ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Christianity's killers

I was not surprised there has been an amount of pushback against the idea that a Christian should do anything except sit on his ass and prayerfully expect that God will take care of everything in due time. Now, this is not to denigrate the power of prayer, which is vital and can absolutely be efficacious, but rather the idea that it is God's will for us to always refrain from any action of any kind that might bruise the feelings of anyone, especially an enemy.

There is an intrinsic conflict between the moderates and the extremists of any movement or organization. The moderates are inward-focused, conservative, defensive, and believe that public relations is the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat. The extremists are outward-focused, creative, offensive, and believe that material conditions are the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat. These two rival perspectives tend to hold true regardless of whatever the issue might be, from politics and cultural war to sports and business affairs.

Christianity merely compounds this intrinsic conflict, it does not create it. And it is not, as some might have it, a mere intellectual difference of opinion, which is why discussing the different perspectives and attempting to come to some compromise seldom works. Consider what Maj. Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, wrote about Easy Company in Beyond Band of Brothers:
On reflection, we were highly charged; we knew what to do; and we conducted ourselves as part of a well-oiled machine. Because we were so intimate with each other, I knew the strengths of each of my troopers. It was not accidental that I had selected my best men, Compton, Guarnere, and Malarkey in one group, Lipton and Ranney in the other. These men comprised Easy Company’s “killers,” soldiers who instinctively understood the intricacies of battle. In both training and combat, a leader senses who his killers are. I merely put them in a position where I could utilize their talents most effectively. Many other soldiers thought they were killers and wanted to prove it.

In reality, however, your killers are few and far between. Nor is it always possible to determine who your killers are by the results of a single engagement. In combat, a commander hopes that nonkillers will learn by their association with those soldiers who instinctively wage war without restraint and without regard to their personal safety. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that casualties are highest among your killers, hence the need to return them to the front as soon as possible in the hope that other “killers” emerge.
In other words, the dynamic between actors and non-actors is entirely normal and the latter always outnumber the former. Keep in mind that the men of Easy Company were aggressive, competitive, highly-trained young men who belonged to the absolute elite of the US military. And even there, the "killers are few and far between". In war, physical or metaphorical, there are very few who are capable of instinctively waging it "without restraint and without regard to their personal safety". And one important difference between actual war and cultural war is that in the case of the latter, many of the nonkillers spend a fair amount of their time sniping at the killers on their own side rather than at the other side.

Imagine how effective Easy Company would have been if instead of being expected to follow the killers' example, its nonkillers dedicated themselves to explaining at length that instead of flanking the German gun position on D-Day and killing the German gunners, they should all prove themselves to be better than the Germans by being nice to them. And then, when the killers ignored them and began the flank attack, instead of laying down covering fire, the nonkillers started shooting at the killers. Does anyone seriously think this would be a successful way to wage war?

Why, then, does anyone imagine that the same tactical approach will succeed in cultural war? If the moderates will not at the very least provide covering fire for the extremists, they are useless. And to the extent that they open their cowardly mouths to criticize, correct, and concern-troll the only people on their side who are taking action, they are worse than useless.

As for the Christians, let us reflect upon the Biblical example that many "nonkillers" like to cite, Matthew 26:51
With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
There is a great deal of significant information here, particularly the situation-specific aspects of the command, but with regards to the present subject, the most important point is this: Jesus knowingly chose a hot-tempered "killer" as one of his closest companions and the rock upon which he would build the Church. Like David, beloved of God, and Paul, the great evangelist, it is the "killers" whom God has historically preferred and chosen to utilize. I do not think the moderates and nonkillers who sit back and snipe in the comfortable confidence that they are doing God's will by sitting on their plump posteriors and doing nothing that will offend anyone should be so confident that God's Will is in line with their own.

Keep in mind that the incident is also recounted in John 18:10
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
Clearly the relevant point is not the non-use of swords, but the non-use of a particular sword in a particular situation. As to "dying by the sword", what of it? That doesn't mean that one's actions that put one at risk of it are necessarily wrong. It's merely a factual warning. Recall what Winters pointed out: "The problem, of course, lies in the fact that casualties are highest among your killers." Winters also wrote about the guilt he sometimes felt at reunions, as he was reminded that there were about half as many survivors of 1st platoon as there were from Easy Company's 2nd and 3rd platoons due to the heavier casualties they took. But consider why he leaned upon them so heavily:
With thirty-five men, a platoon of Easy Company had routed two German companies of about 300 men. American casualties (including those from Fox Company) were one dead, twenty-two wounded. German casualties were fifty killed, eleven captured, about 100 wounded.
It should not be a surprise that looking into it reveals that the platoon responsible was Easy Company's 1st platoon. Dying by the sword is not a sin. It is, in many cases, a sacrifice.

Most damning of all, I think, is the observable hypocrisy of many moderates, who flagrantly violate their own advice. They are very often more than happy to insult their nominal allies and attack their own side's extremists with the very names they refuse to call the enemy.

Labels: ,

183 Comments:

Blogger Krul March 01, 2015 8:15 AM  

Revelation 3:15-16
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 01, 2015 8:17 AM  

I suppose mentioning Heraclitus is appropriate.

I think with a little verbal beating the moderates can be driven out to the no man's land between the sides, probably just a few questions of them would leave them exposed.

IMO anyone reading your blog should at least aspire to be one of Heraclitus' nine men who make the battle.

Anonymous Stickwick March 01, 2015 8:20 AM  

The moderates I talk to don't believe we're in a war. They think it's just hostilities, and that if we make nice with the other side, it won't escalate to full-blown war. "Peace for Our Time."

I hate that we're in a war, but it's happening whether I like it or not. To try to make nice with the other side at this point is as deplorable as it is fruitless. As you said, the only thing to do is choose one of the four F's.

Blogger Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 8:46 AM  

Just to be clear here, the event that brought up this topic was someone commenting about how calling anti-GGers fat was "counterproductive" or "unnecessary" or something? Or, at any rate, that can be considered as a typical example of a moderate shooting at his own side?

And, if I understand correctly, this is the thinking:

- There is a war on.
- The current battleground of the war is primarily rhetorical.
- Rhetoric is necessary to win a rhetorical war.
- Associating the other side with fat, disgusting slobs is effective rhetoric.
- Therefore it is good strategy.

I can see a "moderate" objecting to this line of thought on two grounds. The first would be claiming that the fourth point is wrong and that associating the other side with fat slobs is not in fact good rhetoric--the explanation given being probably that such attacks would make "our" side seem like name-calling bullies, and being a bully is worse than being a fatty. This objection would question the strategy in terms of rhetorical effectiveness.

The second objection would be to claim that rhetoric which bends the truth to demonize opponents is inherently immoral--something akin to a lie--and hence a morally unacceptable means to use in a "war" whether or not the other side uses it too. Something like a "war crime".

What are the appropriate responses to such objections?

Blogger Pogo: I never said I was a diplomat March 01, 2015 8:49 AM  

This is a very insightful piece.
And it furthers my resolve not to back off.
Thank you, Vox.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 8:52 AM  

What are the appropriate responses to such objections?

1. You're not the strategy police. Stop criticizing, get off your fat ass, and do something proactive.
2. You're not the morality police. Stop criticizing, get off your fat ass, and do something proactive.

Moderates love to seek and grant permission before anyone does anything. That's why they're so ineffective. "Let's do something that will make the other side look less good and praiseworthy than us, then no one will be able to criticize us and we will win by default" is the core of their strategic thinking, to the extent it can be described as either strategy or thought.

It is so astonishingly clueless and self-centered that it's no wonder they get routinely trounced.

Anonymous p-dawg March 01, 2015 8:53 AM  

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

I don't think the command was to buy a sword for ornamentation. Pretty sure it was for use. And it was considered more important than a winter cloak, even.

Blogger Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 9:01 AM  

Vox,

Thank you.

I can see how those responses are appropriate in a pragmatic sense. If someone were actually vocalizing those objections, the responses you suggest would be appropriate in the sense that they would be the ones most effective for the purposes of winning the war.

However, I was really asking more about the appropriate dialectical responses. The ones that would be given in a vacuum or an ivory tower, at a time when no practical goods were at stake.

What I am really trying to get at is whether these objections are *right* or not in an abstract sense. I can concede that perhaps it would be wrong for, say, a daily newspaper to print a scathing criticism of its own nation's foreign policy during the crucial periods of a war. It seems to me that that's the kind of thing you're calling "moderates" out on. But, forgive me, the theory and abstract considerations are more interesting to me.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus March 01, 2015 9:03 AM  

Jesus told His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. This wasn't so they could flaunt them ceremonially.

Blogger Northern Hamlet March 01, 2015 9:12 AM  

Vox,

Is it possible for one to occupy a consigliere or Machevelli-type role from a position that is more center, but none the less, one of pragmatism? If yes, how does one avoid the pitfalls you've outlined? l

Anonymous willlneverpostagain March 01, 2015 9:13 AM  

Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

Blogger Viisaus March 01, 2015 9:14 AM  

In pre-modern societies, the warriors and EXECUTIONERS were often very different types. For example, in India the real fighters were members the high noble caste, but the executioners, killers of people who could not fight back, were recruited among despised Chandala outcastes.

I have read that during the WW II, the bravest Soviet soldiers, who led the actual front charges, were not the ones who really committed civilian atrocities in Germany and elsewhere. It was rather the following waves of grunts who followed these high-quality fighters - looting rabble and NKVD purgers, who really behaved badly.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 9:15 AM  

However, I was really asking more about the appropriate dialectical responses. The ones that would be given in a vacuum or an ivory tower, at a time when no practical goods were at stake.

