little weasel.