Wednesday, April 29, 2020

The origin and nature of the American secular movement

"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be." - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 6, 1816.
One of my biggest grievances with the right for many years, has been their abject inability to recognize things for what they are, and label them accordingly. Stop calling Socialists "liberals." Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal. Hillary Clinton is not. 

Washington provides us with insight into the nature of true "liberalism" in his response to American Catholics in 1790.

"As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their Government: or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed." 
And likewise to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport in 1790.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenshipIt is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It cannot be emphasized enough that, though those who call themselves liberals today share this (use identical) rhetoric, they do not share the values of Washington or early (genuine) American liberals. Neither Washington, any other Founder, or government at any level during the establishment would have even conceived, much less conceded, this notion of equality under the law was applicable to the practice of sodomy, or transvestism for example; Jefferson personally authored a Virginian bill that punished sodomy with castration. In this same letter just prior Washington explicitly states that America, "under the smiles of Divine Providence (God)" and through the cultivation of "morals and piety," would become more liberal and flourish. The Founder's liberalism was achieved through Christian principle, whereas the modern left's faux liberalism is achieved through the extirpation of such. The former sought greater freedom through a limited government. The latter seeks greater licentiousness, under the pretext of freedom, as a means of facilitating a centralized totalitarian government. Civil rights were superseded by natural rights with the former. Natural rights are superseded, if not effaced, by civil rights with the latter. They're utterly antithetical to one another. 

People often respond that it's no big deal; it's only words. 
Words have meaning however. The diagnosis determines the treatment. So when you refer to Socialist subversives, who want to supplant our Constitutional Republican form of government (treason) with a secular democracy as "liberals," it significantly impacts how they're perceived and treated by others. It's a political misdiagnosis with pernicious socio-political ramifications.

Why leftists do this should be obvious (even had they not explained it in the past).

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it. [...] Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. [...] There is no use attacking [...] by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them." - Upton Sinclair, a congressional and gubernatorial candidate, recounting in 1951 how he garnered more support by changing his rhetoric and party affiliation from Socialist to Democrat.
Something that immediately struck me when I began studying history so many years ago, was the conspicuous similarities between Socialist/Marxist ideology, and the values professed by modern "liberals." 
"The struggle against religion is a struggle for Socialism." Slogan of the League of the Militant Godless (an anti-religious organization of the Soviet Communist Party).
Soviet and Nazi rhetoric from decades ago, even Bolshevik rhetoric from a century ago, was at times indistinguishable from modern liberal rhetoric. If you didn't know it was from the past you'd not be skeptical at all if it was misattributed to a present day American leftist.

The rise of secular Socialism in Russia:
"One of the first decrees of the Soviet Power in Russia was the decree concerning the separation of the church from the State. All its landed estates were taken away from the church and handed over to the working population. All the capital of the church became the property of the workers. [...] The Soviet Power rejects all thoughts of using the church in any way whatever as a means for strengthening the proletarian State. 
The separation of the school from the church aroused and continues to arouse protest from the backward elements among the workers and peasantsMany of the older generation persist in demanding that religion should still be taught in the schools as an optional subject. The Communist Party fights resolutely against all such attempts to turn back. [....] The decree whereby the school is separated from the church must be rigidly enforced, and the proletarian State must not make the slightest concession to medievalism. What has already been done to throw off the yoke of religion is all too little, for it still remains within the power of ignorant parents to cripple the minds of their children by teaching them religious fables 
One of the most important tasks of the proletarian State is to liberate children from the reactionary influence exercised by their parents. The really radical way of doing this is the social education of the children, carried to its logical conclusion. As far as the immediate future is concerned, we must not rest content with the expulsion of religious propaganda from the schoolWe must see to it that the school assumes the offensive against religious propaganda in the homeso that from the very outset the children's minds shall be rendered immune to all those religious fairy tales which many grown-ups continue to regard as truthIt has been comparatively easy for the proletarian authority to effect the separation of the church from the State and of the school from the church, and these changes have been almost painlessly achieved. 
The organization and strengthening of the socialist system, will deal religion an irrecoverable blow. The transition from Socialism to Communism, the transition from the society which makes an end of capitalism to the society which is completely freed from all traces of class division and class struggle, will bring about the natural death of all religion and superstition. But this must by no means be taken to imply that we can sit down at our ease, satisfied with having prophesied the decay of religion at some future date. It is essential at the present time to wage with the utmost vigour the war against religious prejudicesfor the church has now definitely become a counter-revolutionary organization, and endeavours to use its religious influence over the masses in order to marshal them for the political struggle against the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
But the campaign against the backwardness of the masses in this matter of religion, must be conducted with patience and considerateness, as well as with energy and perseverance.- The ABC of Communism, Why religion and communism are incompatible, Separation of the church from the state, Separation of the school from the church, Struggle with the religious prejudice of the masses, 1920.
 The rise of secular Socialism in Germany:
"National Socialism by its very nature was hostile to Christianity and the Christian churches. The purpose of the National Socialist movement was to convert the German people into a homogeneous racial group united in all its energies for [the] prosecution of aggressive warfare. Innumerable indications of this fact are to be found in the speeches and writing[s] of Hitler and other responsible Nazi leaders
Although the principal Christian Churches of Germany had long been associated with conservative ways of thought, which meant that they tended to agree with the National Socialists in their authoritarianism, in their attacks on Socialism and Communism, and in their campaign against the Versailles treaty, their doctrinal commitments could not be reconciled with the principle of racismwith a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfareor with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State. Since these are fundamental elements of the National Socialist program, conflict was inevitable. 
Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by a complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion tailored to fit the needs of National Socialist policy. [....] Considerations of expediency made it impossible, however, for the National Socialist movement to adopt this radical anti-Christian policy officiallyThus the policy actually adopted was to reduce the influence of the Christian Churches as far as possible through the use of every available means, without provoking the difficulties of an open war of extermination. 
The Nazi plan was to show first that they were no foes of the Church, that they were indeed interested in ‘Positive Christianity’, were very good friends of the Churches and did not at all want to interfere in religious matters or with the internal affairs of the different denominations. Then under the pretext that the Churches themselves were interfering in political and state mattersthey would deprive the Churchesstep by stepof all opportunity to affect German public lifeThe Nazis believed that the Churches could be starved and strangled spiritually in a relatively short time when they were deprived of all means of communication with the faithful beyond the Church building[s] themselvesand terrorized in such a manner that no Churchman would dare to speak out openly against Nazi policies.The main assault, however, started in 1936. Attacks were concentrated against the many schools which were directed by religious orders, especially in the field of secondary education. The Catholic orders and congregations had altogether 12 secondary schools for boys and 188 for girls. Sixty-four per cent of the Catholic girls attending secondary schools were studying at private Catholic institutions. Gradually these schools were eliminated. Nazi authorities exerted strong pressure on the Reichstate and municipal officials to send their children only to public schools. 
The purpose of the Nazis was indicated on 14 June 1939 in a statement by Bauer, Munich city school inspector, who declared: ‘religious instruction must disappear from the schools. We make our demand: instruction in the German faith by German teachers in German schools. Implementation of this objective started with the curtailment of religious instruction in the primary and secondary schoolswith the squeezing of the religious periods into inconvenient hourswith Nazi propaganda among the teachers in order to induce them to refuse the teaching of religion, with vetoing of Catholic religious textbooks, and finally with substituting Nazi Weltanschauung and ‘German Faith’ for Christian religious denominational instructions. The name ‘religious instruction’ was maintained, but its aims were completely altered. At the time of the outbreak of war denominational religious instruction had practically disappeared from Germany’s primary schools." - Office of Strategic Services, The Nazi Master Plan, The Persecution Of The Christian Churches, July 6, 1945.
In these excerpts are conveyed the fervently anti-religious ethos inherent to Socialism. And this "struggle against religion" and zealous pursuit of the secularization of society, is no less prominently on display and even openly asserted by present day Socialists, with the Socialist Party USA declaring in it's current platform "We support secular democratic states." It is a common thing to hear an American leftist assert the belief that religion and government must be kept entirely separate, and that the former should not guide the latter to any degree, just as the Bolsheviks and Nazis believed

There are a disturbing number of ignoramuses that will argue, when such conspicuous parallels are cited, that Hitler and the Nazis weren't Socialists in an effort to divest Socialism of any culpability for, or even association with, Nazi tyranny. But the fact is Hitler was the leader of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

In a mass pamphlet issued by the Nazis during the 1932 presidential campaign, Hitler is credited as saying "You cannot be a true nationalist without also being a Socialist." The pamphlet further exposits:
"To be a nationalist means loving one's own people more than all others, and worker to be sure that it can hold its own among them. If this people (is) to hold its own against the rest of the world, I must wish and work for the health of each member, to see that things go as well as possible for each individual, and therefore the whole. But then I am a socialist! And I cannot be a socialist without working to be sure that my people can defend itself from attacks by other peoples, and to secure its foundations for life, without working for the greatness of my people, thereby also being a nationalist."
To the Nazis Socialism and nationalism weren't two separate things, so much as two things inherently working in reciprocity, amalgamated even, making them one and the same thing; true Socialism.
"We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!" - Gregor Strasser, Nazi ideologue and politician, June 15, 1926.
The discerning reader will immediately recognize that the abject antipathy for religion, the purging of religious instruction and values from the government and schools, the assiduous efforts to diminish the influence of the church and religion on all aspects of American life, and the belief that religion is rooted in prejudice and inferior to science above, are all on constant display in present day American leftists. You will constantly hear leftists calling Republicans or Conservatives "fascists," yet it is they more than anyone plainly seeking a centralized authoritarian government, and following the model of the Russian and German Socialists illustrated above to achieve it.

The rise of a people with utter loyalty to their party, who place their utter faith in science, and the believe the duty of the party is to mitigate or eradicate religious "bigotry" and "prejudice" is nothing new.
"The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda... because it (the party) stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science." - Joseph Stalin, September 15, 1927. 
"I saw Eisenstein's film, "Ten Days That Shook The World." [...] We can learn a lot from these Bolsheviksmost of all from their use of propaganda. [....] What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius, capable of uprooting outmoded religious practicesand putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soonNational Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My party is my church, and I believe I serve the lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel." - Joseph Goebbels, Reichsminister of Propaganda, entries in personal diary on April 26, and October 16, 1928.
Indeed, atheists are so consistently Socialists, and Socialists so consistently atheists, whenever you encounter a person who is one, you may with great confidence assume they are the other as well.

When speaking of the ways modern leftists mirror the Socialist worldview, Hillary Clinton's caucus victory speech in which she espouses significant portions of the Socialist party's platform, always comes to mind.



• "Universal Health Care."

"The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "Climate Change."
The U.S. must immediately return to participation in international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, limiting carbon emissions, and accept a major role in worldwide efforts to control global warming- Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "College affordable" and eliminate "student debt." 
"We demand equal access to higher education for all people and support publicly funded higher education. We call for the forgiveness of all outstanding federal student loans and believe that students should not be saddled with decades of debt simply because they pursue higher education." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "Womens' rights."
"The Socialist Party is a socialist feminist organization that recognizes that a struggle against habitual male dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism. Therefore, we pledge our opposition to all forms of sexism, and demand equality in all aspects of life." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "Gay rights."
"The Socialist Party recognizes the human and civil rights of all, without regard to sexual orientation. We call for the end of all anti-gay, lesbianbisexualand transgender (GLBTQ) restrictions in law and the work placethe repeal of all sodomy lawsand the legalization of same-sex marriage." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "Voting rights." (Who's being denied the right to vote exactly?)
"We call for full funding for a network of support for people with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities, including home assistance, recreation centers, guaranteed income, voting access, and quality control in residential facilities; and for the inclusion of people with disabilities on all local and state governing boards and commissions. [....] We call for the lowering of the voting age to 15. [....] We call for the elimination of the Electoral College and support instant run-off voting of all elected officials. [....] We call for the automatic restoration of voting rights for current convicted felons, end the revocation of civil rights for anyone convicted of a felony." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.

• "Immigrant rights."

"The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose. [...] We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. [...] We call for... a ban on all immigration detentions, and... an end to police raids in areas where immigrants congregate." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
• "Workers' rights."
"The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace, for the social ownership of the means of production and distribution." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
The pursuit of "workers' rights" is a traditional staple of Socialist rhetoric, and the term "worker" in reference to the proletariat, is still a fixture of Socialist rhetoric to this day.


While there's nothing wrong with supporting "workers," the tell tale sign of the Socialist is ostensibly seeking to support one group (conveyed as disadvantaged) at the expense of another (portrayed as "privileged), e.g., the working class (proletariat) at the expense of the rich (bourgeois) which they relentlessly vilify (as people who don't pay their "fair share" for example).

• Common sense gun safety measures."

"We support federal buyout programs for arms, (and) federal safety standards and licensing for arms." - Socialist Party USA, National Socialist platform 2015-2017.
Her post caucus speech may as well have been written by a member of the Socialist party, because it proclaims their platform with a conspicuous conformity, and makes no substantive effort to conceal that whatsoever. She would go on to specifically pledge the Democrat party's commitment to advancing the rights of all these proletarian groups again in her concession speech.

As illustrated in a previous installment the Founders believed that the only way for American liberty to be sustained was to root it in the unchanging morality of God.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independencewere [...] the general principles of Christianity. [...] I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.- John Adams, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
Socialists do not share this belief.
"From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal! We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternalultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nationsWe maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time." - Friedrich Engels, Co-Author of the Communist Manifesto, Anti-Duhring, 1878.
Socialists believe they can eliminate the motivation to steal through wealth redistribution, i.e., the equal division of property, which would abolish "all traces of class division and class struggle" and therefore any desire for one person to steal from another. This is why you consistently see leftists in America attacking "economic inequality" and calling for "equal pay," etc. By redistributing wealth from one person/entity (the rich, large corporations, etc.) to another, they believe a society can be created that's free of hunger or the need to steal, etc. This is of course a psychotic fantasy utterly antithetical to the pragmatic (religiously derived) principles upon which America was Founded.
"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. [...] If all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of Godand that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect itanarchy and tyranny commenceIf "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaventhey must be made inviolable precepts in every societybefore it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.
Madison likewise denounces the foundational precepts of Socialism.  
"Theoretic politicians [...] have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rightsthey would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions." - James Madison, Federalist #10.
Madison subsequently calls "a rage for an abolition of debts" and "equal division of property" an "improper" and "wicked project." Socialism isn't just wrong, it's anti-American, as are the feminist, "LGBQT," and speciously "anti-racist/fascist" "rights" movements that stem from it.
"There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. [...] The revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity. [...] They (Americans) hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutionsThis opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of societyThe Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The United States.
It must be understood that one cannot be both a Christian and a Socialist. As the sentiments of Adams and Engels illustrate, Christianity and American liberty are based upon the belief that private property is an "inviolable" right derived from God, whereas Socialism is a relativistic secular ideology that denies any moral precept is inviolable, seeks the abolition of private property, and is in fact the sin of covetousness masquerading as altruism. Socialism is the renunciation of the Judeo-Christian ethos.
"Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.' This train of thought is radically falseReligion and communism are incompatibleboth theoretically and practically. [....] In practiceno less than in theorycommunism is incompatible with religious faith. [....] In most cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the principles of communist tactics and the commandments of religion. A communist who rejects the commandments of religion and acts in accordance with the directions of the party, ceases to be one of the faithful. On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party, ceases thereby to be a communist." - The ABC of Communism, Why religion and communism are incompatible, 1920.
It simply cannot be emphasized enough that Socialists are profoundly devious or deluded human beings. There are two kinds of Socialist. The lucid subversive that knows Socialism is organized theft and exploits it to his advantage. And the gullible halfwit true believer, who takes the rhetoric at face value and actually believes that if you just steal enough money from one group of people and give it to another group of people, the latter will be transformed into angels who no longer have any impulse to exploit or abuse their fellow man.
"The living standards of workers and the natural environment on which life depends are under constant attack due to the drive for maximum profits inherent in capitalism. Our party fights for jobs and economic security, a decent and rising standard of living, peace, justice, equality, a sustainable environment, gay rights, health care, education, affordable housing, the needs of seniors, democracy, and a fulfilling life for everyone, with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society can exploitation of human beings by others, and the evils of oppression, war, racism, environmental degradation, and poverty be endedWe seek to build a socialist society which puts people and nature before profits." - Communist Party USA, 2001.
The marriage of anti-Capitalist rhetoric with womens' rights, opposition to racism, etc., is a staple of the Socialist platform, and flagrant indication you're a dealing with a Socialist.


Anyone whose head isn't buried in the sand will have noticed a sharply increasing instance of "feminist/black," "anti-misogyny/racism" activists, blaming "capitalism" for "patriarchy" and the oppression of ethnic minorities in America.



It's becoming more and more pervasive with each passing day it seems.


I've even seen leftists blaming capitalism for white supremacy and slavery, which is both ridiculous and false. (Never mind that white supremacist Germans were Socialists.) Slavery and racism were state imposed and perpetuated practices in the United States. Capitalism was one of the major driving forces working against the perpetuation of slavery. Alexis De Tocqueville described in detail his observations upon the Ohio river in the 1830s, on which one side existed a free state and on the other side a slave state. The free state he observed was a spectacle of industry, while on the slave side he saw but sparse and lethargic labor, as the latter had no personal incentive to labor harder or better (and were a perpetual expense to their owner).
"On the left the state that follows the thousand curves made by the Ohio in its course is called Kentucky; the other borrowed the name of the river itself. The two states differ only on one single pointKentucky allowed slavesthe state of Ohio cast all of them out
So the traveler who, placed in the middle of the Ohio, allows himself to be carried along by the current until the river flows [...] between liberty and servitude; and he has only to glance around him to judge in an instant which one is most favorable to humanity. 
On the left bank of the river, the population is scattered; from time to time you see a gang of slaves with a carefree air crossing fields half deserted; the primeval forest constantly reappears; you would say that society is asleep; man seems idle; it is nature that offers the image of activity and life. 
From the right bank arises, in contrast, a confused murmur that proclaims from afar the presence of industry; rich crops cover the fields; elegant dwellings announce the taste and the attentions of the plowman; on all sides comfort is revealed; man seems rich and content: he is working." - Democracy in America.
There's also the clenched fist salute that's a common feature of leftist "rights" activists in America. This is likewise nothing new. The clenched fist salute was given by Socialist Lee Harvey Oswald after being arrested for the murder of JFK.


"I was looking for a key to my environment, and then I discovered socialist literature. [....] I am a true Karl MarxistI've read just about everything by or about Karl Marx." - Lee Harvey Oswald, entry in personal diary, followed by response during interrogation (Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy).


This salute is a Socialist tradition and racist black activist groups like the Black Panthers, for example, were Founded by Socialists. 
"The clenched-fist salute has been used among revolutionaries for many centuries as a symbol of defiance, comradeship, and solidarity. [....] Since the Third International, the Comintern begun at Moscow in 1919, it has been the official salute of all Communist Parties throughout the world." - John Lautner, Communist Party USA, 1970.

What the falsely labeled "progressive" left in America represents must be recognized and addressed. The pervasive, intentionally induced ignorance, among the general populace must be remedied lest we lose everything our Forefathers established.

Christians are not required to be pacifists

It must be understood that no man now living, nor recently alive, should be viewed as a completely reliable arbiter on Biblical matters. If one wants truth in regard to something the advent of which occurred before their own lifetime, they must seek sources which have propinquity, i.e., they must read history books. If they're looking for the truth in regard to the Christian faith, then before resorting to a third party source, they should first read or at the very least seek corroboration with, The Bible. And when I say The Bible I don't mean part of it, or half of it, but the whole Bible.

The Bible must regain its traditional prominence in the Christian faith.

Opposing tyranny is a deeply Biblical tradition. The liberation of the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt illustrates that God does not condone, and is fundamentally opposed to, tyranny. It's not uncommon for people to cite Romans 13 to argue that Christians are required to submit to authority even if unjust, but they fail to account for the fact that those who govern are no less subject to the laws of God, than those they govern.

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees." - Isa 10:1. 
"Can a corrupt throne be allied with you— a throne that brings on misery by its decrees?" - Psa 94:20. 
Indeed, multiple Biblical figures refused to comply with the established laws of their pagan or immoral rulers, and defiantly resisted the authorities and states under which they lived at God's behest
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practicesYou must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God." - Lev 18:3-4.
Abraham, Moses, David, Azariah, Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego, Daniel, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Christ himself, are examples of Biblical figures who resisted unjust and/or immoral rulers. These figures also serve to illustrate that God often won't do all the work himself, however, and often requires his followers to be active participants in their own liberation. God will provide guidance, and perhaps even some assistance, but it's ultimately up to God's people to follow through.

Why Was Jesus killed?

Ask that question and the answer you'll typically get is something along the lines of "To atone for our sins." I'm not asking why Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, though, I'm asking why he was executed. Atonement for sins is the ethereal why. Blasphemy is the technical why. The corporeal why is very different, however, and something often quite abrasive to modern sensibilities in a church that, much like secular political parties, is becoming ever more conspicuously devoted to protecting its members from unpleasant speech and ideas. Even those derived directly from the very thing upon which it's ostensibly based; The Bible.


Jesus was murdered because he offended people and opposed an immoral and oppressive government.

The Jesus was a "nice guy" heresy is easily refuted with a moment of thought. Who plots to murder someone who goes around hugging people and telling them how wonderful they are? The Pharisees had no insurance policy on Jesus; they stood to gain nothing tangible from assassinating a "nice," indigent manual laborer from some insignificant backwater. So why do it? The Bible provides the answer.

In Matthew 23 Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" 8 times, "blind" 5 times, "fools" twice, belly crawling reptiles ("snakes" and "vipers") twice, accuses them of extortion and murder, and basically refers to them as dirty sinful (full of "uncleanness" and "iniquity") bastards. In the span of thirty nine verses, just based upon the provided list, Jesus directly insults the Pharisees no less than twenty one times. And not only did Jesus insult the Pharisees, but he more than once did it in public, in front of crowds of people. He routinely publicly humiliated them by evading carefully planned attempts at entrapment. And that's not something they appreciated or let slide.

"But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus." - Mat 12:14. 
"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus." - Mar 3:6. 
"The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." - Mar 11:18. 
"Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him." - Luk 19:47.
Why was Jesus hated by the Pharisees? Being nice to people and tolerant of their beliefs doesn't make people hate you. He tells us why he was hated. He told people they were evil; i.e., he was impolite and intolerant of other peoples' feelings and beliefs.
"The world [...] hates me because I testify that its works are evil." - Jhn 7:7. 
So Jesus himself refutes the notion of the adored by all buddy Christ in The Bible. ("World" in this verse means "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ.") The Apostles followed in his footsteps and were almost all likewise murdered as a result. Simply saying that in a modern church however would be "controversial." Serving to illustrate how far the modern church has deviated from its roots. Jesus and the Apostles, unlike the modern church, weren't motivated by and didn't predicate their success on being liked or popular. 

But in the modern church certain truths about certain Biblical figures simply aren't mentioned, in much the same way many political truths about the Founders are omitted by the administrators of modern government, both blatantly for the purpose of suppressing the realization of the natural implications of those truths. Certain portions of The Bible are simply ignored by people advancing the pacific Christian narrative, in much the same manner that leftists ignore those portions of the Constitution, and those aspects of history that contravene their political beliefs. 

"'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than human beings!' - Act 5:29.
Point out that Christ and the Apostles were revolutionaries that ardently defied their repressive government, and you'll be designated a misguided maverick at best, or an outright un-Christian radical extremist at worst.

Christianity was in no small part advanced and established by the sword.

This is not something for which Christians should be ashamed, and they really need to stop apologizing for it. Virtually all belief systems have done this. Certainly there have been mistakes and abuses, but there have been such in every other culture and system of beliefs as well. The benefits produced by Christianity for humanity far outweigh its followers' failings. The fact is God has commanded his people, in certain instances, to take up the sword. Indeed, without the sword Christianity might have never achieved global prominence.


In 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts stripping Christians of their rights, property, and compelling them to adopt the religious practices of Rome's pagan religions. Many refused and were persecuted and killed. Another Roman aristocrat and Christian convert vying for power in Rome, Constantine, allegedly had a dream in which Christ instructed him to place the Greek initials for Christ on the standards of his army. Constantine would eventually defeat Diocletian in battle, i.e., warfare, i.e., with violence, and would go to become sole ruler of Rome and establish Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, paving the way for the Christianization of the civilized western world. In the Basilica of Maxentius a statue of Constantine was placed with the symbol of Christ that had been used on the banner of his soldiers, stating:

"Through this sign of salvation [the initials of Christ], which is the true symbol of goodness, I rescued your city and freed it from the tyrant's yoke."
The point is had this not occurred, and Constantine lost the war for supremacy in Rome, the world as we know it in which Christianity has the most followers globally may not exist.

The Founders were following Biblical and historical precedent.
"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: [...] a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, [...] a time for war and a time for peace." - Ecc 3:1, 3, 8.
The Founders knew The Bible. They attended colleges founded as seminaries. They also knew history and were likewise aware of men like Constantine. Far from their war for Independence being "un-Christian," the Founders viewed themselves as following in the footsteps of their faith's Biblical and historical patriarchs. This is explicitly conveyed in the Seal of the United States proposed by Franklin, (John) Adams, and Jefferson (considered three of the less religious men among the Founders), which depicts the destruction of Pharaoh's army following the parting the Red Sea by Moses, with the inscription around the border reading "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." 


The Founders weren't deviating from the Biblical paradigm in the war for Independence. They were returning to it.

"The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe, which serve to support tyrannical governmentsare not the Christian religionbut abuses and corruptions of it." - Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832.
God had never intended for his people to be ruled by an Earthly king. Indeed, serving an Earthly autocrat is a form of idolatry, an affront to God's will, and something he takes as a personal insult. After the Hebrews demanded to be ruled like the other (pagan) nations, God had Samuel warn them of the onerous consequences, and the loss of liberty that would result if their wish was granted. But they insisted so God relented and gave them their wish as punishment.
"And the LORD told him: 'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their kingAs they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this dayforsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.' Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. [....] But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over usThen we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us.'" - 1 Sa 8:7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20.
The Founders didn't believe that Christians were required to submit to wicked rulers, prohibited from defending themselves, their property, or their liberties, or engaging in violence to that end. Not only were these things not forbidden, they were required by the Christian faith, because the Biblical Deity opposes tyranny and has repeatedly used his followers to combat human manifestations of it.
"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. [...]  Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dearor peace so sweetas to be purchased at the price of chains and slaveryForbid itAlmighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775. 
"Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the Christian religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their laws and liberties." - A unanimous declaration by the men of Marlborough, Massachusetts, 1773.
"When kingsministersgovernorsor legislators, therefore, instead of exercising the powers entrusted to them according to the principles, forms, and propositions stated by the constitution and established by the original compact, prostitute those powerto the purposes of oppression - to destroy instead of preserving the lives, liberties, and properties of the people - they are no longer to be deemed magistrates vested with a sacred characterbut become public enemiesand ought to be resisted." - Proclamation of the Great and General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, drafted by John Adams, January 23, 1776.
"We remember his injunction to forgive and love our most injurious enemies. But neither the law of Christianity nor of reason requires us to prostrate our national independence, freedomprosperityand honor at the feet of proudinsatiable oppressors. [...] Such a prostration would be treason against the being who gave us our inestimable privilegescivil and religious, as a sacred deposit to be defended and transmitted to posterity. It would be criminal unfaithfulness and treachery to our countryour childrenand the whole human race." - Address of the Congressional Ministers of Massachusetts to President John Adams.
The Founders weren't "pacifists" because they knew the patriarchs of The Bible weren't pacifists either.
"Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for warmy fingers for battle." - Psa 144:1.
Founder John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, the nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice appointed by George Washington, a co-author of The Federalist, and a President of the American Bible Society expounds upon the Biblical legitimacy of righteous warfare.
That all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed from culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts), on the one side or on the other, is too clear to require proof. As to wars of an opposite description, and many such there have been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending party in our daysas they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and, instead of being blamed, was blessed." - to John Murray, October 12, 1816.
This sentiment was not exclusive to Founding era statesmen, but was shared by many clergy of the day as well, and in many cases was derived by the former from the latter. In 1750 the Rev. Jonathon Mayhew, D.D., delivered "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers." In 1766 the Rev. Charles Chauncey, D.D., delivered a thanksgiving sermon on the repeal of the stamp act. In 1770 the Rev. Samuel Cook, D.D., delivers "Civil Government for the Good of the People." In 1774 the Rev. William Gaden, of Roxbury, delivered "Christian Duty of Resistance to Tyrants; Prepare for War; Appeal to Heaven." In 1775 the Rev. Samuel Langdon, D.D., delivers "Government, Corrupted by Vice, Recovered by Righteousness." In 1778 the Rev. Phillips Paxson, of Chelsea, delivered "Popular Government, the True Spirit of Liberty." Such constituted typical sermonic content among New England clergy.

The first shots of the Revolutionary War killed 8 men in the Minutemen militia on the lawn of P
astor Jonas Clark's church. Clark was harboring two fugitives from British justice, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and the 8 men killed were members of Clark's congregation; whom Clark had for years inculcated with the precepts of self-defense and inalienable rights through his sermons. The Reverend James Caldwell, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Elizabethtown, NJ, who fought in the battle of Springfield, is another superb illustration of the fallacy that pacifism is the obligation of American Christians. 

"When the glorious war of our Revolution commenced which resulted in our independence, the Rev. James Caldwell was then pastor of this church. His name and fame are interwoven with the history of his country, and are as dear to the State as to the Church. He became early and deeply interested in the conflict, and devoted all his powers no less to the freedom of his country than to the service of his God. Such was his influence over his people that, with few exceptions, they became one with him in sentiment and feeling; and thenceforward he and they were branded as the rebel parson and parishTo the enemies of his country he was an object of the deepest hatredand such was their known thirst for his lifethatwhile preaching the gospel of peace to his peoplehe was compelled to lay his loaded pistols by his side in the pulpit. 
At the first call to arms, the State offered its brigade for the common defence, and Mr. Caldwell was elected its chaplain. His immense popularity gave him an influence that filled the tories with rage and made his name common as a household word among the British troops. They offered a large reward for his captureFor his personal safetyhe went armed. 
So entire was the confidence of the people in his integrity that, when the army became greatly reduced, and both provisions and money were hard to be obtained, he was appointed Assistant Commissary-General. He not only was earnest and eloquent in his pulpit for the cause of his countrybut was active and brave in battle. In one of the engagements near Springfield, New Jersey, Mr. Caldwell was in the hottest of the fight, and, seeing the fire of one of the companies slacken for want of wadding, he galloped to the Presbyterian meeting house near by, and, rushing in, ran from pew to pew, filling his arms with hymn-books. Hastening back with these into battle, he scattered them about in every direction, saying, as he pitched one here and another there, 'Now, boys, put Watts into them.'" - Reverend Nicholas Murray, Memorial to Congress for Rev. James Caldwell, 1840. 
Clergy of more than one denomination were supporters of American Independence, and the British specifically targeted members of their denominations and their churches for retaliation, turning the latter into stables, burning them, etc. Both the Reverend Caldwell above and his wife were killed, and his house and church burned, by British forces and Tories. 

It should go without saying that it's in the interests of Christianity's enemies to convince its adherents that pacifism is a Christian duty. A church full of pacifists won't be an obstacle to the Marxist left's subversion of America's institutions. They won't defy or depose a totalitarian state. They'll do what hyper-effeminate pacifists do and obsequiously accept their abuse at the hands of their enemies. And unfortunately the left has been highly successful in propagating this heretical mentality throughout the modern church.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people- Declaration of Independence. 
It's no coincidence the liturgy of modern churches overtly suppresses masculinity. The modern church has been nigh completely re-purposed toward inducing socio-political languor in its congregants. If the left can't abolish theism altogether, it will at least suppress resistance to their agenda from the Christian right, by assiduously feminizing men through inculcation of the belief that defying unjust rulers and/or resisting an oppressive state is disobedience to God. One can defeat a stronger opponent if that opponent refuses to fight, and facilitating that agenda seems to be one of the most conspicuous goals of the modern church.

The truth is Christians are not required to be apolitical or indefatigably submissive. Indeed, this sentiment is the opposite of what the Founders believed and animated their separation from Britain.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitudethan the animating contest of freedomgo from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, August 1, 1776.
When elements hostile to Christianity gain a foothold, or worse ascend to prominence in a society established upon Christianity, it places all Christianity and liberty derived from such in jeopardy.
"I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future lifeeternity is only one motive of their devotion to the causeIf you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilizationyou will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priestThey will tell you that 'all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religiousin order that they may permit us to remain free.'" - Alexis de Tocqueville, Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The United States.
If Christian liberty is to be saved, it's imperative that the American church return to its theological roots, both Biblical and civic. Christians must not only be knowledgeable of and active in politics, but must maintain prominence in the political aspect of life, lest Christian liberty and religion have no defenders in government and be left entirely at the mercy of apostatic elements to constrain and uproot uncontested.  
"Christians should endeavor to understandand should take suitable interest in the subject of civil governmentIt is neither remote from themnor too unholy to occupy their attention. From the mere contests of faction they may, indeed, stand aloof; but surely, that which attracted the attention of an inspired apostle is not beneath the study of the most spiritually minded of the followers of Christ. They should study the subject, moreover; for without this, they cannot with becoming high intelligence perform their own duty respecting it. [....] The ambassador of Christ should keep close to the footsteps of his Master and of his inspired followers, and rising above the transient conflicts and unworthy behests of party, should essay to exhibit and illustrate the entire subject of governmental arrangements and polity, in a manner becoming an exalted moral institution — so as to bring a revenue of glory to Christ the Supreme Lawgiver. [....] So far then is it from being true that the Christian is to disregard the movements of societyor even what relates to matters of civil regimenand human rights and libertythat the very opposite is a truth, and a most important one. The Christian shouldof all menregard things like these with a constant and active interest. So his Bible teaches him - for its pages abound in directions bearing immediately upon them." - Pastor James M. Willson, 1853.