1. On what basis do you challenge the effectiveness of rhetoric? What are your empirical or theoretical grounds for asserting that "name-calling bullies" is an ineffective strategy or claiming that being seen as a bully is worse than being seen as a fatty?

The moderate never actually has any backing for his mewlings. They're based on nothing more than his feelings. Expose this, destroy his credibility, and thereby render him mute. The mistake most extremists make is to defend their strategy. The correct response is to go on the offensive against the moderate and show him to be the self-centered fool he is.

2. Drop Aristotle on him. If you cannot convince someone with dialectic, that leaves rhetoric. Then attack his claim to be able to declare precisely what rhetoric is and is not morally acceptable, or to make such moral decisions for others. In both cases, attack the moderate. After all, he won't hesitate to attack you.

Blogger Krul March 01, 2015 9:20 AM  

willneverpostagain - Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

Ooh, it's like Clausewitz on opposite day.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 9:24 AM  

Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

Congratulations, you just failed Clausewitz 101. You're wrong.

Is it possible for one to occupy a consigliere or Machevelli-type role from a position that is more center, but none the less, one of pragmatism? If yes, how does one avoid the pitfalls you've outlined?

Theoretically. But keep in mind that Machiavelli wasn't very successful, for the most part. Nor was the "prince" whose principles he articulated in the end. Basically, the most important thing to keep in mind is that YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE. Not only does no one want to follow you, no one could even if they wanted to. Because you're not doing anything. You can't be a leader and no one can follow you if you don't go anywhere.

Look at Larry. He didn't ask permission or get approval. He just created Sad Puppies. People followed him because they saw he was being a leader. Same with Castalia House. We didn't talk to anyone, we just did it and thousands of like-minded people have followed and contributed and even branched off to do their own thing as a result.

The problem is that you inevitably have non-leaders who either want the status, or the influence, or simply want to share their ideas. They try to take over the existing group because they don't have the ability to create one of their own. It's important to learn that not everyone who wants to help can be permitted to do so, especially if they try to assume leadership roles early on.

Blogger Shimshon March 01, 2015 9:28 AM  

If name calling were ineffective, the enemy wouldn't constantly make use of it. In fact, it is extremely effective against SJWs.

Blogger Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 9:29 AM  

Thanks again, Vox.

Blogger toadbile March 01, 2015 9:30 AM  

Judges ch3 14-30 : in which heaven condones assassins as well as soldiers. Ehud is my favorite old testament player; "such killers are few and far between."

I wonder how many of the enslaved Israelites kept swinging their picks in the quarries, insisting in comfortable confidence that they are doing God's will, and how they just needed to explain to the guards about being Chosen and wait for the Proper Authority to handle things. By verse 29 they are all killers. Happy endings!



Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 9:30 AM  

This quote showed up on my Twitter feed and seemed appropriate:

"The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets."
- Ayaan Hirsi Hali

Anonymous Orville March 01, 2015 9:39 AM  

- Associating the other side with fat, disgusting slobs is effective rhetoric.

Kind of like Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal saying things like, "Oh, your god must be asleep, or maybe taking a dump in the shitter."

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 9:45 AM  

You strike me as someone who's never had the courage to participate in either one.

That's nice. You strike me as a petty anklebiter.

Blogger Shimshon March 01, 2015 9:48 AM  

Orville, no one will ever accuse Elijah of being a moderate!

Blogger Bobo March 01, 2015 9:49 AM  

"War to the knife, and knife to the hilt"
-Nathan B. Forrest

Blogger Northern Hamlet March 01, 2015 9:50 AM  

Vox,

Theoretically

I hate to disagree with a response I've requested, but it may be I'm misunderstanding your recent posts.

I'm in the center politically and believe most battles are an unnecessary strategic waste of resources. However, I do have my fights and give my all. I do things, lots of them. But I also like sharing strategy in an effort to gather more knowledge, but also the respect of men I respect with one of the few gifts I have.

In your thinking, am I a moderate?

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 9:52 AM  

In your thinking, am I a moderate?

Not in the sense we're discussing. A political moderate, or a centrist, is totally different than an organization moderate. One is an ideological position, the other a psychological (and, I suspect, a socio-sexual) perspective.

Blogger Bobo March 01, 2015 9:54 AM  

He also said, "Kindness toward bad men is cruelty toward the good."

As per the topic, there rarely any moral or strategic benefit in placating the enemy. Tactical maybe...

Anonymous Stilicho March 01, 2015 9:57 AM  

Pacifism tastes like... chicken.

Anonymous Homesteader March 01, 2015 9:58 AM  

I think Harsh is referring to willneverpostagain's comment.

Anonymous Augustina March 01, 2015 9:59 AM  

I find moderates repulsive. They are the main reason we have lost the culture war.

There is one young man who is among my children's acquaintances. I am facebook friends with him. He is supposedly a Christian. In fact, he's studying to be a youth minister. I've noticed that the only time he ever mentions Christianity is to criticize other Christians, even when the Christians are being falsely accused. When SJW homos make some false report of a "hate crime," this creep is first online to denounce his fellow falsely accused Christians. When these incidents later turn out to be false, he never apologizes or admits his mistake.

Recently, the youth pastor of his church was caught being sexually involved with one of his 15 year old young charges. When the arrest came to light, this creep was first out of the box to tell us all not to judge him. When another friend made a comment that the sex predator was a snake who manipulated people to get what he wanted, the moderate creep doubled down on defending the predator. My friend and I were the awful ones, for rightly explaining how psychopathic sex predators work; the sex predator himself needed understanding and forgiveness.

So according to the creep moderate, you must criticize other Christians when they make Christianity "look bad," except when the christian is a psychopathic sex predator. Amazing.

Now I fully understand why Jesus says they will be spat out. Creepy moderates are revolting.

Anonymous Northern Observer March 01, 2015 10:03 AM  

With the example of Peter in the garden, couldn't it be said that his actions were a tactical error that he made because his 'killer' instinct contradicted Jesus' plans?

Also, couldn't Judas' betrayal be blamed on him disagreeing with Jesus' strategy and wanting to take action?

i.e. are the extremists/killers always correct?

Anonymous Homesteader March 01, 2015 10:04 AM  

-"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Commons

Anonymous Homesteader March 01, 2015 10:13 AM  

Heinlein said that ultimately there ae only two types politically- those who would be controlled, and those who won't. In other words, r/K.

Moderates seek safety. They would happily be controlled, for the piss warm bath of slavery's peace.

(When Lowry defenestrated Derb, I knew then whose side National Review was really on. )

They will always find a way to sell you out.

Blogger Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 10:17 AM  

Augustina,

I expect that the tendency for some young Christians to criticize one another in the manner you describe is rooted in overreaction against a bogeyman created by the left, namely, the theoretical "hateful, bigoted" Christian. Such an obvious form of hypocrisy makes a convenient, socially acceptable scapegoat for those who want to feel themselves to be better than others.

There is a kernel of truth in the idea: why focus on the sins of your fellow man, when you have so many of your own sins to worry about? The real problem is not in overt criticism of sins, which is fine, but in the general personal tendency to focus your mental energies on hating the sins of others rather than on hating your own sins. It is not the action which is bad, but being-the-kind-of-person-who enjoys and routinely seeks out opportunities to indulge such actions. I think really it is one form of the sin of pride.

However, it is obviously inconsistent to apply this idea in such a way as to focus your own mental energies on finding sins of pride in others, which is what it sounds like the young man you describe is doing. That is just a higher and more refined form of pride, and deadlier because it masquerades as humility.

But at any rate, I don't think it's necessarily a case of worrying about how "judgmental" Christians make the religion look from the outside, at least not consciously. If I have the diagnosis correct, it's likely a more insidious and spiritual ailment, one that's common to intelligent young people.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 10:17 AM  

I think Harsh is referring to willneverpostagain's comment.

I think you're right. Sorry, Harsh. Deleted.

Anonymous sawtooth March 01, 2015 10:17 AM  

The lying, vicious, Godless left never seems to be plagued by those squishy "moderates".

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 10:22 AM  

With the example of Peter in the garden, couldn't it be said that his actions were a tactical error that he made because his 'killer' instinct contradicted Jesus' plans?

Yes.

Also, couldn't Judas' betrayal be blamed on him disagreeing with Jesus' strategy and wanting to take action?

Yes.

i.e. are the extremists/killers always correct?

No, of course not. But notice that in Peter's case it was because he was uninformed, not because his instincts were false. And notice that Peter immediately obeyed Jesus when rebuked. Does that sound like any critical moderate's behavior ever?

Furthermore, Judas's treacherous behavior was that of a moderate, not a killer. He was trying to tell Jesus what to do, and when Jesus wouldn't listen, he sold him out. Peter wasn't trying to tell Jesus what to do, he simply acted on his own.

Anonymous Tallen March 01, 2015 10:23 AM  

My understanding of those particular Bible verses is that Jesus requested his disciples bring some weapons ("see here we have 2 swords... " "it is enough") specifically to give the Romans pretext to arrest them. The Jews were going to take Him and possibly His disciples into custody regardless but the Romans would have needed cause for holding them - in this case illegally bearing arms. It is very much situational.

Anonymous Augustina March 01, 2015 10:26 AM  

Edward Isaacs: first off, this guy is a textbook case of exactly what Vox is describing. He is extremely judgmental while criticizing others for being judgmental. The only time when he is not being judgmental is when someone does something actually wrong.

He furthermore never apologizes or admits wrongdoing when he finds out the the Christians he was criticizing were falsely accused. That is a tell right there.

You are right in sensing that the problem with moderates is one of pride. I think that this is where their problems are rooted. They think they know better than others how to accomplish things. Not that they ever accomplish anything themselves, mind you.

Furthermore, and you will have to trust me on this one, this particular moderate creep is not an intelligent young man. He strikes me as rather dull.

Blogger Nate March 01, 2015 10:27 AM  

Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside.

Blogger James Dixon March 01, 2015 10:28 AM  

> ...What are the appropriate responses to such objections?

They already call us bullies and worse.
That's the nature of rhetoric. All effective rhetoric contains a grain of truth, but it's exaggerated for effect.

> Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

To the SJW's, they are. Either they will be to us, or we will lose.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 10:28 AM  

My understanding of those particular Bible verses is that Jesus requested his disciples bring some weapons ("see here we have 2 swords... " "it is enough") specifically to give the Romans pretext to arrest them. The Jews were going to take Him and possibly His disciples into custody regardless but the Romans would have needed cause for holding them - in this case illegally bearing arms. It is very much situational.

It's not "very much situational". It may be situational, but it is by no means as clearly situational as him telling Peter to put up his sword and not defend him is. Moreover, it misses the most important point. THE DISCIPLES ALREADY HAD TWO SWORDS!

Anonymous Stickwick March 01, 2015 10:28 AM  

Augustina: I find moderates repulsive. They are the main reason we have lost the culture war.

We're on the ropes, but we haven't lost. And keep in mind that we Christians are always at our best when we're in this position. We've been fat and happy for a long time, but that time has come to an end.

Anonymous Homesteader March 01, 2015 10:29 AM  

That's because they ARE lying, vicious, and Godless.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 10:30 AM  

Furthermore, I very much doubt your creative interpretation is correct, Tallen. What evidence do you have that the Romans outlawed the ownership of swords by anyone in occupied Judea? Consider Mark 14:43: "And immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders."

Anonymous Homesteader March 01, 2015 10:31 AM  

regarding @sawtooth's comment above

Anonymous Nietzsche March 01, 2015 10:33 AM  

The problem of using 1st century Christians as a model is they didn't fight back, but were willing martyrs.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 10:34 AM  

Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside.

That went up on Twitter.

Anonymous Nietzsche March 01, 2015 10:39 AM  


"Use human means as though divine ones didn't exist, and divine means as though there were no human ones." Baltasar Gracian

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 10:40 AM  

Those outside the church can fight the evils of their time however they feel is best, but Christ commands believers to evangelize the world. Yet most of the modern church in the US, if it actually believes the gospel at all, is on the sofa eating potato chips binge watching re-runs (sorry, I meant eating artisan potato chips and binge watching re-runs ironically).

Yes, bringing truth at the edge of the sword as many did in the centuries following Christ was wrong. (That's not how we were told to do it) But, in their zeal for God they were less wrong in their time than those who in our time clamor that our duty is to do nothing, and make sure we do it nicely.

If believers were busy fighting the battles we are already called to fight (I think of Beau), there's be a lot less sitting around wondering how nicely or meanly we're supposed to be doing other things.

Blogger Robert Coble March 01, 2015 10:42 AM  

My karate Sensei (a former Navy UDT Team Leader) categorized people into three classes: (1) Sheep; (2) Wolves; and (3) Sheepdogs. IMHO, moderates in any war are sheep in wolves clothing. Sheepdogs should treat them as what they appear to be: wolves. Attack them as if attacking a wolf, with intent to kill, even if only in a rhetorical sense.

Anonymous KEYBOARD WARRIOR March 01, 2015 10:51 AM  

"
If believers were busy fighting the battles we are already called to fight " he bravely types...

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 01, 2015 10:53 AM  

Vox, I think this is one of your more important recent posts, and one that I hope the moderates, conservatives, and tradcons among your readership take to heart.

We're headed for war. Not a cultural war waged on the interwebz, but a real shooting war, whether our foes be SJWs, Africans, Muslims, or other mercenery groups the elites choose to throw at us.

In order to defeat our adversaries, it will be necessary to kill them.

Anonymous A. Nonymous March 01, 2015 10:54 AM  

As to "dying by the sword", what of it?

It seems to me that, prior to the First World War, at least, the majority of human societies viewed "dying by the sword" as something glorious and praise-worthy, including Christian ones.

Anonymous TheBorg March 01, 2015 11:00 AM  

Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated, well white people anyway everyone else is vibrant diversity. Your technological advancements will be given to those who use their hands for toilet paper.

Associating the other side with fat, disgusting slobs is effective rhetoric.
Especially showing all the ugly big nosed lesbians that are the big name feminists.

Anonymous clk March 01, 2015 11:04 AM  

Maybe its just the term "Moderate" and its negative use here that bothers me.... maybe there is another term you could use instead ? The opposite of moderist would be an extremist... and you guys are not extremists...

Anonymous MontyDraxel March 01, 2015 11:05 AM  

Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

I just finished watching the 12 part Battlefield Vietnam documentary on youtube. Perhaps the most instructive conflict in history as to the immutable bond of politics and war.

Also, to watch the many failed attempts early on to beat the NLF/ VC and NVA because of political decisions was disheartening. So many dead civilians and soldiers on both sides because of wishy-washy politics interfering. For as bad a President as Nixon was, he knew what needed to be done to end it (Linebacker 2). Dropping a ton of bombs on anything and everything without holding back will do that.

OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 11:08 AM  

Very good post Vox.

Luke 22 was in my reading rotation this morning and a passage in the chapter is directly relevent to your point.

Just after the founding of the Lord's Supper is this interesting passage Luke 22:35-38

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.”

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one*.

37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”


(bold mine). *What I see in verse 36 is Jesus telling the Apostles of a transition in the nature of their relationship; Anybody who has taught a student knows what this is about; as a teacher, the student is your responsibility, but at graduation, the relationship and responsibilities shift.

Here, Jesus is telling the apostles that the days of Jesus physical presence with them on earth are over and the body of the church will have to fulfill get about its work with "moneybag", "knapsack" and "sword".





Anonymous Orville March 01, 2015 11:08 AM  

Judas wasn't a moderate, he was an infiltrator.

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

"Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

Blogger J Thomas March 01, 2015 11:11 AM  

Good post. "Nice" Christianity is far removed from the original.

No doubt most would be offended today with Paul telling the Judaizers to go cut their dicks off, rather than affront his gospel with OT regulations.

OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 11:14 AM  

There is an intrinsic conflict between the moderates and the extremists of any movement or organization. The moderates are inward-focused, conservative, defensive, and believe that public relations is the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat.

The extremists are outward-focused, creative, offensive, and believe that material conditions are the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat.

These two rival perspectives tend to hold true regardless of whatever the issue might be, from politics and cultural war to sports and business affairs.


A-freaking-men.

I am stealing your first two sentences for use on a couple of moderates I have in mind.

On the third day, at dawn, look to the East and then do a google search and you will probably see your words deployed at other websites.

Blogger bob k. mando March 01, 2015 11:14 AM  

Augustina March 01, 2015 9:59 AM
In fact, he's studying to be a youth minister.



i think the single most serious mistake the Protestant / Baptist churches have made is that, like the Catholics, they have ignored the NT requirements for authority in the the church ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3&version=KJV ) and substituted credentialism in it's place.

"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

so long as you pay your money to Bob Jones U. ( or whomever ) and manage not to do anything egregiously stupid AND public for 4-6 years, you're going to get your 'Divinity' degree.

but book knowledge of the Bible is NOT a Biblical requirement ( although i would agree that it is assumed ) for authority within the church.

instead, the criteria is the proof that you can 'rule your own house'.

how can any single, newly capped graduate prove his ability to rule his own house? much less a celibate who will never be married?

and yet, these UNTRIED people are routinely handed preaching positions straight out of Bible college / seminary.




Augustina March 01, 2015 9:59 AM
My friend and I were the awful ones, for rightly explaining how psychopathic sex predators work; the sex predator himself needed understanding and forgiveness.



iow, exactly the same response as the RCC hierarchy.

and for much the same reasons.

and just as evil.



Northern Observer March 01, 2015 10:03 AM
i.e. are the extremists/killers always correct?



no one is 'always correct'. we are all sinful and imperfect men.

the problem is that there are few things more reliably indicative of future failure than reflexively refusing to take action.

Masada, for instance, was an impregnable redoubt where the Jews could sit, fat dumb and happy, spitting on the Legions.

right up until the Romans decided to build God's own ramp to the top of the mountain and come pay them a visit.

Blogger Bogey March 01, 2015 11:28 AM  

First comment by Krul sums it up nicely. Think the apostle Paul, a zealot through and through.

It's all a matter of deprogramming now. Man's words or God's way.

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 11:36 AM  

"If believers were busy fighting the battles we are already called to fight " he bravely types...

...from the mission field. We need help over here, interested in learning Mandarin?

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 11:50 AM  

Edward Isaacs,

Good comment in general, one caveat:

"I expect that the tendency for some young Christians to criticize one another in the manner you describe is rooted in overreaction against a bogeyman created by the left, namely, the theoretical 'hateful, bigoted' Christian."

Yes, the left created that bogeyman, but if they hadn't, there would have been another. Always has been, it's (fallen) human nature. We give the left too much credit, and thereby too much power over us.

Anonymous A Visitor March 01, 2015 11:51 AM  

What people don't realize is it is a war, just not a shooting one yet. We need to present a united front in public; ergo, criticize in private, if you must disagree. Our Christian brothers in the Middle East are being persecuted and martyred. Stateside we have soft persecution from the lavender lobby. Many moderates on our side see this whole thing as a joke or do not want to believe it's happening. Guess what? IT IS! Now let's take the fight to the enemy! As they say in the 11th ACR: ALLONS! As it says on their challenge coin, "Find the bastards, then pile on!" Vivat Jesus!

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 11:54 AM  

bob k. mando,

"how can any single, newly capped graduate prove his ability to rule his own house? much less a celibate who will never be married?

and yet, these UNTRIED people are routinely handed preaching positions straight out of Bible college / seminary."

This.

Not just a problem with the church, either. Certainly greatly destructive there.

Blogger James Dixon March 01, 2015 11:57 AM  

> The opposite of moderist would be an extremist... and you guys are not extremists...

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Sometimes all that is needed is to repeat the wisdom of our elders.

Blogger Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 11:58 AM  

On the topic of needing more experienced Church leaders: there are a LOT of Christians who need to be led. If the current system is not working, what is the practical alternative? Or to put it another way, where are all these superior leaders supposed to come from?

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 12:03 PM  

Nietzshe,

"The problem of using 1st century Christians as a model is they didn't fight back, but were willing martyrs."

Yeah, yeah, slave mentality, yadda, yadda. Your critique of Christianity has not held up so well to the test of time, Friedrich.

The very much fought back, with the only tools at their disposal at the time - the clear testament of the courage, manliness, and fidelity of those very martyrs in an age in which those who had the sword hand had forgotten those virtues. They thereby demonstrated their worthiness to take up that sword when the time came for wielding it.

Blogger grendel March 01, 2015 12:05 PM  

[B]Yes, bringing truth at the edge of the sword as many did in the centuries following Christ was wrong. (That's not how we were told to do it)[/b]

Only if you are of the school that believes in a radical disconnect between old and new testament which I don't believe is biblically supported. Killing the wicked was commanded in the OT, and done with vigor and glee. I don't see where the NT says to never do that anymore. And in the OT one reason for not living in a state of multiculturalism with the surrounding heathens was because they would corrupt your faith.

Pop quiz: did Jesus come to bring peace, or a sword?

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 12:06 PM  

Edward,

"where are all these superior leaders supposed to come from?"

O ye of little faith. Do you imagine Paul the tentmaker had a PhD from Harvard Div?

Anonymous Miserman March 01, 2015 12:25 PM  

Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside.

Moderation in warfare is the seductive call of evil Sirens. Plug your ears and run, saying to yourself "Life! Life! Eternal life!"

Anonymous PT March 01, 2015 12:27 PM  

Does anyone seriously think this would be a successful way to wage war?

Right, but no one thinks you are a Winters.

Blogger JDC March 01, 2015 12:29 PM  

Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside.

In "Attack on Christendom," Kierkegaard writes about a fire chief who admonishes a group of well intentioned people who show up to the fire to support the fire department by shooting squirt guns at the fire, with cheery smiles on their faces.

The fire chief's response? "Get the hell outta here. This is no place for uncommitted people armed with squirt guns. This is a dangerous place, and only those willing to give their lives belong."

Blogger JDC March 01, 2015 12:30 PM  

There's a fire going on, people are burning, and yet, the moderates are chastising the firemen, and worried that we might offend the fire.

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 12:36 PM  

Pop quiz: did Jesus come to bring peace, or a sword?

Both, of course. (Matt 10:34, John 14:27)

Killing the wicked was commanded in the OT, and done with vigor and glee. I don't see where the NT says to never do that anymore.

Even there, it's commanded in specific, not in general. There's no "slay the infidel wherever you find him," it's "go kill every single person and animal in X city. In Y city, kill every single personal but you may keep the animals." etc.

In a theocracy when God says to destroy another city, nation, sparing none, etc., you do it. However, we do not now live in a theocracy (the NT command to submit to earthly rulers is one demonstration of this, Jesus' repeated teaching that His kingdom was not of this world is another), and therefore no man/prophet has the spiritual authority to speak for God in authorizing such violence.

Anonymous Scintan March 01, 2015 12:36 PM  

The use of the words "moderates" and "extremists" took what could have been an interesting proposition and made it simply wrong.

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 12:44 PM  

Pop quiz: did Jesus come to bring peace, or a sword?

Both, of course. (Matt 10:34, John 14:27)

Killing the wicked was commanded in the OT, and done with vigor and glee. I don't see where the NT says to never do that anymore.

Even there, it's commanded in specific, not in general. There's no "slay the infidel wherever you find him," it's "go kill every single person and animal in X city. In Y city, kill every single person but you may keep the animals." etc.

In a theocracy when God says to destroy another city, nation, sparing none, etc., you do it. However, we do not now live in a theocracy (the NT command to submit to earthly rulers is one demonstration of this, Jesus' repeated teaching that His kingdom was not of this world is another), and therefore no man/prophet has the spiritual authority to speak for God in authorizing such violence.

OpenID ymarsakar March 01, 2015 12:46 PM  

Over the last number of years, from around 2005 perhaps, I've found interesting clues that Western modern education doesn't tend to touch upon.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16222-out-of-every-one-hundred-men-ten-shouldn-t-even-be

“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

This statistical narrative falls in line with the US Revolution, where 3% were the firebrands and active pushers. 33% was Loyalist. 33% was moderate or stuck on the fence looking. 33% was slightly in support. That 1-3% chunk, though, were the ones pushing it, however. They were outliers.

I've heard that Japanese colleges teach about the trial of Socrates, studying the accusers and the defendant's wording. It was all documented too, for us in the modern times, since the Islamic Hordes failed to burn all of it at Alexandria.

I would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet in law ought any man use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death, if a man is willing to say or do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs deeper than death. - Socrates before the Athenian death panel

I thought Socrates was being obedient to Law, when taking his sentence and refusing Plato's and his student's escape plan. But judging by the long list of words he lectured the Athenians on, Socrates was taking the opposite stance, it seemed. He was contemptuous of the state's ability to deal death when it comes to forcing people to obey, because he was only obeying his own conscience and ensuring that future generations would know just who did what in those days. Which turned out to be true, people still remember that, and if not the West, then the Japanese.

Some other quotes highlight risk taking vs conservative risk avoidance.

"'He either fears his fate too much,
Or his dessert is small,
Who fears to put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.' - Montrose's Toast

"Cause pain before you injure. Injure before you maim. Maim before you kill. And if you must kill, make it a clean kill. Squeeze every drop of life from the opponent. Because life is so precious, it cannot be wasted, even in death."

“Let him cut your skin, and you cut his flesh. Let him cut your flesh, and you cut his bones. Let him cut your bones, and you cut off his life.”

Blogger JDC March 01, 2015 12:47 PM  

Moderation has its place, but not when passion is called for. You can approach the woman you love and calmly take her hand and pat her on the shoulder and politely tell her you would like to make sweet sweet love to her.

Or...you could grab her and ravish her like a viking raider invading northern Europe (there's a reason ravishing is such a powerful adjective). I know which one my wife prefers.

Blogger Jehu March 01, 2015 12:49 PM  

There's a place for 'moderates' in the cultural war. They're the ones who constantly needle the other side with...yeah, maybe they're a bit extreme, but they have legitimate grievances and if you compromised and gave them (fill in the blank here), maybe you'd take some of the wind out of their sails. Gain concession, repeat. If you're a good 'moderate', that's how you roll. The conservative side has next to no good 'moderates'. The left has them in scads.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 01, 2015 12:51 PM  

Perhaps the misplaced or misdirected warrior spirit requires a new focus.

Anonymous Curtis March 01, 2015 12:52 PM  

The problem of using 1st century Christians as a model is they didn't fight back, but were willing martyrs.

We can't rule that out. Commentaries on Roman history may make a case that some did. And again, human nature, being what it is, suppose you and your circle of Christians were breaking bread in your home and a squad of Roman soldiers burst in with their swords drawn? What do you do? And we are talking hand to hand combat of which Roman soldiers were very adept at. Besides, at the time, there weren't Legions of Christians... until you get further along into history.

Look up the word occupy.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera March 01, 2015 12:55 PM  

>...from the mission field. We need help over here, interested in learning Mandarin?

Actually yes, and it's not like I have something better to do. I'm also quite dysfunctional and at least slightly crazy, but if you can accept that I can mop floors and carry boxes as well as anybody. Throw me a line at aeoli.pera at Gmail if you're interested, because my current plan is to become a long-haul trucker, hermit, probably homeless, and hobbyist software developer and I'm not invested yet.

On the subject of culture war, the obvious thing to do is flood the civilian population with drugs that will impair their ability and willingness to fight, as when the English defeated China with opium (being the Chinese drug of choice). Weed appears to be the best choice for defeating white liberals.

If that works, cocaine could be introduced to suppress the lawyers, politicians, and other slumlords in perpetuity.

Conservatives tend not to use weed anyway, so they won't be affected. Let people self-select into obsolescence. In 4G terms, it's perfect. Just legalize the stuff, quietly withdraw net producers from the nominal economy, set up in Maine Victoria-style, and let the resource scarcity fix things outside while the potheads are incapacitated.

Blogger Vox March 01, 2015 1:05 PM  

Maybe its just the term "Moderate" and its negative use here that bothers me.... maybe there is another term you could use instead?

Oh, the irony. No. Nobody cares what bothers you. Get it through your head that to be a "moderate" is to be a bad thing. It's lukewarm. It's squishy. It's largely, though not entirely, useless.

It doesn't mean you're wise, or thoughtful, or circumspect, or any of those other laudable things moderates always tell themselves to justify their inaction.

Right, but no one thinks you are a Winters.

Including me. The point is that I am right and it is no way to wage war. I'm not asking anyone to follow me. I'm criticizing the moderates, so free with their ever-helpful advice.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 01, 2015 1:10 PM  

A Psalm of David. Blessed be the L-RD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle -- My loving kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my deliverer, my shield and the One in whom I take refuge, Who subdues my people under me. (Psalm 144:1-2)

For now, it is critical for us to understand that war is necessary on account of the perfidy of our enemies with whom absolutely no covenant of peace can be forged with those whose insidious politics and treacherous maneuvering makes constant preparedness for war a moral imperative. Like David, we know Who is the firm Rock of our lives and of all our actions, we know Who arms us with strength and skill for warfare. May we, therefore, dedicate this strength and prowess to the fulfillment of His will. It is only for this purpose and not for vain lust for fame that we cultivate these skills, and cultivate these skills we must.

We also know and understand that whatever skill and achievement we can call our own is simply a generous gift of His loving-kindness to be used in His service. Other men may try to credit other forces and other powers, but we know better; we know and are acutely aware that all of our endeavors are exclusively the work of G-d. It's time to stop burying what we have been given in the ground and start producing something of value to the Master.

The Hebrew word used for 'subdue' in this Psalm is the flattening and rolling of metals into sheets for veneering purposes. The idea then is one of rendering our enemies pliant beneath the rule of one master. In light of the obstinate and often hostile resistance which David had encountered, even from among his own people, the choice of 'subdue' is quite fitting, as it connotes the rendering pliant of hard, firm metal through repeated pressure or other profound influence.

Like David, we also recognize that, even though we use hands and fingers which are strengthened and protected by Hashem, (and we should use them as long as we have strength in them) the defeat of our enemies by human hands will serve to orchestrate a peace that is temporary. Therefore, in conjunction with waging war with our hands, it is no less imperative that we appeal for direct Divine intervention, which is not tied to the life span of any one man nor dependent upon human instruments. (Think Moses, Aaron, Hur, Joshua and the Amalekites). We must always bear in mind how perfidious the enemy is and understand that only his complete destruction will bring about a state of peace for which we all are longing, a peace that is truly permanent.

I think Paul also had something to say about being a good soldier:

You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Y'shua the Messiah. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier (2 Timothy 2:3-4).

Time to disentangle ourselves and get in the fight or get out of the way. Blessed be our G-d Who trains our hands for war.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall March 01, 2015 1:11 PM  

Lord Montrose +1000

Blogger Outlaw X March 01, 2015 1:15 PM  

Christian should do anything except sit on his ass and prayerfully expect that God will take care of everything in due time.

Sometimes that is all you can do. In those cases faith is strengthened. But expecting God to fight your fights for you is dangerous theology. He will guide you and most times send help.

Vox is right because he understands the manifestation of "free will" consequence.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 01, 2015 1:24 PM  

What are the appropriate responses to such objections?

Let's back up a step and ask, what are the appropriate responses if you have those objections yourself? What should you do if, for example, you happen to think attacking SJW by calling them fat slobs is a poor tactic?

The approrpriate response is to come up with a better attack and demonstrate how effective it is by successfully attacking the enemy with it. That's how you can tell if criticism - right or wrong as it may be - comes from a legitimate source rather than the cowardly mewlings of someone too frightened to actually fight.

Blogger grendel March 01, 2015 1:26 PM  

"However, we do not now live in a theocracy (the NT command to submit to earthly rulers is one demonstration of this, Jesus' repeated teaching that His kingdom was not of this world is another), and therefore no man/prophet has the spiritual authority to speak for God in authorizing such violence."

If you're going to go down the road of insisting that Paul's letter to the 1st century church at Rome applies to every Christian in every situation down through history, then we're not going to agree on much because your hermeneutic is broken.

Anonymous clk March 01, 2015 1:27 PM  

James Dixon...

I certainly agree full heartedly.... my point is simply there are many things where moderation is good and extremism is bad..so when we say we should be extremists its seems wrong sounding.. just like words such as liberal (as in the context of education which used to mean well rounded classical education which was often consevative in its subject matter)... and social justice.. which was (and still is) fundimental catholic teachings and thus about as conservative as you can get and not be in a cult.

But your comment is appreciated. ..

Anonymous Jack Amok March 01, 2015 1:32 PM  

This subject reminds me of Pournelle's Iron Law of the Bureaucracy, that there are two sorts in an organization, those devoted to the goals of the organization and those dedicated to the organization itself.

Think about how each group achieves success. The first sort, the "killers" have to go out and compete against opposing forces who don't need to respect a damn thing about them. Enemy soliders don't respect your rank, Apple employees don't follow orders from Microsoft exectuvies, and a moslem jihadi isn't expected to do what a Catholic Bishop tells him to. All those folks devoted to the goals of the organization have to succeed against opposition that is not under the control of the organization itself.

The bureaucrats don't have to do that. The bureaucrats, once they have established themselvs, can use position and official authority to declare themselves winners in a dispute. As Pournelle puts it, they will "write the rules, and control promotions within the organization." Position, status and connections determine victory, not accomplishment. I think we know what sort will gravitate to each group.

The book that needs to be written is Defending Your Institituion Against Entryists. Possibly with a more catchy title.

Speaking of books:

But keep in mind that Machiavelli wasn't very successful,

Couple this with the long-standing military incompetence of the Chinese, and you look at The Prince and The Art of War with some astonishment.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 01, 2015 1:33 PM  

The Christian moderate thinks "love your enemy" means "let him/her rape your wife and children".

OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 1:39 PM  

However, we do not now live in a theocracy (the NT command to submit to earthly rulers is one demonstration of this, Jesus' repeated teaching that His kingdom was not of this world is another), and therefore no man/prophet has the spiritual authority to speak for God in authorizing such violence.


The rote repitition of 1 Pet. 2:13–17 is a frequent error as it ignores actions and contexts by the Apostles themselves which directly contradict your assumptions about its universality in all contexts.

The best treatement I have seen of this is Doug Wilsons exegis in On the Lam for Jesus

The gist of the argument is contained in this extended quote from the linked article:


“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Pet. 2:13–17).

So let’s take a look at some of the actions of the man who wrote those words — and not in order to charge him with hypocrisy.

“And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him” (Acts 12:7–10).

Peter then went over to John Mark’s house, left a message, and disappeared from the book of Acts a wanted man, on the lam, with his picture in all the post offices.


We see here, from Scripture a counter example by the author of 1 Peter that directly refutes 1 Peter 2:13-17. The task for us, as thinking Christians, is to ask what we are missing in this apparent discrepency. The answer to that is directly related to Who governs us as Christians and what a legitimate government looks like (hint, governments are instituted by God and therefore, have the responsibility to live in accordance with His desires, illigitimate government does not. We are to submit to one of those, we are taught by St. Peter to resist and or ignore the other)


OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 1:42 PM  

oops, the end of the extended quote is not clear in my comment above. Scripture is in italics, Wilson's comments are in bold.
the extended excerpt ends at the end of Wilson's emboldened second sentence

Anonymous Scintan March 01, 2015 1:44 PM  

Oh, the irony. No. Nobody cares what bothers you. Get it through your head that to be a "moderate" is to be a bad thing. It's lukewarm. It's squishy.

And here's a good example of why "moderate" and "extreme" are the wrong choices.

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 1:47 PM  

If you're going to go down the road of insisting that Paul's letter to the 1st century church at Rome applies to every Christian in every situation down through history, then we're not going to agree on much because your hermeneutic is broken.

That's funny, a moment ago you seemed pretty willing to say that non-didactic ancient Hebrew texts concerning Jews in Canaan were marching orders for us here in 2015...

It's conceivable my hermeneutic is not the issue here, neh?

Anonymous The other skeptic March 01, 2015 1:47 PM  

With thirty-five men, a platoon of Easy Company had routed two German companies of about 300 men. American casualties (including those from Fox Company) were one dead, twenty-two wounded. German casualties were fifty killed, eleven captured, about 100 wounded.

According to a couple of sources, Utah Beach was much less well defended than Omaha beach.

Source 1 and it was 13 against about 60 (so not quite 10 to 1).

The other source, a book I am currently reading suggests that Utah was defended by a third-rate static division, which jibes with the Wikipedia suggestion that they abandoned their positions when the 101st parachuted in ...

Perhaps the snippet above was talking about a different engagement.

Anonymous Sensei March 01, 2015 1:51 PM  

simplytimothy

We're not in disagreement, except regarding your assumption that my very specific application as one piece of evidence that we are no longer in an era of theocracies somehow means I apply it "universally in all contexts."

Blogger Nate March 01, 2015 1:52 PM  

"Couple this with the long-standing military incompetence of the Chinese, and you look at The Prince and The Art of War with some astonishment. "

There is a wide gap between knowing what to do... and being able to do it.

Blogger rcocean March 01, 2015 1:53 PM  

What a great post. The problem with the moderates isn't just that they shoot they're own side - its absolute glee they take in doing it. For example, I'm always struck at the gleeful enthusiasm when Moderates attack Conservative Republicans and their half-hearted "gosh, don't take this the wrong the way" pin-pricks against Liberals. Even weirder they will say nothing when the liberals launch one vicious attack after another, but if conservatives respond in kind, they will get upset and say "Can't we all get along?"

Blogger grendel March 01, 2015 1:54 PM  

"That's funny, a moment ago you seemed pretty willing to say that non-didactic ancient Hebrew texts concerning Jews in Canaan were marching orders for us here in 2015..."

That's not my claim. My claim is that your original accusation against those who allegedly spread Christianity by the sword is invalid.

Blogger Nate March 01, 2015 1:55 PM  

"Oh, the irony."

Helpful of them to provide such an excellent example right here in the thread. The house is burning... the children are screaming...

"But I think its the use of the red hose that bothers me. Isn't there a better color hose to use?"

Anonymous old coyote March 01, 2015 2:23 PM  

IS IT TRUE that flouride was used to keep the WWII german concerntration camp prisoners docile and prevent rebellion? Every major population in the west ingests this toxin on a daily basis; mabe it is only the euro-trash who can't eat the toothpaste or have shitty water supplies who will rebel.

Anonymous Curtis March 01, 2015 2:28 PM  

I think it is interesting that we can agree that Christians should use the sword to physically protect their loved ones. Yet, we get all squeamish at using the sword of the word when comes to protecting our loved ones mind and soul. And future.

Hypocrites, blind guides, twice as much a son of hell, whitewashed tombs, serpents, brood of vipers, devouring widows' houses, killing the prophets, pretense with long prayers, being fools, lawlessness, are of your father the devil, etc.

I am pretty sure that Jesus at least thought how fat they were getting enjoying the fruits of the widows mite.

Blogger Thordaddy March 01, 2015 2:29 PM  

Christianity's only true "killer" and "extremist" is the genuine white Supremacist. The anti-self-annihilator.

OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 2:35 PM  

We're not in disagreement, except regarding your assumption that my very specific application as one piece of evidence that we are no longer in an era of theocracies somehow means I apply it "universally in all contexts."

I did not discuss this avenue of your argument as my previous comment was long enough. I am grateful that you recognize that obeying government authorities is dependent on certain conditions being met and that you agree that St. Peter the author of "obey government authorities" is the prime example that his dictum is not a universal call to submission before every authority.

We turn then to the question, then, becomes when we are required to submit to authority and when we must not.

My reasoning on the matter, starts with God Himself in the person of Christ as stated in Colossians 1:16

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…
(bold mine)

We see that "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities" i.e. government are subject to Him. This implies that government is a good and necessary

The following point is where I believe critical christian thought is required.

As a man can be in right relation or wrong relation to God, so too can "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities". As individual Christian's our allegiance is ultimately to God, as Jesus taught with "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

By definition an authority that is in right relation with God is a legitimate authority and we are commanded to give our allegiance and obedience as specified by St. Peter.

By the same definition, if a throne, authority or ruler seeks to interpose itself between "what is God's" and God--i.e. us and our God--then it is not due our obedience, rather, it is due our opposition; after all, Jesus instructed the Apostles to take up their moneybags, knapsacks and swords. I have read no counter-example that excludes us from this admonition.

While the above is a rough outline of the principle, I do think that it makes your "theocracy" plea a straw man. As a man need not be a theologian to be in right relation with God, so a 'throne, dominion, ruler or authority" need not be a theocracy to be in its right relation to what God has ordained. Ergo, a Republic, in right relation to God is fully justified to initiate force against an aggressor that is not in right relation to God just as much a a Monarchy or a Democracy or a couple of monks in a monastary are.

What this has to do with Vox's post is self-evident from the progression of the argument. Vox, hearing Jesus, has taken up his sword and is running to the fight. When a man puts his ass on the line like that, it is prudent for the confused to STFU and let the christian do his work.










Anonymous The other skeptic March 01, 2015 2:37 PM  

There is a wide gap between knowing what to do... and being able to do it.

I have noticed in software that there is a wide gap between nodding* in agreement and indicating that they know what to do and actually doing it.

* Or waving their head from side to side as Indians (dot, not feather) are wont to do. (Of course, I have worked with plenty who do know what to do.)

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 2:39 PM  

Moderate Philosophy:

Robert Bruce Sr.:"You admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man [moderate]!"

Moderate Tactics:

King Edward:"Archers."

Officer:"I beg your pardon sire. Won't we hit our own troops?"

King Edward:"Yes... but they will hit theirs as well. We have reserves."

Ilk Philosophy:

William Wallace:"Every man dies, not every man really lives."

Ilk Tactics:

Stephen:"The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight. It's drawn the finest people."

William Wallace:"Are you ready for a war!"

Scotsman:"Arm yourselves!"

- The Gospel according to Braveheart

Anonymous Curtis March 01, 2015 2:39 PM  

Perhaps the snippet above was talking about a different engagement.

Battle of Opheusden.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 01, 2015 2:53 PM  

Battle of Opheusden.

Thanks.

Band Of Brothers: The Island says:

Later, Winters realized that he and his men had been "very, very lucky." In an analysis, he said the main reason for success was the poor quality of German leadership. The Germans had let the 1st squad get away with sitting in the field waiting for reinforcements. They had bunched up in one big mass, inexcusable in Winters' view. They had allowed two machine-guns to pin them down while the three columns of Easy ran 200 yards across the field in the bayonet charge. They had reacted much too slowly when Winters fired on them from the road. They failed to put together an organized base of fire when the shooting started.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 01, 2015 3:03 PM  

I have to say that Winters was someone who I can respect because he was able to appreciate how the enemy's mistakes lead to his success.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 3:14 PM  

ymarsakar,

"he was only obeying his own conscience"

No. I think we're seeing how well that idea works with all these self-esteem-gorged SJWs running around shitting all over themselves and everyone else.

He was obeying the Truth.

Anonymous Jill March 01, 2015 3:15 PM  

And despite what some people believe, extremists don't become more moderate with maturity. They merely have a better grasp of what battles are worth fighting, which worth funneling energy into. With maturity comes even greater strength of conviction.

Anonymous clk March 01, 2015 3:17 PM  

Irony abounds

"“Vox populi, vox Humbug.”

".... You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of moderation.... They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … ... You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. ... If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

A great american hero and moderate... WTS...

Blogger bob k. mando March 01, 2015 3:18 PM  

Edward Isaacs March 01, 2015 11:58 AM
Or to put it another way, where are all these superior leaders supposed to come from?



IF
you were NOT substituting Credentialism for the Biblical directives
THEN
you would find these men in your own churches

because they are there.

just pushed to the side by those with useless sheets of paper with college seals on them.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing March 01, 2015 3:19 PM  

The following is a comment from a French soldier regarding Americans fighting in Afghanistan in the past few years. It seems to bear witness to an essential American characteristic. And not just in physical combat, but reflects the spirit of the OP, and the above commentary on Winters.

For anyone who hasn't read the original in the past few years, the whole post is excellent and can be found here:

http://www.warriorlodge.com/blogs/news/16298760-a-french-soldiers-view-of-us-soldiers-in-afghanistan


This is the main area where I'd like to comment. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kipling knows the lines from Chant Pagan: 'If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white/remember it's ruin to run from a fight./ So take open order, lie down, sit tight/ And wait for supports like a soldier./ This, in fact, is the basic philosophy of both British and Continental soldiers. 'In the absence of orders, take a defensive position.' Indeed, virtually every army in the world. The American soldier and Marine, however, are imbued from early in their training with the ethos: In the Absence of Orders: Attack! Where other forces, for good or ill, will wait for precise orders and plans to respond to an attack or any other 'incident', the American force will simply go, counting on firepower and SOP to carry the day.

This is one of the great strengths of the American force in combat and it is something that even our closest allies, such as the Brits and Aussies (that latter being closer by the way) find repeatedly surprising. No wonder is surprises the hell out of our enemies.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 3:33 PM  

Scintan,

"And here's a good example of why "moderate" and "extreme" are the wrong choices."

You're confusing different senses of the word. He's not speaking in the Aristotelian sense. No one argues for, say, moderation in spelling. A word is spelled correctly or it isn't, and it does no good to criticize someone for spelling too well lest they give offense to poor spellers.

The question that gave rise to the whole debate was whether to truthfully portray the typical SJW, or not. Moderation argues here for falsehood, which is no virtue, and toward ends which it has been particularly inept in achieving through its preferred approach of unmanly niceness.

Anonymous Anubis March 01, 2015 3:41 PM  

"There is a wide gap between knowing what to do... and being able to do it....Or waving their head from side to side as Indians (dot, not feather) are wont to do. (Of course, I have worked with plenty who do know what to do.)"

NAIDNFALT.

"Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside. "
This reminded me of the Dutch version of Survivor where they had men on one island and women on the other, until the women ran out of food while still trying to come up with a consensus of what they should do while the men had been doing things since day 1. Even if you cant speak the language its obviously too funny.
http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

Anonymous Scintan March 01, 2015 3:46 PM  

You're confusing different senses of the word.

No, I'm not doing that. Some others are, though, which is part of why the word choice is a poor one.

Anonymous hygate March 01, 2015 4:17 PM  

Moderates love to seek and grant permission before anyone does anything. That's why they're so ineffective. "Let's do something that will make the other side look less good and praiseworthy than us, then no one will be able to criticize us and we will win by default"

The GOP leadership and strategy in a nutshell.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera March 01, 2015 4:18 PM  

@Sensei,

There's a message for you up above. It's a serious offer. Please let me know if you're not interested too; I'd e-mail you if I knew the address.

@Bird on a Wing,

In my blessedly short time in the Air Force ROTC, I am honor-bound report the opposite tendency among the future officers. In the absence of the order to fire back, they will cower in fear of paintball gun-wielding terrorists, because to do otherwise might be breaking the rules of engagement somehow. Imagine the implications to one's career!

True story, if a little self-congratulatory:

"I'm going out there. Anybody coming with me?"
"We aren't allowed to shoot inside the base compound."
"They're shooting at us. Who's coming?"
*Crickets*
"Fine."

All eight or so of the others in that bunker became 2nd Lts. Distinctly remember them being either female or very small men, physically. I did not graduate; this was almost certainly for the best. Had a jolly old time in the field training stuff, thrived even, but failed the social stuff miserably which was 99% of the training experience. Was a bad fit, peer-rated at the absolute bottom of my class. Would have graduated anyway (who doesn't?), but I quit because I didn't want to cause trouble for any subordinates unfortunate enough to be under me. Couldn't understand most of what was going on around me. Wish I'd read Roissy, Vox, Koanic long before, but I probably don't belong in the military under any conditions.

Omega's gonna Omega, whaddya do? Whatcha can, and that's that.

Anonymous Chief-Tuscaloosa-welcome-white-man March 01, 2015 4:26 PM  

You people of great white tribe not listen to Vox. Chief Tuscaloosa make peace treaty with white man and it turn out peachy. Peaceful way only way to moral victory.

Anonymous Harsh March 01, 2015 4:40 PM  

I think Harsh is referring to willneverpostagain's comment.

I think you're right. Sorry, Harsh. Deleted.

No worries.

Anonymous Bible scholar March 01, 2015 5:03 PM  

King David killed a bunch of dudes and even cut off one of their heads. Yet the bible says, " He was a man after God's own heart". It's obvious David was a killer.

Blogger haus frau March 01, 2015 5:32 PM  

This is a wonderful post. It reminds the biography of Dietrich Bonhoffer I recently read. iI'll try to summarise this without botching it to badly. Bonhoffer held the view that Christians should concern themselves with doing the will of God even at the expense of sinning. To illustrate, if the will of God required deceit, treachery and murder to rid the world of a tyrant andhis hhenchmen responsible for millions of deaths then so be it. Repent later rather than sitting on one's hands lest he make a mistake. He was thoroughly disgusted by the inaction and servile ompromising of the churches at the time. If anyone knows more about Bonhoffer I'd love to know if I summarized it correctly.

OpenID simplytimothy March 01, 2015 5:33 PM  

As providence would have it, Anne Barnhardt has a link to PJMedia's Richard Fernandez where the subject of christian timidity is broached

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/02/28/mein-kampf-in-the-piety-stall/.

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 5:35 PM  

"Bonhoffer held the view that Christians should concern themselves with doing the will of God even at the expense of sinning.'

I would like to see a source that supports this claim.

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 5:41 PM  

This is the same guy who derides cheap grace, is it not? I don't see where sinning is ever the "will of G-d".

". . . go and sin no more." (John 8)

Anonymous Bible scholar March 01, 2015 5:54 PM  

"A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up"

"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

Ecclesiastes 3:3,8

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 6:20 PM  

Scintan,

"No, I'm not doing that. Some others are, though, which is part of why the word choice is a poor one."

Well isn't that kind of the point? Why is the problem Vox's choice, and not those misconstruing the sense?

Vox is the voice of authority here, due too:

(1) authoring the blog

(2) having the balls to stand up to the clowns bossing everyone around (and far worse) without a shred of legitimate authority themselves

(3) deftly fending off any and all challenges to his authority, well-conceived and otherwise

(4) offering intermittently compelling and unique takes issues on pressing concern to us all, including the specific issue in question and the broader issues it illustrates

If one feels compelled to challenge an authority itself, for purposes of replacing it, one goes about doing that and accepts the consequences. If not, one's first duty is the attempt to make sense first of what the authority is saying before launching into a critique of it. Those misconstruing his sense have demonstrably not done that.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 6:21 PM  

Rabbi,

"This is the same guy who derides cheap grace, is it not?"

Yes. It bears deriding.

"I don't see where sinning is ever the 'will of G-d'."

Please. That's not what he's saying, and you know it. Stop gerribing.

Anonymous VD March 01, 2015 6:25 PM  

No, I'm not doing that. Some others are, though, which is part of why the word choice is a poor one.

What you're doing is completely missing the point. I didn't choose or coin the words. That's what at least some of the moderates call and consider themselves. And they all call those like me "extremists".

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 6:26 PM  

Haus frau,

Sorry, she. Better to say, one does the will of God, even at the risk of sinning. It is not a case of perfect people preserving their perfection versus the imperfect, sinning willy-nilly. We are all of us imperfect.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing March 01, 2015 6:36 PM  

@ Aeoli Pera

Well, I'm not in the military, but my husband is in the Air Force. He's a UPT instructor pilot right now, and from what I hear, his students are just as they've always been: young and dumb, with lots of potential.

And, in the end . . . perhaps not all that different from yourself?

I wish you well on the battlefield where God places you. You have my prayers.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 01, 2015 6:43 PM  

This is the same guy who derides cheap grace, is it not? I don't see where sinning is ever the "will of G-d".

But but but CALVINISM!! All our actions are according to God's will, you heretic!!!

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 6:45 PM  

"It bears deriding."

Agreed. I was not disputing this.

"That's not what he's saying, and you know it. Stop gerribing."

If I "knew it" I wouldn't have asked for clarification and context. The way the statements were phrased could be misconstrued.

Blogger Noah B March 01, 2015 6:51 PM  

This one's a particularly excellent post.

Anonymous Donn March 01, 2015 7:04 PM  

Deus Vult!

OpenID ymarsakar March 01, 2015 7:09 PM  

Desiderius,

I don't think SJWhores have consciences. I doubt they have souls either, since they sold them to evil for material benefits like Faust.

If Leftists were ordered to give up the locations of targets for the Islamic Jihad's death squads, they would obey their orders without a doubt. They would sleep perfectly fine at night afterwards, since after all, it's not like people have a right to shoot home invaders in their Utopia.

Anonymous Donn March 01, 2015 7:16 PM  

There is a legit place for those who have concerns about 'fat shaming', 'being mean' or being 'unChristian'. Don't do those things yourself. Don't worry about what others are doing let the enemy worry about that.

This is mega-nerd territory here, however , in D&D sometimes the paladin has to go for a walk while others do the dirty work. If you think of yourself as a paladin , just take that walk when you feel like directing fire inward. Shields locked and swords out us the only way a formation works. Keep your focus on the enemy and you won't let your side down. Thats on of our enemy's weaknesses let's learn from their mistakes.

Anonymous Curtis March 01, 2015 7:29 PM  

There is a big difference being on the battlefield and under the authority of severe and immediate consequences.

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.


We are on a battlefield, we just do not see the immediate repercussions of not giving it our all and fighting the good fight. Christ never compromised. Neither was Christ a moderate, an in-betweener, a feel gooder, and was in the habit of mocking his distractors. He said occupy, occupy, occupy. Conquer.

Anonymous kh123 March 01, 2015 7:34 PM  

Good topic, well presented, good discussion. Looking forward to more.

Anonymous hausfrau March 01, 2015 7:43 PM  

"Bonhoffer held the view that Christians should concern themselves with doing the will of God even at the expense of sinning.'

I would like to see a source that supports this claim.

Now I know I distorted the explanation of his views but while they were hatching the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler many of the old Prussian officers were aghast at the idea of committing treason even though they considered Hitler a monster. I think the idea of treason as a great sin loomed a lot larger for the conspirators than it would for most people today. Bonhoeffer himself was conflicted about being involved in a murder plot. I do think Bonhoeffer is a good example of an "extremist" who was undermined by the moderates within the European churches at the time who imagined they could make piece with the Nazis.
Has anyone else here read this book? I loaned it out to a sister so unfortunately I can't look up the passages right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Bonhoeffer-Pastor-Martyr-Prophet-Spy/dp/1595552464/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425256372&sr=1-3&keywords=dietrich+bonhoeffer

Anonymous willlneverpostagain March 01, 2015 8:15 PM  

I apologize in that I may have made an error in my definitions. I consider politics to be the art of compromise. In the case of war, leave out the damn compromisers. I believe that once the enemy is identified in war, then the enemy must be defeated without compromise. I have been reading this blog pretty much daily for more than 10 years and continue to be schooled daily. Keep on schooling me.

Blogger Akulkis March 01, 2015 8:39 PM  

It's the old "I'm not a communist, I'm just an anti-anticommunist."

By definition, that makes such people communists.

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 8:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 8:40 PM  

@hausfrau

Thanks. I misconstrued your earlier comments which seemed to be incongruous with what I knew of Bonhoeffer.

It's one thing to sit in our easy chairs by the fire and pontificate about what we would do in such and such a situation and quite another when we find ourselves in trying and challenging situations such as Bonhoeffer's, which test the principles that we profess and hold near and dear to our hearts. I take comfort in the Master's encouragement to us:

"But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit" (Mark 13:11).

Blogger ajw308 March 01, 2015 8:46 PM  

Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.
Someone needs to read their Clauswitz

Anonymous Boris Nemtsov March 01, 2015 8:59 PM  

Politics is politics. War is war. They are not the same.

Speaker is idiot.

Blogger Akulkis March 01, 2015 9:01 PM  

"...is on the sofa eating potato chips binge..."

I never new anyone could binge on sofa-eating potato chips. I figured just one could probably last you a month or two.

But I'll tell you, about my friend Larry, the time he started having a hankering for sofa eating potato chips... it was like out of a pink SF movie.

Anonymous zen0 March 01, 2015 9:05 PM  

Bonhoffer must have had a different interpretation of Romans 13, eh?

Anonymous Aeoli March 01, 2015 9:11 PM  

@Bird,

Above all, thanks. I hope we meet up in heaven sometime.

As for sameness and whatnot...no, even I can't be so oblivious to reality as that. Too much contrary evidence piling up. Thankfully, none of it matters: Jesus won and we're just using our remaining time as best as we can manage.

Anonymous Aeoli March 01, 2015 9:25 PM  

On Clausewitz,

I disagree with his basic premise and assert that, rather, politics is the continuation of war by other means. This throws a more clarifying light on the current situation, particularly given r/k theory.

What conservatives call "politics" is a fundamentally different animal from what liberals call "politics", and would be better described as "civil administration" or simply "civics". Else, perhaps we could call liberal politics "demotics" or somesuch.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 9:31 PM  

"Bonhoffer must have had a different interpretation of Romans 13, eh?"

No, it's still the general rule. Hard cases make bad law.

Blogger Rabbi B March 01, 2015 9:44 PM  

"Silence in the face of evil is evil itself; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Anonymous zen0 March 01, 2015 10:05 PM  

St. Paul had no entangling alliances, like wives and children. He recommended this lifestyle, but understood if it was not always possible.

Once you get yourself potential hostages you are responsible for, it is a game-changer.

I think this needs to be addressed by the ivory towerists.

Blogger bob k. mando March 01, 2015 10:10 PM  

Anubis March 01, 2015 3:41 PM
This reminded me of the Dutch version of Survivor



the old MTV Road Rules / House mashups had a road trip that was guys vs girls.

i'm pretty sure this was the first time the self organizing nature of all male societies vs the petty, squabbling, back biting nature of all feminine / effete societies was demonstrated.

even though the men and women were interacting with each other constantly, when it came time for the competitions and eliminations it was all split by gender.

Anonymous kh123 March 01, 2015 10:10 PM  

"...politics is the continuation of war by other means."

Or, to reverse that per Aquinas, war being seen as the lower science that is informed by, reliant upon, and whose end is, the higher science of politics. If I'm remembering Summa correctly.

Am starting to think this is what's getting folks' panties in a knot, the idea that by using the enemies' playbook against them, not only is the lower being elevated over that which is presumably the source and higher good, but that it runs the risk of becoming the higher good, or like you said, transforming from one thing (civics) into a whole other kettle of fish (demotics). Which is what started this mess to begin with, libs turning politics into a subversive personal jihad on a fascist timetable.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 10:27 PM  

kh123,

More than conquerors, not less. Demotics must be mastered before civics matters. It's akin to rhetoric and dialectic. Now whether that is done by the sword and/or the building up of virtue (as with the martyrs), there is one thing upon which we can all agree - our so-called "moderates" are bent on doing neither, and impeding those who do.

Blogger Desiderius March 01, 2015 10:30 PM  

SJW = Pharisee, "moderate" = Sadducee.

Anonymous zen0 March 01, 2015 10:31 PM  

@ kh123

Am starting to think this is what's getting folks' panties in a knot, the idea that by using the enemies' playbook against them, not only is the lower being elevated over that which is presumably the source and higher good....

Die, Moderate Scum

Anonymous Daniel March 01, 2015 10:32 PM  

I think you are onto something kh123. There's definitely a sense of that, but it ends up being justification for treason - for attempting to isolate or cut down the so-called extremist in order to preserve the sacred (if losing) order.

It is an attempt to demonstrate moral superiority by means of betrayal. Of course it doesn't "seem" like that to the moderate. It "seems" rational.

I think my first eye-opener to this was decades ago when I got involved in Amnesty International. I was stunned to discover that members were not only allowed to violate the core principles of the organization (specifically the one prohibiting members from involving themselves in domestic matters) but were openly encouraged to do so. In order to preserve the integrity of the organization, you absolutely had to attack its foundation.

It is a cultural marxist principle, but I think the behavior of moderates is not ideological, it is just a predictable, fear-based response that favors the cultural marxist agenda.

Anonymous kh123 March 01, 2015 11:28 PM  

"It's akin to rhetoric and dialectic."

Good observation, that clicked.


"Die, Moderate Scum"

It's German, right.

Anonymous Susan March 02, 2015 1:31 AM  

Since we are talking about Christianity, Ana Marie Cox from Wonkette has publicly given her testimony and says she has converted to Christianity. The article is on Breitbart if anyone is interested. It would explain the strange comments yesterday by someone named Ana who was leaving long comments of Bible verses.
She also says she has left DC. Probably a good thing if you want to be serious about your Christian faith. I hope it sticks for her.

Anonymous Randomatos March 02, 2015 3:29 AM  

A random thought from the original scripture quoted - perhaps live by the sword and die by the sword is also a way of saying not to bring a sword to a God-fight. Peter was mistaking the physical level of the conflict for the strategic and moral. There are plenty of good reasons to be able and willing to apply the sword, but we had also better be sure of the true nature of the conflict and the target. To turn back the latest wave of Islamic expansion - swords will be needed, not to mention an actual Christian revival of the West. To defeat the strategic and moral cancers of SJW's, Feminists, and other various shades of anti-civilizationists, mental clarity and moral courage will be the primary weapons. If a man is too dulled in faculties of reason to recognize a fallacious undermining attack, and too tepid in moral courage to call out the swine committing the vile attack, how can he possibly hope to hold his blade true on the rare occasion that he even recognizes the enemy?

Blogger deadman March 02, 2015 4:23 AM  

Vox,
have you ever written anything about Sam Childers, AKA The Machine Gun Preacher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Childers

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org/

Blogger Stan Hai March 02, 2015 5:24 AM  

I wonder what would have happened in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan if the GS had shown up when the robbers were still beating their victim? Just stood there, praying quietly until they were finished, or waded in, throwing some punches? Just a thought.

Blogger Nate March 02, 2015 7:23 AM  

Moderates are the ones who sit and talk about how best to fight the fire while the children burn to death inside.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 02, 2015 7:36 AM  

I wonder what would have happened in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan if the GS had shown up when the robbers were still beating their victim? Just stood there, praying quietly until they were finished, or waded in, throwing some punches? Just a thought.

The "Christian" pansies are so busy capitulating to the enemy and calling it "love" that they never bother to think about the women and children and men who the enemy is happily raping.

You can only love your enemy when he/she isn't currently engaged in a crime that you are perfectly capable of stopping.

Anonymous Porky March 02, 2015 10:38 AM  

Nobody exemplifies the killer like Easy Company's Ronald Speirs. The dude executed one of his own leaders in the field for twice failing to obey an order to stay put. Winters knew about it but never prosecuted because A) Speirs probably saved the lives of the entire platoon, and B) because he simply couldn't spare the loss of a true killer.



OpenID ymarsakar March 02, 2015 11:54 AM  

While war and politics share some things in common, there are some stark differences as well.

I don't take Clausewitz or any other indirect authority merely on faith alone. If repeating war aphorisms could beat enemies, that would certainly be nice. Judging by Sun Tzu's and Miyamoto's times, just reading things wasn't going to elevate a person to their level in itself.

Blogger JDC March 02, 2015 11:59 AM  

Bonhoeffer is a unique case...how does one go from a pacifist to participating in a plot to commit murder? His short answer - "It is better to do evil than to be evil."

Anonymous Fredrich March 02, 2015 1:10 PM  

"Why I'm Coming Out as a Christian: Because Obama is Totally a Christian You Guys."
ANA MARIE COX: Why I’m Coming Out As A Christian:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/202996/

I believe Ann Rice pulled this same publicity stunt:

1. Declare oneself a Christian... gain media attention PR
2. Denounce the sins of the Church... how the church is homophobic, sexist, etc.
3. Demand the Church accept homosexuality, abortion, etc.
4. When your demands are rejected... Declare oneself Non-Christian again... gain PR
5. Write a ton of articles about how the Church "rejected you" and thus is "rejecting teh real Jesus"... how "the real Jesus" is all about homosex, killing babies in teh womb, etc.

Blogger CM March 02, 2015 9:48 PM  

Fredrich - read the link.

Not ththat we can judge the heart of the matter, but every testimony I have ever heard involved an unending thirst for scripture.

How can you have a personal and intimate relationship with someone if you never listen to them speak? Or try to get to know him? She's in a relationship with a figment of her imagination... a god created in her image.

American Christianity.

Anonymous Discard March 03, 2015 3:49 PM  

Bobo: Nathan Bedford Forrest was considered by some to be ungentlemanly for sharpening the entire length of his sword, rather than just the end.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 04, 2015 2:13 PM  

An interesting side note: the issue of "moderates" providing "covering fire for [their side's] extremists" is exactly why the so-called "moderate Muslim" is so problematic, and why genuine members of that species are so rare on the ground. The rest of the "moderates" operate as if their world view were like this.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 04, 2015 2:31 PM  

... instead of like this.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 04, 2015 2:52 PM  

Desiderius,

"Do you imagine Paul the tentmaker had a PhD from Harvard Div?"

Why yes, yes I do.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 04, 2015 4:40 PM  

simplytimothy.

Awesome link. But don't depend on others! Fernandez' Belmont Club should be on everyone's regular/daily reading list.


Stan Hai,

"I wonder what would have happened in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan if the GS had shown up when the robbers were still beating their victim"

Awesome, that's one of my favorite questions! Never gotten a good answer from any of my "pacifist" interlocutors, though.

Blogger Desiderius March 04, 2015 8:46 PM  

Kirk,

"Why yes, yes I do."

You think Gamaliel would be at Harvard Div? I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 05, 2015 3:28 AM  

I'm saying Rabbi G. was the equivalent of Harvard Div in Paul's day.

Anonymous kingprophetpriest March 06, 2015 4:39 AM  

"I'm saying Rabbi G. was the equivalent of Harvard Div in Paul's day."

Rabbi G taught Paul all he needed to reject Christ and heartily support the folks stoning Stephen. Then he took it a step further and actually persecuted the followers of Jesus. That's what his PhD from Harvard Div got him.

Things haven't changed much.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts