Paul's Passing Thoughts

How To Debate A Calvinist: Part 5 – By John Immel

Posted in John Immel, TANC 2017 by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on December 5, 2017

The following is part five of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s fourth session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part four

 

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem has become a synonym for all things evil with humanity. Self-esteem has become a function of pervasive depravity. Therefore in the Calvinist world, the goal is for man to loath himself.

There are a series of cultural myths I want to address first. The first one is that good self-esteem is effectively to have no self-esteem; that to have self-esteem is essentially narcissism. But here is the dirty little secret: we all have self-esteem because we all pass judgments on ourselves. What we are really talking about in the issue of self-esteem is what judgment do I apply to my own existence? We all apply moral verdicts to our actions, thoughts, and values.

The second myth involves the pop-culture definition, that self-esteem equals moral absolution. Really, we treat self-esteem more as a coping mechanism that refuses to apply any moral judgment to any personal aspects. It is a fraud. We cannot help passing judgments on our immoral behaviors. Blanket moral absolution is an illusion.

The other option is self-esteem equal self-absorption. This is a singular preoccupation with an internal life openly rejecting existence and the inter-dependencies of all people and things. This is the brute who cannot conceptualize his existence outside his own reality. He is an exploiter and a destroyer because he wants to consume for his own fulfillment at the expense of everyone else.

Does this type of person really exist? Perhaps, but there are very few, and they are usually cultural aberrations. But it is a common mythology that is handed down, and as long as you accept the premise that this is what self-esteem looks like, you will be inclined to believe that any variation of individuality in self-esteem is really this archetypical description.

The last myth is that self-esteem is the by-product of social affirmation; that it can be created by participation trophies, smiley faces, or amoral acceptance of other people. But kids who receive participation trophies know instinctively that they didn’t do anything to earn it, and so ultimately is has no meaning. No matter how many times you pat someone on the back and tell them “good job”, at the end of they day the individual cannot help but to pass judgment on what he really did or did not do.

These myths are not self-esteem because they either render no judgment from the self or require no value from the self.   Each of the five pillars in the web of tyranny is designed to make you pass the harshest judgment you can on your own existence.

The following is a quote by Nathaniel Branden from his book, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem:

“Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

The web of tyranny is designed to persuade you to lay down your happiness. It is designed to persuade you that you are not competent to understand reality for yourself. Self-esteem persuades us that it is ok to be happy.

I remember some years ago when I was still trying to wade through everything, when I was praying I found myself really, really happy about whatever. And then I would find myself praying and apologizing for being happy because I was scared of the equation that if I was in fact happy that it represented some error on my part. That’s how deeply ingrained these doctrines had become. For many people, as they come out of these doctrines, one of the biggest things that will betray them is the fear that they are not allowed to be happy and that if they are in fact happy there is something spiritually and morally wrong with their existence.

How often do we find ourselves second-guessing ourselves the moment we realize we’ve had success in something? And how many times when we have sat in church has the guy sitting in the pew next to you or the guy standing up in front of you talking to you told you that if you have an achievement it isn’t yours? What makes you think you have any claim to the content of your achievement? It is all designed to beat you down and to eradicate any sense of self-respect.

One of the challenges we have in the modern age is that, as human beings, we have become very good at insulating ourselves from the danger of nature. Most of us live at a level of prosperity that the rest of the world and the whole of humanity has never known. We are inclined to think that it is a given, but it is not. What are considered to be luxuries are the by-products of a long chain of intellectual conclusions that has produced such prosperity.

But the world is profoundly dangerous. Most of us would be hard-pressed to last a week alone in the woods. But the way we are built is to take the content of nature and conform it to our existence, which is exactly right and proper. So when given over to the elements we must first, and almost immediately, figure out how to keep nature from killing us. But the imperatives of day-to day survival today are not the same as they were a hundred years ago. So for us it seems foolish to discuss real peril when it comes to the failure of making individual choices.

But the fact of the matter is that it isn’t any different. If we fail to make rational choices to achieve and have success and fulfill happiness we will die. Just because we are insulated at the moment doesn’t mean we will be insulated forever. The survival standard is exceedingly high. There is fantastic danger in failing to understand this.

So why do we need self-esteem? The answer is simple. Self-esteem is the need for a consciousness to learn to trust itself. I talk about making choices in my last chapter of Blight in the Vineyard. After people have been subjected to going to pastors and constantly vetting the content of their lives through the minds of others, it is hard for them to find a way to make even the most mundane decisions in life. For many people, the choice of whether to go to the store to just buy ice cream will come with this enormous emotional and intellectual hurdle. You can so atrophy your ability to make choices in this world that you will NEVER be able to trust your own consciousness. That is why these doctrines are so destructive.

A volitional consciousness, one that must make choices, is a mind that must choose to think…or not; must choose to be rational…or not. Man is not automatically reality-focused. Man must intentionally orient his consciousness towards the elements of his life. This is the fundamental of life and death.

This begs the question, how do we actually go about building this self-esteem?


The Practice of Living Consciously

This is a respect for the facts of reality. This is being able to look at reality, understand what it’s telling you, and then arrive at the correct conclusion without evading or hedging. It is a determination to be present in each moment of action. In other words, you are confronted with a fact of reality, it demands your attention, and you determine just to be there with that.

This is hard to do, because you are typically doing one of two things. Either you are reflecting on something that happened in the past or projecting out to where you want to go in the future. How many things could be solved if we just dwelt on what needed attention at the present moment?

Living consciously is being eager to acquire information, knowledge, or feedback that impacts our lives. This goes to one of the myths about self-esteem that assumes that you don’t have any ability to critically evaluate your moral action. But someone who is conscious in the moment does so because he knows that moral action is the better choice and advances his success.

The Practice of Self-Acceptance
This is the zealous quest to see ourselves inside and out. It is taking responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and actions without evasion, denial, or disowning – and also without self-repudiation. This is the common trap that gets so many people to accept the premise that pervasive depravity is true. Contrary to the doctrine, we are very aware of what happens inside of us. And so we say to ourselves in a self-reflecting moment, “Yeah, I know that’s wrong. And since I know it’s wrong and I’m thinking it anyways, that must mean I am morally depraved.” No, what it means is you have to be able to successfully identify yourself where you are. It is not a catastrophic moral failure to recognize an error inside yourself.

We need to give ourselves permission to think our thoughts and experience our emotions. They are what they are. We need to look at our actions without necessarily liking, endorsing, or condoning them. This is the virtue of realism applied to itself. This is our barometer of moral action. Once we can identify ourselves and assess ourselves where we are then it becomes trivially simple to figure out how to correct our course of action.

The Practice of Self-Responsibility
I’ve identified an error, so now what am I going to do about it? We are the author of our choices and our actions. We are responsible for life and our well-being. We are responsible for the attainment of our goals. We cannot borrow someone else’s moral action to get to where we want to be. We are responsible to find ways to exchange value to achieve our goals. This is crucial. If I have a goal that I cannot achieve myself, then it is my job to give somebody else value to help me get there. They do not have an obligation to help me just because. We are responsible to answer the question, “What needs to be done?”

The thread binding all of these is a respect for reality. It is this respect that Calvinist doctrine seeks to undermine at all costs. I call this “spiritual crack”: the endless determination to make you fundamentally dependent on their leadership at every turn and in every instant and at every moment. It is designed to make you addicted; to so erode your self-will that you cannot possibly do anything else. It is evil personified.

Calvinists want you to feel helpless in the face of reality. If you are helpless in the face of your own reality, you will be willing to embrace theirs. They want to inspire you to withdraw and escape. They want you to feel hopeless so that you will beg them to make a new reality. The doctrines are designed to make you hold yourself in the highest suspicion.

Take the doctrine seriously and it will so erode your ability to make a decision that it will render you impotent. Most people intellectually cheat. They smuggle in self-esteem and put on a good face in church. But over time, it will erode your commitment to your own capacity and your own achievements to the point where you become functionally useless at whatever you do best. You end up losing respect for your own existence.

This is what opens you up for such profound exploitation. Once they have you doubting your own existence there are no longer any personal boundaries. People can do whatever they want to you. What objection can you make? What objection WILL you make since you don’t value yourself to draw a boundary? How can you expect moral action out of anybody else? This sets up a standard at church that everybody can use you for whatever purpose, and at any point that you object, you must be the sinner; you must be the problem.

To overthrow their effort you must fall in love with that which exists; you must fall in love with reality. And then you must fall in love with your place in reality. You must live consciously, accept the responsibility of your life, and accept yourself.

Now go forth and take action for your own life!

~ John Immel


Click here for part one
Click here for part two
 Click here for part three
Click here for part four

The Disaster of Sacrifice as the Ultimate Moral Standard – Part 4

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on July 22, 2017

The following is the final part of a four-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s fourth session at the 2016 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for part oneClick here for part twoClick here for part three
(Links to the archived files are found below)


What we have seen over the course of the last 3 sessions is that the oldest of all worldly ideas is that man is effectively a sacrificial animal. The primary intellectual shapers of modern Christianity as we have seen have their roots deep in Platonism, the metastasized version of Platonism found in Augustine, and then the further metastasization in Calvin. The secular iteration of that is Immanuel Kant who put the final nails in the coffin of any self-interest at any point at any time, and he did it such that even secular people could arrive at the exact same conclusion.

Now this becomes very important in the modern age. I opened this whole series talking about how in America we are facing a new Dark Age. The reason that sacrifice is so central to tyranny is directly related to this observation:

The Gospel According to John Immel, chapter 3:1-3

  1. All people act logically from their assumptions.
  2. It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale. They will act until that logic is fulfilled.
  3. Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, if you find the assumptions, you will find the cause.

Consider once again the five pillars of tyranny. (slide 2) All tyrannies use some variation of these arguments.  This is why altruism is so central to tyranny. Notice how the branches of all of these sub-arguments are tied to altruism.

Incompetent Masses – How many times have you heard the preacher say, “No man is an island”? What he really means is that no man in my church has the right to his own ideas. He is demanding that you abandon your own rational judgment.

Dictated Good – The preacher says, “We believe in servant-leadership.” What he really means is, “My qualification for being in charge is telling you what to think.” He believes that his judgment is “the good” and it is his right to tell you what that good is.

Universal Guilt – “You are proud.” What the preacher really means is, “You are morally corrupt. You are taking part in humanity’s original sin. You are displaying Adam’s heritage.” What they are really saying is since you are universally guilty you can’t get away from Adam’s original sin.

Collective Conformity – “You are rebellious,” says the preacher, but what he really means is, “I have the moral right to dictate the content of your life. You have no moral right to resist my authority.” Rebellion is an appeal to political power. Any time someone says you are rebellious, what they are really saying is that you are defying my government right. He is compelling you to collectively conform.

Abolition of Ambition – “You are arrogant,” the preacher says, but what he really means is, “I don’t like your confidence. You have no business being confident because you really have no ability.”

So you can begin to see how this altruism, self-sacrifice, man as a sacrificial animal ties all of this together. This is why this is so fantastically destructive.

Here is in broad terms how collectivism cascades down to the smallest subset. Any time you see someone making an appeal to the “greater good” what they are doing is appealing to the moral standard of altruism to ultimately drive individuals into one of these subsets. Collectivism in the broadest terms encompasses statism. In other words, as an individual your first moral requirement is to the state. The society is a subset of the state depending on common cultural expectations. The tribe is effectively genetic commonality and the political code derived from that. Community encompasses things such as denominations, sects, or the local Calvinist tyrant.

Here is the problem. How can you resist any monstrosity that compels you into any of these things if you must sacrifice your judgment? Under the premise of self-sacrifice, on what moral grounds can you resist government? By what moral standard can you say, “I disagree?” There is none!


Sacrifice is destroying America!

Sacrifice is destroying a free society at its root.
The political leader stands up and says, “Muslims have the right to come to the United States, keep their ideology, and that ideology vows the destruction of America as such.” How can you object?

This is obviously a rhetorical question, because the answer is you can’t. To demand security is to be “selfish”. To demand your own self-interest is to be “selfish”…and therefore morally disqualified. The only moral standard is to sacrifice your security, and consequences be damned. As a committed altruist, you must destroy your values, your goals, your ambitions, your contentment, your LIFE! You have no other choice but to stand idly by, mute in the face of all ideological monstrosity and allow the invasion of your country.

Sacrifice corrupts government.
When it is morally correct to demand sacrifice, it becomes socially correct to compel people to sacrifice. The federal register is filling up with laws that are aimed specifically at compelling people to sacrifice for the “greater good.” For example, Obamacare. It is not about healthcare. It has nothing to do with getting people to a doctor. Obamacare is little more than the government committing armed robbery in the name of morality. Obamacare is a systematic seizing of money from the healthy merely because they are healthy.

At the moment we are a nation stymied by the charge of “selfishness.” In the political sphere, the greatest criticism that anyone can render is that you are selfish. It is effective because it is immediately disqualifying. It doesn’t matter what you are advocating. It doesn’t matter if it’s a better policy. The moment somebody tags with, “you’re selfish,” the discussion is over.

Free people are being browbeat into accepting any treatment, any hostility, any destruction, and any exploitation all in the name of self-sacrifice.

Sacrifice destroys the meaning of words.
Listen to just about any sportscast and you will hear an announcer praise an athlete for his great “unselfish” play. For example, if LeBron James has an opportunity to go for a basket and instead passes the ball to a teammate he is being “unselfish”.

LeBron James

That is objectively ridiculous. LeBron James is probably, next to Michael Jordan, one of the greatest players to ever play the game and one of the most prolific scorers. When LeBron James avoids scoring a basket he is actually penalizing his team because statistically speaking, the ball will probably go through the hoop. It is not unselfishness that’s at issue. It is a failure of conceptual understanding. It is rationally correct for the best scorers to consistently try to score.   So attributing a pass to “unselfishness” is a corruption of words.

But in our culture everything has become an issue of sacrifice. Listen to how often individual actions are being defined as sacrifices. Listen to how often we as a nation qualify our positions with, “I don’t get anything out of this.” Listen to how many times you hear the words, “give back”. Listen to how many times the word sacrifice appears near the word community.

Sacrifice destroys achievement.
Achievement is the product of individuals pursuing their own goals, persevering through obstacles, thinking through the flaws to overcome all challenges and finally arrive at a destination, outcome, or final product. Achievement is the long process of man pursuing values over time, making choices about alternatives in a particular succession until finally refined into the desired outcome. This is why productivity and perseverance are virtues.

Charles Kettering

This process I just described brought about the Write brothers’ first flight, Nikola Tesla’s three-phase electric power, his induction motor, his alternating current, and many, many more achievements. It brought about Charles Kettering’s electric starter motor, car lights, leaded gasoline, and advancements in air conditioning among many achievements.

And yet most people, if they know of these achievements at all, trivialize the achievements because unless these men gave away their money they cannot be moral. By contrast, people will venerate Mother Theresa for her vows of poverty while dismissing the fact that her life of sacrificial giving is only possible because someone achieved air flight, induction motors, electric car starters, advancement in air conditioning, and many more achievements.

Mother Theresa can’t feed anyone…EVER…because Mother Theresa doesn’t create anything.

On the other hand, the farmer had to achieve growing a crop. The trucking company had to achieve getting the food from the farm to someone who would process the raw goods into consumable products. Shipping companies had to achieve the creation of ocean-traveling boats. A thousands achievements from a thousand people pursuing their own values had to occur before Mother Theresa could ever pat someone on the hand and give away food she never aspired to create. Yet her vows of poverty, her “sacrifice”, is held up as the moral ideal.

“Welcome to McDonald’s, may I have your submission, please?”

In a world of achievement where achievement is a virtue, the Mother Theresas of the world, the men and women who live off the abilities of others, would be seen for what they are; freeloading slackers.

This is true of all Calvinist preachers living off the public dole. The only way they make a mortgage payment, or feed their kids, or even buy their first John Piper book is because the people in the pews create real achievements six days out of seven.

You people out there still attending those Calvinist churches, if you ever figure out that the men behind the Plexiglas podium have no right to your money, most of the preachers will starve to death because they aren’t qualified for a job at McDonald’s. You can’t run a McDonald’s chanting, “Submit to authority.” That is the sum of their managerial skills. But I will say that in an achievement-based society, the John Pipers and Kevin DeYoungs of the world (et al) would do a lot less damage if they were limited to saying, “would you like fries with that?”

Sacrifice destroys marriages.
Sacrifice gives Calvinist thugs the moral power to perpetrate their tyranny.

I want to talk about these two together because they go hand in hand. Most people encounter Calvinist thuggery in the middle of a marriage problem. You have serious problems in your marriage and you go to the pastor in an effort to try and get some help. You get to the pastor and the next thing you realize is that you’re “proud”, you’re “arrogant”, and you’re not “sacrificing”. That is almost the universal response.

Then you make the mistake of assuming that your opinion matters on the subject. And the more you decide to defend yourself they more they are convinced of your pride and arrogance.   The truth of the matter is by the time you get to counseling, your marriage is probably already over because the underlying problems have already run their course.

Why do Christians get married? The unromantic answer is, sex. However, once the sex thing begins to ebb and flow and they get past the emotion of it, people finally figure out that sex drive and libido is directly tied to your own sense of self-worth and personal values. The problem is that you’ve been going to a church now for however long that tells you that you can have no value. It’s a death spiral from the outset.

Here is what the ideal would look like. You look in a mirror and you choose four or five things that you really value about who you are. It doesn’t matter what they are. Everyone has their own set of things that they value about themselves. These are your highest values and aspirations. Then when you come to another person and you see those values reflected back in your face it is almost impossible to resist the attraction because you see yourself reflected back. And you know as well as I do that the greatest relationships that you have ever observed happen as a result of having the greatest number of values reflected back.

But here is the problem. You came to the marriage relationship in Christianity believing that sacrifice was the highest ideal, but you have no relationship because you have no values to share. You have nothing in common. Then you have been sitting in the pew for who knows how long, and now you have an endless negotiation on who has sacrificed the most.

The problem is that what you sacrifice is an individual value. The other person in the relationship doesn’t care whether you destroy it or not. All your time in the relationship is spent giving up more and more until eventually you have nothing left. This is why so many marriages, after about 20 years or so of this kind of a relationship, one of the partners finally says, “I’m dead. I have nothing left for you.” The internal emotional pain is so great that they really are dying. But is it any wonder. You have been doing exactly what you have been taught. You have been slowly killing yourself.

Now because of Calvin and Kant, pain has been elevated to a moral primary. But the reality is that pain is a signal that something is wrong. Pain is your signal that there is a problem, and the goal is to get rid of the pain.

At the root of this is an absolute sense of the moral right of your own existence. This is what you can never have in a Calvinist church. This is why Calvinism destroys marriages because it undermines at the root the very people that are involved in the marriage.

As for friends, and this is something that I think really trips people up, you have known some of these people for years and years. Suddenly you are in the middle of what you consider to be a fight for your life and you go to your friends, and you realize that now you don’t have any friends. This is salt on open wounds, because you’re confused. You really honestly believed that these people had your back. No, they would sell you out in a minute for pastoral approval. Now you are stuck because you have so atrophied your sense of self and achievement that you cannot project into the future your own existence. That is probably one of the loneliest places to be in the world.

But I’m going to tell you the truth; you have no one to blame but yourself. You let somebody tell you that your existence was contingent on the approval of other people.

I’m going to cite an excerpt from my book, Blight in the Vineyard. This is from the chapter “Interpersonal Train Wreck”.

Now pause and digest the system dynamic I just laid out in detail and take inventory of the cause of your emotional upheaval. This is why you feel so utterly betrayed and so deeply wounded. This is why you ache with despair that will not go away. You offered the sum of self, and people presumed the moral right to accept or reject the deepest parts of you and call their actions “spiritual.”  They spent your relationship like dollar bills in the pastoral g-string on a private authority lap dance.

No one can sustain this kind of utter personal rejection. No one can sustain others using unearned intimacy to fill out their Christian authenticity balance sheet. So when you rightly complained about the mistreatment, they were brazen in defense, “Forgive me IF I sinned against you, but since I am the authority in this interaction, I can say this conflict really exists because YOU are the problem.”

Sacrifice is the fulcrum of this control.

Here’s the real meaning of the doctrine of self-sacrifice: You are not entitled to your mind, you are not entitled to your ideas, you are not entitled to your own aspirations, goals, or desires. If self-sacrifice is your moral standard, how can you object to any idea? The fact is you have forfeited your right to any personal opinion. You have no moral right to resist the preacher, no matter how atrocious, how grotesque his demands.

Forget the pastoral fictional monopoly on sound doctrine. Forget that they have any authority to dictate any outcome. The minute someone committed to reformed theology say the words, “I think…”, they are disqualified. Your impotence does not come from their authority. You impotence comes from the fact that you don’t value your own existence. If you don’t think that it is morally correct to defend you, then why on earth would anyone else defend you?

This is why most of you have such a terrible time escaping the church that is destroying your soul.

One thing you need to understand, the one thing that men who are committed to authority can never tolerate is the appearance of any dissention. So the only thing they can do is to make effort to segregate you from everything else.

So how do we escape the coming Dark Age? 

It is often said that men will not sacrifice, but as we have seen, sacrifice as the highest moral standard is in human history. We have seen throughout human history that men will sacrifice endlessly. We have seen that men will suffer enormous pains in the name of sacrifice. In National Socialist Germany the German people sacrificed their minds, their time, their production, and their existence to the state.

Indeed the problem of human existence is not the willingness to sacrifice. History proves over and over that men will abundantly sacrifice. What men will not do is stand against the moral monstrosity of sacrifice.

Hanna Arendt

After World War II, Hanna Arendt dug into the roots of tyranny and totalitarian regimes and wrote a lot about the subject.

And just as the law in civilized countries assumes that the voice of conscience tells everybody, “Thou shalt not kill,” even though man’s natural desires and inclinations may at times be murderous, so the law of Hitler’s land demanded that the voice of conscience tell everybody, “Thou shalt kill,” although the organizers of the massacres knew full well that murder is against the normal desires and inclinations of most people. Evil in the Third Reich had lost the quality by which most people recognize it – the quality of temptation. Many Germans and many Nazis, probably an overwhelming majority of them, must have been tempted not to murder, not to rob, not to let their neighbors go off to their doom (for that the Jews were transported to their doom they knew, of course, even though many of them may not have known the gruesome details), and not to become accomplices in these crimes by benefiting from them. But, God knows, they had learned how to resist temptation.

         Hanna Arendt, Eichmann if Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963

And this is exactly what we see playing out in the church- church leaders perpetrating all manner of evil, and the congregation sitting idly by resisting the temptation to object. And what the church does in their buildings is a harbinger of what is to come in American culture. Christians like the idea that America is a “Christian nation”. That’s a problem, because historically, Christian nations have let the blood flow deep and thick in the name of sacrifice.

There has always been an uneasy relationship between the church and the Constitution. Christians love to claim the Constitution when it serves the purpose of religious freedom, but they reject the root constitutional premise. The Constitution presumes that man is an end in himself. The sole purpose of government is to defend the individual in the pursuit of his life, his liberty, and his happiness.

The American Constitution has an implied moral standard: that individual men are entitled to their own lives. Individual men dispose of their lives for their own sake and for their own pleasures. But dare to suggest that man is an end to himself and church people will start chanting “SACRIFICE, SACRIFICE, SACRIFICE!” with all the fervor of the Thuggee cult just before the high priest strangles the latest offering to Kali.

Gospel According to John Immel 7:17
”Sacrifice as the highest moral ideal is the lynch pin of the coming Protestant Dark Age.”

America was the freest, happiest, most prosperous nation in the world because it led the world in individualism. America stands at a precipice. Behind us is the excellent history of liberty, individualism, freedom, values, success, and prosperity. The cliff in front of us falls off into the abyss of sacrifice and injustice and bloodshed and destruction.

Americans are now turning their liberties and freedoms over to the primordial disaster of sacrifice. This does not bode well. Every nation that has walked this path has willingly walked lockstep behind a dictator into mass destruction.

America, if you want to escape the coming Dark Age, be the first people in history to find the courage to resist the temptation of sacrifice.

~ John

John Immel 2016 Session 4 Archive Video (YouTube) Audio Only (mp3)

Guest Writer John Immel: An Open Letter to Infidels

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on July 15, 2016

In light of last night’s terror attack in Nice, France, I think we all need to be reminded once again of just who exactly we’re dealing with.


Originally Posted June 21, 2016

john immelBy John Immel; edited by Paul M. Dohse, TANC Publishing.

“No society can hope to survive collective psychosis. No nation can endure when the political powers seek to compel the people to join a break with reality. Western civilization cannot survive with this ongoing campaign of collective treason against the central premise of Enlightenment ideas: A is A.  Without this foundation rational man, civilized man, is doomed.”

Dear Infidel, there is no such thing as Islamic “Extremism.”

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, remove every –ism from the proper noun and that will bring clarity to what is affecting the whole world.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, there is no such thing as a “Moderate” Muslim.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, the Quran divides the world between three classes of people—the faithful, apostates, and infidels. This existential divide might be marginally benign but for this fact: The faithful have a singular standing order—do heinous things to the apostates and the infidels. So for all practical purposes, in the world according to Islam, everything is metaphysically divided between the faithful and their 100% commitment to the edicts, commands, and dictates of Allah as bestowed upon the world by the Prophet Mohamed–May peace be upon Him–and everyone else.

How do I know this is true? Oh  . . .  because I can read. And if there is any confusion about what I read, I am willing to let the experts on the Quran speak for themselves and if I am tempted to dismiss their judgment for my own, I can temper my credulity by observing the historical themes played out generation after generation after generation after generation.

More on this historical observation in a minute . . .

Of course committing these words to print puts me in societal crosshairs. No one is allowed to be so direct about Islam and anyone who is this direct must be an intolerant, bigoted, racist, homophobic, angry white male who doesn’t like women and puppies and wants all old people to die eating cat food, because he will take away their social security. Only Donald Trump class bigots dare point out the reality of Islamic supremacy and its Jihad against Western culture in general and America in particular.

Dear Infidel, let’s think about this accusation . . . that those who understand Islam as stated above are little more than fearful little haters. Let us think about who is painting infidels, like myself, with the disqualifying brush of intolerance.

Western cultural intelligentsia, entertainment moguls, political pundits, heads of news agencies  and government representatives have all decided that Islamic Clerics and Muslim Dr’s of theology, Imams, and mullahs can’t possibly know what the Quran says and are epistemologically incapable of understanding the Hadith.  And therefore anyone committing an act of “terrorism” must, without equivocation, caveat or addendum; MUST be perverting a great religion.

So let’s watch how the smartest people in the room put this worldview into action. If a Jihadist, slaughters 49 gays in a Florida night club, calls 911 while committing his act of war and declares his commitment to ISIS, the motive cannot possibly be that he was a Muslim committed to the enforcement of Sharia law, but rather his violence is the byproduct of Republicans refusing to abolish the Second Amendment, or his violence is because “assault rifles” exist, or because American culture is a culture of “toxic masculinity,” or because he is  “radicalized” by exposure to the “internet” or because America is mean and this poor young man just couldn’t take the meanness anymore, or he was (whispering) a closet homosexual who struggled to come out of the closet because America is homophobic.

Of course, the anti-American bigotry laced throughout these rationalizations is perfectly fine, perfectly reasonable, perfectly acceptable forms of political dissent and social commentary.

America (and white privileged Americans) are the villains and everyone else including the Jihadist dujour are the victims. And the only correct political action is to abolish the Second Amendment, prosecute Americans for “hate” crimes because Muslims are “offended,” lecture free people that they have no business expecting liberty, conduct endless warrantless searches on Americans traveling by airplane, immediately establish Sharia courts within the United States and—in the name of peace and compassion—throw our borders wide open to Muslim “immigrants” because anyone who knows anything knows that there is NO direct relationship between Islam, Muslims, Jihad, and the scattered few aberrations of Work Place Violence in Fort Hood and San Bernardino and the World Trade Center.

Oh no, no, no. Shame, shame, shame (stroking my index finger like Catholic School Nun) Islam is a great religion. It is a religion of peace. How dare you think otherwise?

This might be a quaint trip into political posturing if it weren’t for the fact that the leadership of the whole Western world, from Germany to France to Belgium to Great Britton seems to have arrived at the same fundamental conclusion.  The whole western world has decided that Muslim leaders, renowned throughout the globe for their doctrinal mastery, are really just a few scattered crazy men that have “perverted” a “great religion.”

Never mind that in 630 AD Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—inspired Bedouin tribes to roar out of the backwater Arabian dessert with a singular goal—world domination in the name of Allah.  Never mind that the whole of Islam has continued to act on this objective from the 7th century to the present day. Never mind that 95% of all modern military conflicts have Muslims on (at least) one side. Never mind that it is only because the Sunni and the Shia can’t stop slaughtering each other (because they can’t agree on who is the greater tribe of apostates) long enough for Islam to conquer the world. Never mind that the top Islamic minds, in every century since the 7th have repeatedly reaffirmed the declarations of war against the infidels over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and  . . .

Never mind the obvious. The Western intelligentsia, with their superior grasp of reality, their pure hearts and broad minds and inclusive souls  . . . oh no . . . they will not be duped by “extremists.”  They know better—their understanding of the Religion of Peace is far better than the ayatollahs, mullahs and Imams issuing fatwas. They understand religious freedom better than the whole world.

So who are the crazy people in this scenario?

Dear Infidel, answer this question: Who is educating the West on the “Religion of Peace?”

Can you name one Billy Graham equivalent Muslim evangelist explaining the vagaries of Quranic doctrine? Where is the cavalcade of “moderate” Muslim’s instructing America on the Hadith’s central doctrines of benevolence?

Anyone have a name?

If Moderate Muslims are the dominant force within Islam’s 2 billion followers why don’t those names fly off your tongue like their Christian counterparts: Falwell and Swaggart and Molher and Copeland and Dever?

How come the names that do fly off your tongue—Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Khamenei, Badie—advocate anything but “moderation”?

So now let’s answer the question. Who is educating America on the “Religion of Peace?” The answer: A Who’s Who of pop culture personalities, politicians, and corporate media talking heads.

For example; Ben Affleck, who makes pretty good movies, regularly doubles as a Muslim apologist on sundry talk show panels. John Kasich insists on defending “moderate” Muslims as if his Catholic catechism gives him unique insights to the Hadith. And Paul Ryan who seems to get his boxers in a twist anytime anyone suggests there might be a problem with Muslim immigration. Or tune into pretty much any cable news program and you will be treated to an anchorette, smiling brightly into the camera, denigrating anyone who dares suggest that Islam had anything to do with the San Bernardino shooters or the Orlando Jihadist. Such intolerance, such Islamaphobia, she will insist is the height of bigotry.

Isn’t it curious that I’m impolitic for pointing out that our current theological educators should more properly be seen (and not heard) on an episode of Entertainment Tonight?

What are their credentials as Islamic spokesmen?

Because Ben Affleck produces and stars in the movie Argo, a film about the Iranian hostage crisis during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, he is an Islamic theologian?  He knows a few “moderate” Muslims?

What to say about John Kasich?  He is the (current) governor of Ohio and (was) a presidential candidate. So these are sufficient credentials to quote the Quran, Surah and Ayat?

Really?

Uh . . . remember, Dear Infidel, that this is the same man, who in a Presidential debate manufactured a conversation with Saint Peter to justify his Presidential policy to seize your private property in the name of “godly” compassion. I defy anyone to find a “biblical” reference to discussions with Saint Peter at the Pearly gates. And the reason I defy you to find it is because John Kasich made it up! So if John Kasich can manufacture Christian doctrines out of whole cloth what do you think he actually knows about Islam?

Paul Ryan, the current speaker of the House, often lectures the American people on the need for open immigration policy and refuses to heed the warnings of the FBI and CIA director in sworn congressional testimony that the flood of ISIS Jihadists coming across the US borders are at a historic high point.  Paul Ryan has apparently forgotten that he is a representative of American citizens NOT foreign nationals. (As an aside I suggest that we encourage Speaker Ryan to go find another occupation—greeter at Wal-Mart or maybe an employee of CAIR or a field reporter for Al Jazeera—by supporting whoever challenges him in the upcoming election.)

And let’s not leave out the ubiquitous cable news anchorette sitting, shaved legs crossed at13220882_10154245164633203_3251184435053509789_n the knee, cleavage imprinted behind her blouse, hair flowing free, defending Islam with her mega-watt smile. Never forget, as she blathers on sagely about religious freedom and the plight of Syrian refugees, that if she were seen, dressed as she is on TV, on the streets of Iran, Saudi Arabia or ANY other country where Sharia law is enforced she would be killed to wash her Western whore dishonor from her family name: burned alive or stoned, or beheaded or have her face whipped for her immodesty. Somehow American news anchorettes and college educated coeds seem to be the only ones who don’t know the open secret that the Islamic world knows: Under Sharia law a woman’s opinion is irrelevant.

(The definition of absurdity is American women, whose political and religious freedoms are the byproduct of Enlightenment thought, pontificating sagely about the benevolence of Islamic doctrine.  But I digress.)

Dear Infidel here is the point:  We are taking Islamic theology lessons from people who have no clue what they are talking about and at their request, in a fit of catastrophic delusion, defiantly rejecting the outward, overt, unhidden words of theological professionals. We are pretending that people who have (very likely) never touched a Quran—let alone read its words—insist they have a keener insight to Muslim doctrine than those who have dedicated their lives to its study. Men who have graduated from the world’s top Islamic universities, men who choose to abandon enormous wealth to live in huts and hovels and caves and blow themselves up to wage war in the name of Allah.

Arrogance is its own despicable vice but arrogance and delusion are the seedbed of disaster. No society can hope to survive collective psychosis. No nation can endure when the political powers seek to compel the people to join a break with reality. Western civilization cannot survive with this ongoing campaign of collective treason against the central premise of Enlightenment ideas: A is A.  Without this foundation rational man, civilized man, is doomed.

Here is a novel idea. How about if we accept the word of Islamic professionals? How about if we take their declarations seriously? How about if rational men quit trying to put words in the mouth of mystics and quit making excuses for savages?  How about if we judge reality and see exactly what Islam says of itself. How about if we identify the A of Islam.

What do the professionals say the Quran and the Hadith teaches?

Simply this: Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—declared war on the whole world in the name of Allah. Chapter after chapter after chapter in the Quran affirms the objective. And, big shock, every generation of Muslims since the 7th century has worked towards that end.  The whole of Islamic history is a story of conquest, war, destruction, slavery, and oppression. The history of Islam is a singular effort to wipe out the Jewish people and the enemies of Allah in the name of his prophet Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—with not so much as a blush of shame or guilt or repentance by any Muslim intellectual leader that matters.

But John even the Islamic theological big dogs say that Islam is a “Religion of Peace?”  So if the big dogs say this then, shouldn’t we believe them?

Of course, you should believe them. It is true. Islam is a religion of peace. The logic is simple: the world will be at peace when it is subjected to Allah and His Sharia law as the undisputed law of the world.

The Islamic definition of Peace is they win.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, are you willing to give up the First Amendment?  The Second Amendment?

Oh wait; yeah, stupid me. American’s are obviously willing to abandon the constitution since they sit idly by while politicians and judges and law enforcement make it a mockery. After all, it was written by evil rich white men. Who would dare stand up for such a thing? Of course, people don’t give a #$#% about liberty and freedom; so of course, they will give up their rights to life and the pursuit of individual happiness for “peace” and “security.” Of course Americans will give it up because white people better never “offend” a living soul.

Uh  . . . hum, what will Americans actually fight for . . .?

Twiddling my thumbs thinking . . .

Are you willing to give up bacon?

Now that thought has most of you ready to pick up your “assault” rifle.

But John, what about all the “moderate” Muslims?

Dear Infidel, you do realize that the Quran also requires the faithful to deceive the infidel, right? They are theologically mandated to do the following: lie to you.  Again, just take the theological experts at their word and it makes understanding reality much simpler.

Here is the dirty little secret that isn’t a secret. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.

Dear Infidel, think a minute. On what specific issue are these mythical Muslims “moderating?”

Come on, this “moderation” should leap off your tongue. They are not “moderating” whether they eat pepperoni or bacon or have a pet dog. They are not “moderating” whether they keep Ramadan or face Mecca when they answer the call to prayer. They are not “moderating” whether they can wear a hijab and a micro bikini at the same time. They are not “moderating” whether to impose Sharia Law in every nation on earth. They are not moderating on whether Mohamed—May peace be upon him—was just a “good man” or the Prophet of Allah. They are not “moderating” which tribe—the Sunni or the Shia—is the rightful heir to the Caliphate. They are not “moderating” on the Islamic equivalence between New Calvinism of the Wade Burleson kind vs the New Calvinism of the Al Mohler kind.

They are “moderating” on the means and methods of Jihad against the western infidel. They are moderating on whether they will Kill us or not.

Hey, here is a news flash. Muslims don’t get applause for refraining from killing me. That is a baseline standard. That is the threshold of civilized men. Not killing those who hold other ideas, not killing those who reject Islamic theology, is an expectation NOT a #%$&^ favor.

But make no mistake the “moderate” Muslims that currently forgo chopping off your head to advance the Caliphate, are not moderating on establishing the Caliphate. They are still working to establish Sharia law but they use our political system to overthrow our government and impose Islamic law.* The fact that they use lawyers and ad hominem attacks instead of bullets and beheadings doesn’t change the final goal.  They are still working towards Mohamed’s stated end: World domination in the name of Allah. And any Muslim not deemed dedicated to this end—deemed by those who have the guns and perpetrate the greatest savagery—are, in Islamic parlance, apostates. So every Muslim who takes full advantage of Western democratic freedoms is not participating in an alternate, “enlightened” expression of Islam. All they have done is chosen to ignore Islamic orthodoxy precisely because our culture affords them a freedom they would never have in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran and a list of other countries where Sharia is enforced.

This is an almost impossible distinction for Americans to grasp because we treat religion like a vast smorgasbord that we can graze over at our leisure. If we don’t like what the preacher says we start another church instead of burning him at the stake. As Americans we like it when someone compromises on principles so it sounds reasonable to hear a hard-line “religious nut” equivocate on theological absolutes. The Western world in general and America in particular has not had a religious war in generations precisely because our philosophical foundations make religion an action of individual conscience: we are free to pick and choose what we want to believe and how we want to practice those beliefs.

But there is no individual conscience in Islam because any act of “moderation” is a death sentence. There is only one God—Allah. There is only one Islam. There is only one Prophet Mohamed—May Peace be upon Him. There is only one law: Sharia. Every Muslim that says otherwise is a hypocrite and all hypocrites are apostates. And the apostate’s end is the same as the infidel: heinous death adjudicated by a Sharia court.

Full stop.

I will say it again because it bears repeating: no matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth you hear from CAIR; no matter how many times they bluff and bully and shout you down in public; no matter how many times they call you a bigot, there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.

Dear Infidel, you must understand this fundamental fact. There is no way to have Sharia and the American Constitution side by side. Your political leaders absolutely know this which is why there is such a concerted effort to undermine the American constitution. But more fundamentally the constitution recognizes that man lives for himself. Islam demands that the whole of humanity lives for Allah.  The choice you face Dear Infidel is simple: Sharia or objective law, Islamic theocracy or secular liberty, tyranny or the pursuit of individual happiness.

Twiddling my thumbs again pondering closing comments . . .

Well, I’ve come to this conclusion. I don’t think Americans want liberty and freedom any longer. Most of you, Dear Infidels, are more concerned over a threat to bacon than our President’s “common sense changes” to the Second Amendment.

Tell you what, Dear Infidel, I’ll help ease your transition into Sharia. You should probably start practicing your Allahu Akbars. Women, you should immediately get fitted for a burka—a long black bag that makes New Calvinist modesty look positively indecent. And Dear Infidel, when you say the name Mohamed remember to add—May peace be upon Him.

_______________________________________

*Editor’s Note: In fact, according to several polls, while a vast majority of Muslims living in the U.S. decry “extremists,” the same vast majority endorses Sharia law.

Guest Writer John Immel: An Open Letter to Infidels

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 21, 2016

john immelBy John Immel; edited by Paul M. Dohse, TANC Publishing.

“No society can hope to survive collective psychosis. No nation can endure when the political powers seek to compel the people to join a break with reality. Western civilization cannot survive with this ongoing campaign of collective treason against the central premise of Enlightenment ideas: A is A.  Without this foundation rational man, civilized man, is doomed.”

Dear Infidel, there is no such thing as Islamic “Extremism.”

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, remove every –ism from the proper noun and that will bring clarity to what is affecting the whole world.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, there is no such thing as a “Moderate” Muslim.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, the Quran divides the world between three classes of people—the faithful, apostates, and infidels. This existential divide might be marginally benign but for this fact: The faithful have a singular standing order—do heinous things to the apostates and the infidels. So for all practical purposes, in the world according to Islam, everything is metaphysically divided between the faithful and their 100% commitment to the edicts, commands, and dictates of Allah as bestowed upon the world by the Prophet Mohamed–May peace be upon Him–and everyone else.

How do I know this is true? Oh  . . .  because I can read. And if there is any confusion about what I read, I am willing to let the experts on the Quran speak for themselves and if I am tempted to dismiss their judgment for my own, I can temper my credulity by observing the historical themes played out generation after generation after generation after generation.

More on this historical observation in a minute . . .

Of course committing these words to print puts me in societal crosshairs. No one is allowed to be so direct about Islam and anyone who is this direct must be an intolerant, bigoted, racist, homophobic, angry white male who doesn’t like women and puppies and wants all old people to die eating cat food, because he will take away their social security. Only Donald Trump class bigots dare point out the reality of Islamic supremacy and its Jihad against Western culture in general and America in particular.

Dear Infidel, let’s think about this accusation . . . that those who understand Islam as stated above are little more than fearful little haters. Let us think about who is painting infidels, like myself, with the disqualifying brush of intolerance.

Western cultural intelligentsia, entertainment moguls, political pundits, heads of news agencies  and government representatives have all decided that Islamic Clerics and Muslim Dr’s of theology, Imams, and mullahs can’t possibly know what the Quran says and are epistemologically incapable of understanding the Hadith.  And therefore anyone committing an act of “terrorism” must, without equivocation, caveat or addendum; MUST be perverting a great religion.

So let’s watch how the smartest people in the room put this worldview into action. If a Jihadist, slaughters 49 gays in a Florida night club, calls 911 while committing his act of war and declares his commitment to ISIS, the motive cannot possibly be that he was a Muslim committed to the enforcement of Sharia law, but rather his violence is the byproduct of Republicans refusing to abolish the Second Amendment, or his violence is because “assault rifles” exist, or because American culture is a culture of “toxic masculinity,” or because he is  “radicalized” by exposure to the “internet” or because America is mean and this poor young man just couldn’t take the meanness anymore, or he was (whispering) a closet homosexual who struggled to come out of the closet because America is homophobic.

Of course, the anti-American bigotry laced throughout these rationalizations is perfectly fine, perfectly reasonable, perfectly acceptable forms of political dissent and social commentary.

America (and white privileged Americans) are the villains and everyone else including the Jihadist dujour are the victims. And the only correct political action is to abolish the Second Amendment, prosecute Americans for “hate” crimes because Muslims are “offended,” lecture free people that they have no business expecting liberty, conduct endless warrantless searches on Americans traveling by airplane, immediately establish Sharia courts within the United States and—in the name of peace and compassion—throw our borders wide open to Muslim “immigrants” because anyone who knows anything knows that there is NO direct relationship between Islam, Muslims, Jihad, and the scattered few aberrations of Work Place Violence in Fort Hood and San Bernardino and the World Trade Center.

Oh no, no, no. Shame, shame, shame (stroking my index finger like Catholic School Nun) Islam is a great religion. It is a religion of peace. How dare you think otherwise?

This might be a quaint trip into political posturing if it weren’t for the fact that the leadership of the whole Western world, from Germany to France to Belgium to Great Britton seems to have arrived at the same fundamental conclusion.  The whole western world has decided that Muslim leaders, renowned throughout the globe for their doctrinal mastery, are really just a few scattered crazy men that have “perverted” a “great religion.”

Never mind that in 630 AD Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—inspired Bedouin tribes to roar out of the backwater Arabian dessert with a singular goal—world domination in the name of Allah.  Never mind that the whole of Islam has continued to act on this objective from the 7th century to the present day. Never mind that 95% of all modern military conflicts have Muslims on (at least) one side. Never mind that it is only because the Sunni and the Shia can’t stop slaughtering each other (because they can’t agree on who is the greater tribe of apostates) long enough for Islam to conquer the world. Never mind that the top Islamic minds, in every century since the 7th have repeatedly reaffirmed the declarations of war against the infidels over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and  . . .

Never mind the obvious. The Western intelligentsia, with their superior grasp of reality, their pure hearts and broad minds and inclusive souls  . . . oh no . . . they will not be duped by “extremists.”  They know better—their understanding of the Religion of Peace is far better than the ayatollahs, mullahs and Imams issuing fatwas. They understand religious freedom better than the whole world.

So who are the crazy people in this scenario?

Dear Infidel, answer this question: Who is educating the West on the “Religion of Peace?”

Can you name one Billy Graham equivalent Muslim evangelist explaining the vagaries of Quranic doctrine? Where is the cavalcade of “moderate” Muslim’s instructing America on the Hadith’s central doctrines of benevolence?

Anyone have a name?

If Moderate Muslims are the dominant force within Islam’s 2 billion followers why don’t those names fly off your tongue like their Christian counterparts: Falwell and Swaggart and Molher and Copeland and Dever?

How come the names that do fly off your tongue—Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Khamenei, Badie—advocate anything but “moderation”?

So now let’s answer the question. Who is educating America on the “Religion of Peace?” The answer: A Who’s Who of pop culture personalities, politicians, and corporate media talking heads.

For example; Ben Affleck, who makes pretty good movies, regularly doubles as a Muslim apologist on sundry talk show panels. John Kasich insists on defending “moderate” Muslims as if his Catholic catechism gives him unique insights to the Hadith. And Paul Ryan who seems to get his boxers in a twist anytime anyone suggests there might be a problem with Muslim immigration. Or tune into pretty much any cable news program and you will be treated to an anchorette, smiling brightly into the camera, denigrating anyone who dares suggest that Islam had anything to do with the San Bernardino shooters or the Orlando Jihadist. Such intolerance, such Islamaphobia, she will insist is the height of bigotry.

Isn’t it curious that I’m impolitic for pointing out that our current theological educators should more properly be seen (and not heard) on an episode of Entertainment Tonight?

What are their credentials as Islamic spokesmen?

Because Ben Affleck produces and stars in the movie Argo, a film about the Iranian hostage crisis during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, he is an Islamic theologian?  He knows a few “moderate” Muslims?

What to say about John Kasich?  He is the (current) governor of Ohio and (was) a presidential candidate. So these are sufficient credentials to quote the Quran, Surah and Ayat?

Really?

Uh . . . remember, Dear Infidel, that this is the same man, who in a Presidential debate manufactured a conversation with Saint Peter to justify his Presidential policy to seize your private property in the name of “godly” compassion. I defy anyone to find a “biblical” reference to discussions with Saint Peter at the Pearly gates. And the reason I defy you to find it is because John Kasich made it up! So if John Kasich can manufacture Christian doctrines out of whole cloth what do you think he actually knows about Islam?

Paul Ryan, the current speaker of the House, often lectures the American people on the need for open immigration policy and refuses to heed the warnings of the FBI and CIA director in sworn congressional testimony that the flood of ISIS Jihadists coming across the US borders are at a historic high point.  Paul Ryan has apparently forgotten that he is a representative of American citizens NOT foreign nationals. (As an aside I suggest that we encourage Speaker Ryan to go find another occupation—greeter at Wal-Mart or maybe an employee of CAIR or a field reporter for Al Jazeera—by supporting whoever challenges him in the upcoming election.)

And let’s not leave out the ubiquitous cable news anchorette sitting, shaved legs crossed at13220882_10154245164633203_3251184435053509789_n the knee, cleavage imprinted behind her blouse, hair flowing free, defending Islam with her mega-watt smile. Never forget, as she blathers on sagely about religious freedom and the plight of Syrian refugees, that if she were seen, dressed as she is on TV, on the streets of Iran, Saudi Arabia or ANY other country where Sharia law is enforced she would be killed to wash her Western whore dishonor from her family name: burned alive or stoned, or beheaded or have her face whipped for her immodesty. Somehow American news anchorettes and college educated coeds seem to be the only ones who don’t know the open secret that the Islamic world knows: Under Sharia law a woman’s opinion is irrelevant.

(The definition of absurdity is American women, whose political and religious freedoms are the byproduct of Enlightenment thought, pontificating sagely about the benevolence of Islamic doctrine.  But I digress.)

Dear Infidel here is the point:  We are taking Islamic theology lessons from people who have no clue what they are talking about and at their request, in a fit of catastrophic delusion, defiantly rejecting the outward, overt, unhidden words of theological professionals. We are pretending that people who have (very likely) never touched a Quran—let alone read its words—insist they have a keener insight to Muslim doctrine than those who have dedicated their lives to its study. Men who have graduated from the world’s top Islamic universities, men who choose to abandon enormous wealth to live in huts and hovels and caves and blow themselves up to wage war in the name of Allah.

Arrogance is its own despicable vice but arrogance and delusion are the seedbed of disaster. No society can hope to survive collective psychosis. No nation can endure when the political powers seek to compel the people to join a break with reality. Western civilization cannot survive with this ongoing campaign of collective treason against the central premise of Enlightenment ideas: A is A.  Without this foundation rational man, civilized man, is doomed.

Here is a novel idea. How about if we accept the word of Islamic professionals? How about if we take their declarations seriously? How about if rational men quit trying to put words in the mouth of mystics and quit making excuses for savages?  How about if we judge reality and see exactly what Islam says of itself. How about if we identify the A of Islam.

What do the professionals say the Quran and the Hadith teaches?

Simply this: Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—declared war on the whole world in the name of Allah. Chapter after chapter after chapter in the Quran affirms the objective. And, big shock, every generation of Muslims since the 7th century has worked towards that end.  The whole of Islamic history is a story of conquest, war, destruction, slavery, and oppression. The history of Islam is a singular effort to wipe out the Jewish people and the enemies of Allah in the name of his prophet Mohamed—May peace be upon Him—with not so much as a blush of shame or guilt or repentance by any Muslim intellectual leader that matters.

But John even the Islamic theological big dogs say that Islam is a “Religion of Peace?”  So if the big dogs say this then, shouldn’t we believe them?

Of course, you should believe them. It is true. Islam is a religion of peace. The logic is simple: the world will be at peace when it is subjected to Allah and His Sharia law as the undisputed law of the world.

The Islamic definition of Peace is they win.

Full stop.

Dear Infidel, are you willing to give up the First Amendment?  The Second Amendment?

Oh wait; yeah, stupid me. American’s are obviously willing to abandon the constitution since they sit idly by while politicians and judges and law enforcement make it a mockery. After all, it was written by evil rich white men. Who would dare stand up for such a thing? Of course, people don’t give a #$#% about liberty and freedom; so of course, they will give up their rights to life and the pursuit of individual happiness for “peace” and “security.” Of course Americans will give it up because white people better never “offend” a living soul.

Uh  . . . hum, what will Americans actually fight for . . .?

Twiddling my thumbs thinking . . .

Are you willing to give up bacon?

Now that thought has most of you ready to pick up your “assault” rifle.

But John, what about all the “moderate” Muslims?

Dear Infidel, you do realize that the Quran also requires the faithful to deceive the infidel, right? They are theologically mandated to do the following: lie to you.  Again, just take the theological experts at their word and it makes understanding reality much simpler.

Here is the dirty little secret that isn’t a secret. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.

Dear Infidel, think a minute. On what specific issue are these mythical Muslims “moderating?”

Come on, this “moderation” should leap off your tongue. They are not “moderating” whether they eat pepperoni or bacon or have a pet dog. They are not “moderating” whether they keep Ramadan or face Mecca when they answer the call to prayer. They are not “moderating” whether they can wear a hijab and a micro bikini at the same time. They are not “moderating” whether to impose Sharia Law in every nation on earth. They are not moderating on whether Mohamed—May peace be upon him—was just a “good man” or the Prophet of Allah. They are not “moderating” which tribe—the Sunni or the Shia—is the rightful heir to the Caliphate. They are not “moderating” on the Islamic equivalence between New Calvinism of the Wade Burleson kind vs the New Calvinism of the Al Mohler kind.

They are “moderating” on the means and methods of Jihad against the western infidel. They are moderating on whether they will Kill us or not.

Hey, here is a news flash. Muslims don’t get applause for refraining from killing me. That is a baseline standard. That is the threshold of civilized men. Not killing those who hold other ideas, not killing those who reject Islamic theology, is an expectation NOT a #%$&^ favor.

But make no mistake the “moderate” Muslims that currently forgo chopping off your head to advance the Caliphate, are not moderating on establishing the Caliphate. They are still working to establish Sharia law but they use our political system to overthrow our government and impose Islamic law.* The fact that they use lawyers and ad hominem attacks instead of bullets and beheadings doesn’t change the final goal.  They are still working towards Mohamed’s stated end: World domination in the name of Allah. And any Muslim not deemed dedicated to this end—deemed by those who have the guns and perpetrate the greatest savagery—are, in Islamic parlance, apostates. So every Muslim who takes full advantage of Western democratic freedoms is not participating in an alternate, “enlightened” expression of Islam. All they have done is chosen to ignore Islamic orthodoxy precisely because our culture affords them a freedom they would never have in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran and a list of other countries where Sharia is enforced.

This is an almost impossible distinction for Americans to grasp because we treat religion like a vast smorgasbord that we can graze over at our leisure. If we don’t like what the preacher says we start another church instead of burning him at the stake. As Americans we like it when someone compromises on principles so it sounds reasonable to hear a hard-line “religious nut” equivocate on theological absolutes. The Western world in general and America in particular has not had a religious war in generations precisely because our philosophical foundations make religion an action of individual conscience: we are free to pick and choose what we want to believe and how we want to practice those beliefs.

But there is no individual conscience in Islam because any act of “moderation” is a death sentence. There is only one God—Allah. There is only one Islam. There is only one Prophet Mohamed—May Peace be upon Him. There is only one law: Sharia. Every Muslim that says otherwise is a hypocrite and all hypocrites are apostates. And the apostate’s end is the same as the infidel: heinous death adjudicated by a Sharia court.

Full stop.

I will say it again because it bears repeating: no matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth you hear from CAIR; no matter how many times they bluff and bully and shout you down in public; no matter how many times they call you a bigot, there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.

Dear Infidel, you must understand this fundamental fact. There is no way to have Sharia and the American Constitution side by side. Your political leaders absolutely know this which is why there is such a concerted effort to undermine the American constitution. But more fundamentally the constitution recognizes that man lives for himself. Islam demands that the whole of humanity lives for Allah.  The choice you face Dear Infidel is simple: Sharia or objective law, Islamic theocracy or secular liberty, tyranny or the pursuit of individual happiness.

Twiddling my thumbs again pondering closing comments . . .

Well, I’ve come to this conclusion. I don’t think Americans want liberty and freedom any longer. Most of you, Dear Infidels, are more concerned over a threat to bacon than our President’s “common sense changes” to the Second Amendment.

Tell you what, Dear Infidel, I’ll help ease your transition into Sharia. You should probably start practicing your Allahu Akbars. Women, you should immediately get fitted for a burka—a long black bag that makes New Calvinist modesty look positively indecent. And Dear Infidel, when you say the name Mohamed remember to add—May peace be upon Him.

_______________________________________

*Editor’s Note: In fact, according to several polls, while a vast majority of Muslims living in the U.S. decry “extremists,” the same vast majority endorses Sharia law.

A Reply to the Mommy-Saver Whitney Capps, and Her Open Letter Decrying Church Whiners

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on January 28, 2015

capps“I state all of this because it summarizes most of her post. Yes, let’s not focus so much on WHAT she wrote, but rather WHY she wrote it.”   

The bio for Whitney Capps on Faith-It .com reads as follows: “Whitney Capps is a national speaker and writer for Proverbs 31 Ministries, in-the-trenches Mom to four little boys and wife to her CEO. Fabulously flawed and happily transparent, Whitney offers hope to the too-tired Mom.”

Capps posted an article on Faith-It titled An Open Letter to All the People Writing (And Sharing) Open Letters About What’s Wrong with The Church. In my eight years of researching Protestantism, I have never read a more intellectually dishonest article, but it also neatly organizes the specific problems with the black heart of Neo-Reformed orthodoxy.

Capps is “fabulously flawed,” “happily transparent” about her sin, and “offers hope” to the “too-tired Mom” who offers, as stated by a well-known Neo-Reformed pastor, her “obedience-stained garments” as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God.

Like ALL of the Neo-Reformed, Capps offers the hope of focusing on our sin which enlightens our gratitude for our original salvation resulting in whatever obedience manifestations Christ chooses to sovereignly display. We must focus on our sin, sin, sin, sin, even the, according to the Neo-Reformed, “sin beneath the sin.” Like ALL highly paid Neo-Reformed mommy-savers, Capps offers the hope of John Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification rest. Instead of Paul’s exhortations to not become “weary in well-doing,” and his exhortations to obey “more and more,” Capps offers “too-tired” mommies the hope of rest.

And, happy transparency…about our sin. Isn’t that sort of the “rejoicing in evil” that Paul said was antithetical to love? No, not sort of, that’s exactly what it is.

Like all good orthodox authentic Protestants, Capps redefines biblical love as rest when the fact is Christ rested from His works so we can love. Christ died to end the law and put those to death through the Spirit who were under the law. After Christ was resurrected, He accepted the promise of the Spirit who resurrected Him from the grave and sat down at the right hand of the Father. Christ then bestowed the promise of the Spirit that He received, and His immense power on God’s people.

When the Spirit comes, he puts believers to death and resurrects them to new life in the way of the Spirit. He releases them from the law of condemnation because He put their former selves to death that was under that law, and resurrects them with Christ to a life that is now guided by the law in loving God and others. This is why obedience is love, and Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, rejoice in their own evil. She said, happy transparency, not me; those are her words. And unless she repents, her condemnation will be just.

I state all of this because it summarizes most of her post. Yes, let’s not focus so much on WHAT she wrote, but rather WHY she wrote it. What happens in “the church” is neither here nor there because we can’t do any good works anyway. Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, is decrying those who complain about things in the church that aren’t really any of our business. As Martin Luther stated in the Heidelberg Disputation, it is neither here nor there whether a Christian does a good work or not because it is not us doing it anyway, while bad behavior should be expected.

This is why Luther and Calvin both scoffed at the idea of justice among mortals; because such a concept assumes meritorious works on the part of mankind; i.e., you can’t have deserved punishment without deserved reward. Luther and Calvin both believed humanly perceived good works were only worthy of condemnation because even Christians cannot do a work that has any merit with God. Therefore, Luther and Calvin believed the concept of justice was an absurd anomaly.

Hence, in light of serious problems within “the church,” Capps addresses them in a classic Neo-Reformed cultic communication technique: classify ALL “problems” under a single category and prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution for that category. Then, use trivial examples to describe the category. No one has described it better than John Immel in Blight In The Vineyard: “It is a vague truism that all churches have their problems. But that doesn’t mean they should have problems or that all problems are morally equivalent. Just because some churches fuss over the color of the sanctuary carpet does not absolve the Catholic leadership of molesting little boys.”

In Protestantism, absolvement isn’t demanded, but a recognition that bad behavior is the only thing that can be expected is demanded. “Why are you getting exercised? Are you any better? Don’t you understand what you have been forgiven of? If you don’t, maybe you don’t really understand grace. Your ‘righteous indignation’ is very disconcerting.”

What isn’t understood is that bad behavior isn’t love. Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, believes freedom is defined by rest in sanctification from the law. Her cause is to set the too-tired mommies free. That’s making obedient love in sanctification the same thing as condemnation apart from sanctification, and frankly, a denial of the new birth that makes love in sanctification possible. In her estimation, mommies must be free from the new way of the Spirit and rejoice in still being under the condemnation of the law. Focusing on our “fabulously flawed” lives reminds us that Jesus obeys the law for us, and as many among them say, “It’s not about what we do, but what Jesus has done.”

In contrast, Jesus did what He did so that we could do something; namely, love God and others apart from any condemnation. He finished His justification work so that we can work in sanctification, and sent the Spirit to help us. Jesus is a master that purchased us from the Sin master that used to use the law to provoke us and condemn us, and Jesus will return to see what we did with the talents given us for the purpose of loving.

Capps, like many others, leads the delegation who has hidden their talents in the ground and will give Jesus the exact same gospel that He gave us when He returns. Because they fear that they might “have a righteousness of their own” they have buried their talents in the ground and taken up John Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification rest. Christ will indeed call it what it is: “lazy…wicked[ness]” that fears condemnation from a harsh master and not free to love.

Again, we will focus on WHY Capps wrote what she did and not WHAT she wrote. This brings us to her constant reference to “the church” as the vessel used by Christ to secure our salvation. Throughout the article, Capps makes the institutional church synonymous with the body of Christ. Using her own marriage as an example, you live with the marriage or you are not married; no marriage is perfect and no church is perfect. Going public with complaints about “the church” according to Capps would be like going public about her husband’s flaws. See how silly you are thou church whiner?

Of course, the major problem with this is Saint Augustine’s “the church” as Bride of Christ, and that being just plain wrong. This theology goes hand in glove with the Reformed concept of perpetual re-salvation/re-forgiveness for sins committed in sanctification in order to remain justified. The big three of Reformation doctrine, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, believed that progressive forgiveness needed to remain saved can only be found in the institutional church and under the authority of pastors/bishops. Foundational to the Reformation was the idea that pastors have the authority to forgive sins and declare people saved. This same idea initiated the founding of “the church” circa 4th century. Before then, “the church,” NOT a biblical word or concept, did not exist. For 300 years the assembly of Christ or called-out ones were networks of non-authoritative home fellowships.

And Augustine’s posture towards those who didn’t support God’s ordained salvation institution, those who did not pay the temple tax, is well documented. Why am I bringing up all of this history? Because it’s Capps. What she is really defending in the post is the authority of the institutional church. The black heart of Reformation authority is plainly seen therein.

I will probably smile and pray for grace while imagining throat chopping you, in the name of Jesus of course.

There is only ONE thing separating Capps and all like her from only imaging that and actually doing it: the American Revolution. How many statements like this do we have to hear from the Reformed who’s who before we finally realize that something is behind it? Like all before her, those who would threaten God’s salvation institution and discourage souls from it are worthy of nothing less than death. But because they are merciful souls, they will often only chop you in the throat, run you over with a bus, or catapult you into the next county.

She was right about one thing in her post. She accused the church whiners, e.g., discernment bloggers as well, of wanting to save the institution. Amen to that my pseudo-sister. You are spot-on about that for certain. And you are also right in a wrong way about that, being very misguided—the institutional church has wreaked death, rape, persecution, false soteriology, sectarianism in every social strata, and extortion on humankind in the name of Christ since its grotesque 4th century birth.

In case you haven’t noticed, posts like this are very prevalent lately. Is the Neo-Reformed resurgence feeling the pinch? Perhaps, but the home fellowship movement should be encouraged. After 40 years, and ten of those years being complete domination of American evangelicalism by the Neo-Reformed, we have the “Dones,” the ‘Nones” and a whole bunch of blessed whiners.

Blessed are the whiners—they just want answers, and white is the harvest thanks to the Neo-Reformed movement. And unfortunately for them, we’re in the Information Age.

paul

%d bloggers like this: