The Fruit of the Puritans' Victory

America is just coming off the Thanksgiving Day holiday, a day that hearkens back to the ‘Pilgrim fathers’ of New England.  The celebration itself seems harmless enough, but we should look more deeply - at what the Puritan settlement in New England and ultimately the victory of their gnostic descendants at the North over the South during the War has meant for the nations of the world:  a stultifying uniformity, as all must now clothe their societies in the forms of the Greatest Nation the world has ever known and will ever know (the ‘shining city on a hill’); and, flowing naturally enough from this, the military conquest of those who do not yield to the irresistible and self-evident ‘truth’ and goodness of the American Creed that ‘is marching on’ through the world for its salvation.

An ensample of each of these conclusions (mash the paths included below for the full articles).  First, on sameness:

Interdependence is supposedly cause for celebration in our era, and there can be no doubt that the peoples of Earth are more interconnected now than they ever were before.  Today, the culture of the so-called developed world is governed by ideas of egalitarianism and materialist cosmopolitanism. It’s believed more honorable to call oneself a “citizen of the world” than a staunch defender of any one tribe or group, because by definition, drawing a line of preference for those within one’s own group would imply that some faraway other is excluded. A centuries-old trend of assimilation in the interests of economic progress is reaching its apex, set to become one of the primary sociological concerns in the near future.

As we see in the jungles of Brazil and the streets of Europe alike, native populations are quickly becoming foreigners in their own lands, their environments radically changing before their eyes. We often hear that the West must absorb more immigrants to support an aging population at home, or that indigenous tribes ought to relocate from their ancestral lands in order to feed some other land’s addiction to natural resources. Now, there are serious doubts as to the long-term effects of an unrestrained and constantly-burgeoning global economy of material wealth, one driven by the globalist principle of free movement of human capital. As a result, the world is quickly becoming one and the same, while individual cultures and ethnicities are either bred out of existence or forcibly assimilated into the mass. Yet we see that this renewed focus on tradition is paving the way for events like the recent rise in popularity of identitarian parties in Europe or the avowed dedication to traditional values and customs by world leaders, as echoed in the rhetoric of Vladimir Putin of Russia or India’s Nahrendra Mohdi.

 . . .

Source:  Evgeniy Filimonov, ‘Against Monoculture’, http://souloftheeast.org/2014/11/14/against-monoculture/, posted 14 Nov. 2014, accessed 28 Nov. 2014

Secondly, on the forcible conversion of the world to Americanism:

Dejan “Deki” Beric is a Serbian volunteer fighter serving with the Novorussia Armed Forces in defense of the Donbass. In this interview with journalist Ivan Maksimovic, Beric, a sniper, explains his motivations and the political atmosphere in his homeland. For centuries now Serbs and Russians have fought alongside one another, and the journey of Beric and other Serbs can be viewed as a continuation of this fraternal bond. Translated by Mark Hackard.

***

Why are you here in Novorussia? What was your motive in coming to the edge of the world, about which we knew almost nothing until recently, in order to risk your life? How and because of what?

I’ve told why I’m in Novorussia many times already. So I’ll be brief right now. I came to help our Orthodox brothers and fight against the NATO criminals who bombed our land, just as more than anyone they have saber-rattled and threatened to attack Crimea. I had forgotten then the fact that NATO and the countries supporting this organization are the usual cowards. They can enter a conflict only where there’s the possibility of bombing from afar, if possible against 90% civilian targets to sow fear and panic. So they haven’t directly participated, but their influence is clearly visible here. And so several American officers were wounded here. They weren’t in battle – they’re located a bit further from the frontline and explain how important it is to destroy civilian targets. I’ve heard this from more than one Ukrainian POW, with a multitude repeating the same words.

 . . .

Source:  ‘A Serbian Fighter’s Story’, http://souloftheeast.org/2014/11/14/a-serbian-fighter-in-ukraine/, posted 14 Nov. 2014, accessed 28 Nov. 2014

Let us be careful who and what we honor. 

A Closer Look at Kingship

Through the words of Archbishop Averky (who reposed in 1976) and the Coronation Service of the Russian Tsars, let us consider which system is more fitting for a Christian people - a Christian kingdom whose traditions are sanctified by the grace of God in His Church, or a pluralistic representative republic, whose chaotic, divisive, frenzied, warlike character we see on display nearly every day in the news in the [u.] S. (but which is especially manifest during national elections).

Archbishop Averky declared,

The idea of monarchy itself, in the return to which as the historic and immemorial form for governing Russia many rightly see salvation, is holy and dear to us not for itself, but only insofar as it is supported by our Orthodox faith and Church - insofar as our czar is an "Orthodox Czar," as we sing in our old national anthem; insofar as he is not just formally and officially, but in actual fact the first son and also the exalted Protector and Defender of the Orthodox Faith and Church; insofar as he is really the "Anointed of God" who has received special gifts of grace in the Mystery of anointing performed over him by the Church to be the "King and Judge of the People of God," as he himself confesses in the prayer he reads before everyone in the church during his sacred coronation. Therefore he enters the altar through the royal doors and receives Holy Communion before the holy throne of God as an equal of the other sacred ministers, which, of course, could not be done by any other monarch who was not orthodox and who did not respond to the demands of the Church, who was not sanctified with grace by the Church.

This is decisively confirmed for us by the ever-memorable Fr. John of Kronstadt, who said, "Who places earthly kings on their thrones? He Who alone sits on the throne of fire from eternity, and alone, in the true sense, rules over all creation - heaven and earth with all the creatures which inhabit them. From Him alone is royal power given to the kings of the earth; He crowns them with the royal diadem... Be silent, dreaming constitutionalists and parliamentarians! `Depart from me, Satan! Thou art an offense unto Me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men' (Matt. 16:23), said the Lord to Peter who denied Him. Depart also, you who oppose God's command. It is not your task to order the thrones of earthly kings. Away, bold ones who do not know how to govern yourselves, but are always quarreling with each other... Authority, power, courage, and wisdom is given the Czar from the Lord to govern his subjects" (Sermon, 1907). '

Source:  http://archbishopaverky.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-monarchy.html, accessed 24 Nov. 2014

Regarding the Coronation Service of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Nektarios said,

The Tsar was and is anointed by God. This mystery is performed by the Church during the coronation, and the Anointed of God enters the Royal Doors^[8] into the altar,^[9] goes to the altar table and receives the Holy Mysteries as does the priest, with the Body and Blood taken separately.^[10] Thus the Holy Church emphasises the great spiritual significance of the podvig (struggle) of ruling as a monarch, equalling this to the holy sacrament of the priesthood... He (the Tsar) is the sacramental image, the carrier of the special power of the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

During the Service, the Russian Metropolitan would pray,

O Lord our God, King of kings and Lord of lords, who through Samuel the prophet didst choose Thy servant David and didst anoint him to be king over Thy people Israel; hear now the supplication of us though unworthy, and look forth from Thy holy dwelling place and vouchsafe to anoint with the oil of gladness Thy faithful servant N., whom Thou hast been pleased to establish as king over Thy holy people which Thou hast made Thine own by the precious blood of Thine Only-begotten Son. Clothe him with power from on high; set on his head a crown of precious stones; bestow on him length of days, set in his right hand a scepter of salvation; establish him upon the throne of righteousness; defend him with the panoply of thy Holy Spirit; strengthen his arm; subject to him all the barbarous nations; sow in his heart the fear of Thee and feeling for his subjects; preserve him in the blameless faith; make him manifest as the sure guardian of the doctrines of Thy Holy Catholic Church; that he may judge Thy people in righteousness and Thy poor in judgment, and save the sons of those in want and may be an heir of Thy heavenly kingdom. [Aloud] For Thine is the might and Thine is the kingdom and the power, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

And also the following:

To Thee alone, King of mankind, has he to whom Thou hast entrusted the earthly kingdom bowed his neck with us. And we pray Thee, Lord of all, keep him under Thine own shadow; strengthen his kingdom; grant that he may do continually those things which are pleasing to Thee; make to arise in his days righteousness and abundance of peace; that in his tranquility we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. For Thou art the King of peace and the Saviour of our souls and bodies and to Thee we ascribe glory: to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

At the Tsar’s crowning:

Most God-fearing, absolute, and mighty Lord, Tsar of all the Russias, this visible and tangible adornment of thy head is an eloquent symbol that thou, as the head of the whole Russian people, art invisibly crowned by the King of kings, Christ, with a most ample blessing, seeing that He bestows upon thee entire authority over His people.

At the Tsar’s receiving the orb and scepter:

God-crowned, God-given, God-adorned, most pious Autocrat and great Sovereign, Emperor of All the Russias. Receive the sceptre and the orb, which are the visible signs of the autocratic power given thee from the Most High over thy people, that thou mayest rule them and order for them the welfare they desire.

The Tsar, having become ‘wedded’ to his people through the Coronation Service, had a prayer to offer to God within it as well:

Lord God of our fathers, and King of Kings, Who created all things by Thy word, and by Thy wisdom has made man, that he should walk uprightly and rule righteously over Thy world; Thou hast chosen me as Tsar and judge over Thy people. I acknowledge Thy unsearchable purpose towards me, and bow in thankfulness before Thy Majesty. Do Thou, my Lord and Governor, fit me for the work to which Thou hast sent me; teach me and guide me in this great service. May there be with me the wisdom which belongs to Thy throne; send it from Thy Holy Heaven, that I may know what is well-pleasing in Thy sight, and what is right according to Thy commandment. May my heart be in Thy hand, to accomplish all that is to the profit of the people committed to my charge and to Thy glory, that so in the day of Thy judgment I may give Thee account of my stewardship without blame; through the grace and mercy of Thy Son, Who was once crucified for us, to Whom be all honor and glory with Thee and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, unto ages of ages. Amen.

Source of Coronation Service quotes:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_Russian_monarch, posted 18 Nov. 2014, accessed 24 Nov. 2014

Human society is not well; it is overrun with evil ideas of what the good life is in politics, family, and much else.  But by humbling ourselves, by learning from societies that were and are Christian in more than just name (for whom the Faith was and is more than simply a thin covering for rank commercialism and other sins), we can begin to heal, with the help of God.

(Thanks to J for sharing the path to the Archbishop Averky site.)

‘Both/And’ Political Systems

On 29 Oct. 2014 we wrote about this kind of political system as being distinctive of a truly Christian society (that is, a kingdom and a folkdom existing together without destroying one another).  We thought it well to offer an historical ensample to bring the idea down from the realm of speculation into concrete reality, that the reader might know that there are alternatives to the snakepit of Big Business-controlled ‘constitutional republics’.  Tsarist Russia will serve as the ensample for today, though others could be cited (England, Ireland, and so on).

Fr Matthew Raphael Johnson has written this in his essay ‘The Peasant Commune in Russia’ (this is only a part of it; the whole thing really ought to be read, for it is all quite good):

 . . .

A powerful and seminal article by Boris Mironov, “The Russian Peasant Commune After the Reforms of the 1860s” (Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 [Fall 1985]), is extremely important for the understanding of the peasant commune. Its significance lies in the fact that it takes its data from the survey of 816 communes between 1878 and 1880, sponsored by the Russian Geographical Society and the Russian Free Economic Society. Its results were astounding, and largely supported the claims of the pro-agrarian and pro-monarchist elements in Russia, then and now. The average peasant had it better in Russia than likely anywhere else in Europe. This data proves it.

It is important to keep in mind the structure of the Imperial Russian state around the middle of the 19th century. The tsar’s power was limited to foreign policy and general taxation. He, of course, was the chief spokesman for the nation and the defender of the Orthodox Church. However, at the agrarian level, where 90 percent of the population lived, royal authority was virtually invisible. The peasant commune was the only relevant authority the peasant had to deal with. Therefore, it is accurate to say that Russia was not a single, unitary state, but rather a collection of thousands of independent agrarian republics, held together by rather weak cords to the central monarchy. Prof. Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia regularly, wrote in the 1925 issue of The English Review:

On closer examination we find the [Imperial] Russian state was a vast federation of 50,000 small peasant republics each busy with its own affairs, obedient to its own laws and even possessing its own tribunals of starotsas (elders). The Russian state was not undemocratic, on the contrary, if anything, there was too much democracy.

What makes the peasant commune such a unique institution is the power it had. Each commune was a completely selfcontained unit, answering to no other authority than its own body of elected elders. All police functions were discharged by the communal authorities. All legal matters were dealt with by the same. Any damage to property, any criminal offense whatsoever, was dealt with at the communal level. All public works were also within the jurisdiction of the commune. It maintained stores of grain during famines and assisted poorer members who suffered during the lean months of the spring. It controlled the cultural life of the people as well as all education. It even built its own parish churches and trained many of the rural clergy. The commune maintained all schools and hospitals. In short, it was absolute.

The state’s interest in this was clear. For the commune to be self governing, yet still loyal to the monarchy, it was necessary for it to be completely independent of the state. Mironov writes, “The government did not risk appointing its own people, who would have been independent of the peasant, to official positions in the commune; that would have been too expensive and ineffective at the same time.” (445)

However, to make sure any village executive (specifically its chief executive) was loyal, he could be removed by the royal-appointed district governor. This, however, rarely occurred, largely because irritating the peasants, the great bastion of loyalty in the country, would not be in the interests of the royal state. Mironov continues in this vein:

If, however, one analyzes how these officials actually functioned, it is clear that the government did not reach its goal: elected officials did not stand above the commune but operated under its authority, and all administrative and police measures in the commune were taken only with the consent of the village assembly. Only very rarely did elected officials become a hostile authority standing above the peasantry: they had to be periodically reelected, had no significant privileges, did not break their ties with the peasantry (elected officials were freed from taxes and other obligations, except those in kind, and continued to perform all forms of peasant labor), remained under the control of public opinion of the village (and in the event of malfeasance faced the threat of retribution), and shared the common interest of the peasants, not the interests of the state. As a rule the elected officials acted as the defenders of the commune, as petitioners and organizers. Frequently they emerged as leaders of peasant disorders despite the threat of harsh punishment. (445-6)

Many liberal Russia scholars might counter this by claiming that the elected village heads were required, after the 1860s, to faithfully carry out the will of the district authorities. However, though this is true, it was also true that no decree of the district authorities had validity in the commune unless it was approved by the village assembly.

According to the data collected by the Russian Geographic Society, the Russian peasant assembly consisted of all male heads of household. Decisions were not finalized until unanimity was reached, or, as Mironov has said, disagreement was brought to a level of silent sulking, which, at this level, was considered agreement. It is important to note, therefore, that each peasant had a specific stake in communal affairs as well as a corresponding voice. Any specific peasant, therefore, could not afford to be alienated from the community, as all decisions could be vetoed even by a relatively small group of disgruntled peasants.

 . . .

Source:  http://web.archive.org/web/20070101212422/http://www.rusjournal.com/commune.html, accessed 21 Nov. 2014

Ivan Solonevich adds some weighty thoughts of his own to this subject in his ‘The Force of Authority’ (trans. Mark Hackard).  A small sample:

 . . .

In Muscovite Rus, acts of regicide would have first of all been pointless, for the Tsar’s authority was only one of the components of a “system of institutions,” and they system could not be changed by the murder of one of its components. According to Aksakov: to the Tsar belonged the force of authority, and to the people the force of opinion. Or according to Lev Tikhomirov: monarchy derived “not from the arbitrary rule of one person, but from a system of institutions.” By the force of authority, the Muscovite Tsars realized the opinion of the Land. This opinion, organized into the Church, into ecclesiastical councils and Assemblies of the Land, and in its unorganized form represented by the population of Moscow, did not change over a regicide. Assemblies never claimed power (a completely incomprehensible phenomenon from the European point of view), and Tsars never went against the “opinion of the Land,” a phenomenon of a purely Russian order. Behind the monarchy stood an entire “system of institutions,” and all of this taken together presented itself as a monolith impossible to shatter through any regicide.

Therefore the Popular-Monarchist Movement sees in the “restoration of monarchy” not only the “restoration of the monarch,” but also a whole system of institutions from the Throne of All the Russias to the village assembly. It would be that system in which the force of authority belonged to the Tsar and the force of opinion to the people.  This cannot be achieved by any “written laws” or “constitution,” for both written laws and constitutions are followed by men only until that time when they gain the strength to NOT follow them. The Popular-Monarchist Movement is not engaged in publishing the laws of a future Russian Empire. It attempts to establish basic principles and ideationally compose the country’s future ruling class, which would be equally devoted to the Tsar and the people, a ruling class organized into a system of institutions to realize these principles in practice and truly become the bulwark of the throne, not visitors to prayer services who conceal in their boots the daggers of regicide.

 . . .

Source:  http://souloftheeast.org/2014/10/04/solonevich-the-force-of-authority/, posted 4 Oct. 2014, accessed 7 Oct. 2014

In the current atmosphere following Pres Obama’s executive amnesty of millions of illegal immigrants, we understand that the term ‘king’ will bring forth plenty of negative reactions.  But this is to misunderstand what a king is.  A true king is the embodiment and expression (often the highest form of it) of a people’s history and praiseworthy traditions.  When he acts (passing a law, overturning a court ruling, etc.), it is always to uphold those traditions, for to do otherwise would undermine the foundation that his authority rests upon (as the Abbeville Institute’s Dr Donald Livingston has said).  (Such a figure would thus fit well in the tradition-loving South.)  This is the opposite of what Pres Obama has done, so he is not properly to be called a king but a tyrant, i.e., one who rules according to his will alone - with all thought of laws, traditions, and fear of God’s judgment cast out of his mind.

True Patriotism

True patriotism for one’s country is not shown in the love of a disenfleshed, ungrounded idea (in France freedom, brotherhood, equality; in the [u.] S. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) or in the degrading of another’s country (as those who share the bigheaded New England spirit are constantly doing to Russia, the South, or any other country that opposes their gnostic plans to redeem the creation through fallen man’s diabolic scientific knowledge).

Rather, it is love for the people and the place where one lives:  families, houses, hills, flowers, and so on.  The South’s distant Dorset cousin-poet, the Reverend William Barnes, tells us of this kind of patriotism in his poem ‘The Girt Woak Tree That’s in the Dell’:

The girt woak tree that’s in the dell!
There’s noo tree I do love so well;
Vor times an’ times when I wer young,
I there’ve a-climb’d, an’ there’ve a-zwung,
An’ pick’d the eäcorns green, a-shed
In wrestlèn storms vrom his broad head.
An’ down below’s the cloty brook
Where I did vish with line an’ hook.
An’ beät, in plaÿsome dips and zwims,
The foamy stream, wi’ white-skinn’d lim’s.
An’ there my mother nimbly shot
Her knittèn-needles, as she zot
At evenèn down below the wide
Woak’s head, wi’ father at her zide.
An’ I’ve a-plaÿed wi’ many a bwoy,
That’s now a man an’ gone awoy;
  Zoo I do like noo tree so well 
  ’S the girt woak tree that’s in the dell. 

An’ there, in leäter years, I roved
Wi’ thik poor maïd I fondly lov’d,—
The maïd too feäir to die so soon,—
When evenèn twilight, or the moon,
Cast light enough ’ithin the pleäce
To show the smiles upon her feäce,
Wi’ eyes so clear ’s the glassy pool.
An’ lips an’ cheäks so soft as wool.
There han’ in han’, wi’ bosoms warm,
Wi’ love that burn’d but thought noo harm,
Below the wide-bough’d tree we past
The happy hours that went too vast;
An’ though she’ll never be my wife.
She’s still my leäden star o’ life.
She’s gone: an’ she ’ve a-left to me
Her mem’ry in the girt woak tree;
  Zoo I do love noo tree so well 
  ’S the girt woak tree that’s in the dell. 

An’ oh! mid never ax nor hook
Be brought to spweil his steätely look;
Nor ever roun’ his ribby zides
Mid cattle rub ther heäiry hides;
Nor pigs rout up his turf, but keep
His lwonesome sheäde vor harmless sheep;
An’ let en grow, an’ let en spread,
An’ let en live when I be dead.
But oh! if men should come an’ vell
The girt woak tree that’s in the dell,
An’ build his planks ’ithin the zide
O’ zome girt ship to plough the tide,
Then, life or death! I’d goo to sea,
A saïlèn wi’ the girt woak tree:
An’ I upon his planks would stand.
An’ die a-fightèn vor the land,—
The land so dear,—the land so free,—
The land that bore the girt woak tree;
  Vor I do love noo tree so well 
  ’S the girt woak tree that’s in the dell. 

Source:  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poems_of_Rural_Life_in_the_Dorset_Dialect/The_Girt_Woak_Tree_that%27s_in_the_Dell, posted 12 July 2013, accessed 18 Nov. 2014

(For help with the Dorset dialect, follow this path:  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poems_of_Rural_Life_in_the_Dorset_Dialect/Glossary)

One oughtn’t become beside himself with enthusiasm over the thin, airy ideas of shallow political philosophers (of TV, magazine, etc.), but let his loyalty instead lie deep-rooted in the dust and wood and stone of his fatherland.  It has helped keep the South and other farming societies somewhat sane thus far (an insight from Dr Clark Carlton’s very good interview here:  http://karamazov.ro/index.php/interviuri/340-clark-carlton-modernity-considers-sub-natural-existence-the-sumit-of-human-progress.html).  We would be foolish to throw away that wisdom now and dehumanize ourselves completely for the sake of having the latest baubles to come from Megalopolis’s assembly lines.

America as a Type of Antichrist

Father Seraphim Rose has said,

     The very nature of Antichrist, who is to be the last great world ruler and the last great opponent of Christ, is to be anti Christ—and "anti" means not merely "against," but also "in imitation of, in place of." The Antichrist, as all the Holy Fathers say in their writings about him, is to be someone who imitates Christ, that is, tires to fool people by looking as though he is Christ come back to earth. Therefore, if one has a very vague notion of Christianity or reads the Scriptures purely from one's own opinions (and one's opinions come from the air, and the air is not Christian now, but anti Christian), then one will come to very anti Christian conclusions. Seeing the figure of Antichrist, one will be fooled into thinking that it is Christ.

Source:  ‘Signs of the Times’, http://www.desertwisdom.org/dttw/truth/signs-of-the-times.html, speech given in Redding, Ca., Summer 1980, accessed 11 Nov. 2014

Most Americans would not want to admit it, but this is what has happened here:  The ‘Idea of America’ together with ‘holy men’ like Lincoln and Reagan have taken the place of Jesus Christ the Son of God as our Lord and Savior and King and God, and of His Church.

David Gordon gives a good account of this in his review of David Gelernter’s chilling book Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion.

David Gelernter starts with an undoubted fact and uses it to construct a bizarre fantasy. The origins of America have been profoundly religious; in particular, the Puritans affected American thought in pervasive fashion. Their influence long persisted their demise as a distinct movement in the nineteenth century. Thus, historians who view the Founding Fathers as creatures of a secular Enlightenment are badly mistaken.

Unfortunately, this useful theme is not enough for Gelernter. He argues that Americans, using Puritan thought as a starting point, have constructed a new religion. Abraham Lincoln ranks foremost as a developer of the new faith and as an idolatrous object of its worship. He does not stand alone: Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan are accorded lesser, but very honorable, places in the new pantheon. Franklin Roosevelt belongs among the exalted also, though he suffers from a flaw. He did not take America into war by persuasion but waited until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor left no alternative. The new religion, Gelernter holds, is a great spiritual achievement. We ought to bow down and worship according to its tenets. In doing so, we need not abandon Christianity or Judaism. Quite the contrary, the new religion is fully compatible with the ancient faiths.

As Gelernter rightly notes, “the Bible and Puritanism molded America as a potter molds wet clay. Some secularists don’t like to face this fact… The Puritans who dominated those first English settlements, who did so much to shape this nation and its faith, were fiercely, fanatically dedicated to their God” (p. 9).

But did not the Founding Fathers break radically with the Puritans? Gelernter is not convinced that they did: True enough, John Locke’s thought lies behind the Declaration of Independence. But the “Bible was very important to Locke’s writing. Whenever he based his arguments on history and human experience, the Bible was his main source” (p. 29).

Had Gelernter expanded and documented his claims, he could have written a valuable book. Instead, he takes off into the empyrean. The Puritans, it seems, began to create a new religion. They often spoke of America as the New Israel: like the Jews of old, they were now God’s chosen people. “In sum: passionate belief in the American community’s closeness to God and its obligation to God and the whole world — Americans as a new chosen people, America as a new promised land — that is American Zionism” (p. 69, emphasis removed).

Gelernter fails to ask a fundamental question: when the Puritans and later writers spoke of Americans as a chosen people, how literally did they intend their remarks? Granted the Biblical orthodoxy of the Puritans, would it not have been the rankest heresy if they meant their comments as other than metaphors? What in the doctrines of any of the major Christian churches authorizes one to place America and its people above other nations? Is the matter any different for Judaism?

Amazingly, Gelernter denies the obvious point that the “religion” he expounds contradicts the teachings of orthodox Judaism and Christianity, in which particular modern nations occupy no special place. “The American Religion is a biblical faith. In effect, it is an extension or expression of Judaism or Christianity. It is also separate from those faiths; you don’t have to believe in the Bible or Judaism or Christianity to believe in America or the American Religion” (p. 4). Gelernter does not tell us how an “extension” of a faith can radically change its content. Perhaps this eminent Yale professor has so capacious a mind that he can readily embrace clashing principles.

But what if this objection is right? A defender of Gelernter, if not our author himself, might respond that his new religion still remains a live option for those who do not embrace the undiluted teachings of the old faiths. This response, though, invites a further objection. Why should we think that American Zionism, with its accompanying American Creed, is true? What is the evidence that America enjoys special Divine favor? If one need not believe in a “standard” God to accept Americanism, what exactly must adherents of the new faith accept as the Power behind America’s special place?

Evidence? What is that to Gelernter? From him, blind faith is enough. “The religious idea called ‘America’ is religious insofar as it tells an absolute truth about the meaning of human life, a truth that we must take on faith. (‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ says the Declaration of Independence. No proofs are supplied)” (p. 2, emphasis omitted). Gelernter confuses recognizing something as self-evident with blindly accepting a controversial position. Surely even he cannot seriously think that the extravagances of “American Zionism” are self-evident. If not, our question returns: why believe it?

The new religion is even odder than I have so far presented. Gelernter elevates Abraham Lincoln to Mount Olympus. Lincoln “transformed Americanism into a full-fledged, mature religion — not by causing America to embody its noble ideals but by teaching the nation that it ought to embody them. He changed Americanism by interpreting those ideals — liberty, equality, and democracy — not as words on parchment but as marching orders” (p. 105). Further, in “the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Lincoln produced the two greatest sacred narratives in the English language (outside of the English Bible itself)” (p. 106).

 . . .

Source:  http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2014/08/28/americanism-the-fourth-great-western-religion-david-gelernter-by-david-gordon/, posted 28 Aug. 2014, accessed 11 Nov. 2014

This demonic strain of nationalism, described well by Richard Gamble in another review of Gelernter’s book

http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/10/03/the-allure-of-demonic-patriotism-americanism-the-fourth-great-western-religion/

seems to be quite old in the Union.  In 1880 a vision, if it happened, has many marks of a demonic delusion - strange sensations of the body, beings of beauty and light manifesting themselves to one who was not cleansed of the passions (Washington was well-known for his bad temper), and so on.

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/vision.html

But it helps lay more of the foundation for America as the messianic nation, the world’s new savior.

Perhaps more accurate than Gelernter’s, Bill O’Reilly’s, Lincoln’s, etc. vision of America is William Blake’s.  In his poem ‘America a Prophecy’ (1793), the plague of the tradition-destroying, restraint-hating American Creed is shown crossing the Atlantic and ravaging Europe.  Some relevant lines:

Am14.16; E56|        In the flames stood & view'd the armies drawn out in the sky
Am14.17; E56|        Washington Franklin Paine & Warren Allen Gates & Lee:
Am14.18; E56|        And heard the voice of Albions Angel give the thunderous command:
Am14.19; E56|        His plagues obedient to his voice flew forth out of their clouds
Am14.20; E56|        Falling upon America, as a storm to cut them off
Am14.21; E56|        As a blight cuts the tender corn when it begins to appear.
Am14.22; E56|        Dark is the heaven above, & cold & hard the earth beneath;
Am14.23; E56|        And as a plague wind fill'd with insects cuts off man & beast;
Am14.24; E56|        And as a sea o'erwhelms a land in the day of an earthquake;   ^t163

Am14.25; E56|        Fury! rage! madness! in a wind swept through America
Am14.26; E56|        And the red flames of Orc that folded roaring fierce around
Am14.27; E56|        The angry shores, and the fierce rushing of th'inhabitants together:
Am14.28; E56|        The citizens of New-York close their books & lock their chests;
Am14.29; E56|        The mariners of Boston drop their anchors and unlade;
Am14.30; E56|        The scribe of Pensylvania casts his pen upon the earth;
Am14.31; E56|        The builder of Virginia throws his hammer down in fear.

Am14.32; E56|        Then had America been lost, o'erwhelm'd by the Atlantic,
Am14.33; E56|        And Earth had lost another portion of the infinite,
Am14.34; E56|        But all rush together in the night in wrath and raging fire
Am14.35; E56|        The red fires rag'd! the plagues recoil'd! then rolld they back with fury

Am15.1;   E56|        On Albions Angels; then the Pestilence began in streaks of red
Am15.2;   E56|        Across the limbs of Albions Guardian, the spotted plague smote Bristols

Am15.3;   E57|        And the Leprosy Londons Spirit, sickening all their bands:
Am15.4;   E57|        The millions sent up a howl of anguish and threw off their hammerd mail,
Am15.5;   E57|        And cast their swords & spears to earth, & stood a naked multitude.
Am15.6;   E57|        Albions Guardian writhed in torment on the eastern sky
Am15.7;   E57|        Pale quivring toward the brain his glimmering eyes, teeth chattering
Am15.8;   E57|        Howling & shuddering his legs quivering; convuls'd each muscle & sinew
Am15.9;   E57|        Sick'ning lay Londons Guardian, and the ancient miter'd York
Am15.10; E57|        Their heads on snowy hills, their ensigns sick'ning in the sky

Am15.11; E57|        The plagues creep on the burning winds driven by flames of Orc,
Am15.12; E57|        And by the fierce Americans rushing together in the night
Am15.13; E57|        Driven o'er the Guardians of Ireland and Scotland and Wales
Am15.14; E57|        They spotted with plagues forsook the frontiers & their banners seard
Am15.15; E57|        With fires of hell, deform their ancient heavens with shame & woe.
Am15.16; E57|        Hid in his caves the Bard of Albion felt the enormous plagues.
Am15.17; E57|        And a cowl of flesh grew o'er his head & scales on his back & ribs;
Am15.18; E57|        And rough with black scales all his Angels fright their ancient heavens
Am15.19; E57|        The doors of marriage are open, and the Priests in rustling scales
Am15.20; E57|        Rush into reptile coverts, hiding from the fires of Orc,
Am15.21; E57|        That play around the golden roofsin wreaths of fierce desire,
Am15.22; E57|        Leaving the females naked and glowing with the lusts of youth

Am15.23; E57|        For the female spirits of the dead pining in bonds of religion;
Am15.24; E57|        Run from their fetters reddening, & in long drawn arches sitting:
Am15.25; E57|        They feel the nerves of youth renew, and desires of ancient times,
Am15.26; E57|        Over their pale limbs as a vine when the tender grape appears

Am16.1;   E57|        Over the hills, the vales, the cities, rage the red flames fierce;
Am16.2;   E57|        The Heavens melted from north to south; and Urizen who sat
Am16.3;   E57|        Above all heavens in thunders wrap'd, emerg'd his leprous head
Am16.4;   E57|        From out his holy shrine, his tears in deluge piteous
Am16.5;   E57|        Falling into the deep sublime! flag'd with grey-brow'd snows
Am16.6;   E57|        And thunderous visages, his jealous wings wav'd over the deep;
Am16.7;   E57|        Weeping in dismal howling woe he dark descended howling
Am16.8;   E57|        Around the smitten bands, clothed in tears & trembling shudd'ring cold.
Am16.9;   E57|        His stored snows he poured forth, and his icy magazines
Am16.10; E57|        He open'd on the deep, and on the Atlantic sea white shiv'ring.
Am16.11; E57|        Leprous his limbs, all over white, and hoary was his visage.
Am16.12; E57|        Weeping in dismal howlings before the stern Americans
Am16.13; E57|        Hiding the Demon red with clouds & cold mists from the earth;
Am16.14; E57|        Till Angels & weak men twelve years should govern o'er the strong:
Am16.15; E57|        And then their end should come, when France reciev'd the Demons light.

Am16.16; E57|        Stiff shudderings shook the heav'nly thrones! France Spain & Italy,
Am16.17; E57|        In terror view'd the bands of Albion, and the ancient Guardians
Am16.18; E57|        Fainting upon the elements, smitten with their own plagues

 

Am16.19; E58|        They slow advance to shut the five gates of their law-built heaven
Am16.20; E58|        Filled with blasting fancies and with mildews of despair
Am16.21; E58|        With fierce disease and lust, unable to stem the fires of Orc;
Am16.22; E58|        But the five gates were consum'd, & their bolts and hinges melted
Am16.23; E58|        And the fierce flames burnt round the heavens, & round the abodes of men

Am16.24; E58|        FINIS

Source:  http://www.english.uga.edu/nhilton/Blake/blaketxt1/america_a_prophecy.html, accessed 11 Nov. 2014

This has come true not just in Europe but in many other countries of the world as well.

Another sign of America as a type, and precursor, of Antichrist:  Their unbounded enthusiasm for antichristian Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.  Returning to Father Seraphim, he says,

    A few years ago a book was printed in English which has become a fantastic bestseller for a religious book. It has sold over ten million copies in America. It's called The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey, a Protestant Evangelical in Texas. In a rather superficial style he gives his interpretation of the signs of the times. He believes it's the last times we are living in now. He believes that everywhere around us there are being fulfilled these signs which our Lord talked about. If you read this book, you find that sometimes he gets something more or less correct according to our Orthodox understanding, sometimes he is totally off, and sometimes he is partly wrong, partly right. It's as though he's just guessing, because he reads the Scripture according to his own understanding. He has no basic Orthodox Christian knowledge, no background in the true knowledge of the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. Therefore, if you read this book seriously, you will find that you become very confused. You don't know what to believe any more. He talks, for example, about a millennium which is supposed to come before the end of the world. He talks about the rapture, when Christians are supposedly gathered up into the heavens before the end of the world, and then watch how the people suffer down below. He talks about the building of the Temple in Jerusalem as though this is a good thing, as thought this is preparing for Christ's coming.

    If you read such books as this (there are many other books like it; this one happens to be a bestseller because the author caught the imagination of people just at one particular time), and if you take them all as truth, you will find that instead of recognizing Christ—which is the whole reason for our understanding about the signs of the times—you will be accepting Antichrist.

    Take, for example, the very question of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is true, according to Orthodox prophecies, that the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. If you look at people like Hal Lindsey, or even the Fundamentalist Carl McIntire, they are also talking about the building of the Temple, but they're talking about it as though we are building it in order for Christ to come back and reign over the world for a thousand years. What they are talking about is the coming of Antichrist. The millennium, according to the Protestant interpretation, as being a special thousand year reign at the end of the world, is actually the reign of Antichrist. In fact, there have already been people who have arisen and proclaimed their thousand year kingdom which is going to last until the end of the world. The last one was Adolf Hitler. This is based upon the same kind of chiliastic idea: that is, interpreting the millennium in a worldly sense. The actual thousand years of the Apocalypse is the life in the Church which is now, that is, the life of Grace; and anyone who lives it sees that, compared to the people outside, it is indeed heaven on earth. But this is not the end. This is our preparation for the true kingdom of God which has no end.

Source:  http://www.desertwisdom.org/dttw/truth/signs-of-the-times.html

Now comes talk from Israel herself that the Temple’s rebuilding is a definite goal:

Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel says Israel will eventually replace Al-Aqsa Mosque with a Jewish temple.

According to the Middle East Monitor, Ariel told Israeli radio station Kol Berama - controlled by the Jewish extremist movement Shas - the status quo could not continue at the Al-Aqsa Mosque as it "was built in the place of the holiest place for Israel".

Ariel added that the construction of a third Jewish temple at the site is the primary demand of the Torah "as it is at the forefront of Jewish salvation", the report from Middle East Monitor said.

 . . .

Source:  IBTimes, ‘Israel: Al-Aqsa Mosque 'Will be Replaced by Jewish Temple' Claims Housing Minister Uri Ariel’, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/74997.htm, posted 8 Nov. 2014, accessed 11 Nov. 2014

Far too many Southern evangelicals, brainwashed by the satanic global Elite’s propaganda regarding the rapture, the millennium, the Temple, and much else besides, will no doubt shout their approval.

It would be a grave mistake, but apart from the light found only in the Orthodox Church, Southrons cannot be expected to have the discernment needed in this matter.  We implore our Southern brothers and sisters again to turn away from the mistakes of our Protestant and Catholic forebears and embrace the fulness of the Faith in the Orthodox Church while there is still time.

Losing by Winning

Much to-do is being made about the number of women, especially Republican women (and thus presumably conservative as well), who were elected to State and federal office in the elections just held.  An ensample:

The 2014 midterms were a huge win for Republicans, but it also was a big night for female candidates in both parties. 

Republican women helped lead the GOP to victory in some of the biggest races last night, and the party achieved new milestones in gender diversity. In addition to flipping a key Senate seat for Republicans, Joni Ernst will be the first member of Iowa’s congressional delegation and the Senate’s first female combat veteran.

Republican Shelley Moore Capito will become West Virginia’s first female senator, giving the Republicans a record six women in the Senate. Utah’s Mia Love, an incoming House member, will be the first black Republican in Congress, and in New York’s 21st district, 30-year-old Elise Stefanik has become the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. 

Republican pollster and strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson believes the election is a breakthrough for the party’s gender gap. Historically speaking, Republican women “were significantly less likely to make it through a primary than Democratic women were. It was tougher for them to wind up on the ballot,” Soltis said.

Soltis is particularly excited about the fact that younger female Republicans are prevailing. As the newly elected GOP women begin to rise in leadership roles, Republicans will make more headway in changing its image as the party of “old white guys,” she said.

A freshman college student, Saira Blair, made history Tuesday when she defeated her 44-year-old opponent in the race to represent a small West Virginia district, becoming America’s youngest elected politician. It was the first election where the 18-year-old was legally able to vote.

 . . .

Source:  Suzy Khimm, ‘2014: Historic Gains for Women in Politics’, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2014-midterms-big-step-women-politics, posted 5 Nov. 2014, accessed 7 Nov. 2014

After reflecting on this, one is forced to ask, Do so-called conservative Republicans wish to conserve any traditions at all?  Is dragging women out of the home (those few who are left), away from husbands and children and other relatives, to be ‘smeared with the greasy paw’ (Irving Babbitt, Democracy and Leadership) of corrupt, bankster-run American politics, going to do any good in the long run? 

It seems that all is dispensable in order to save the favorite idol of these ‘conservatives’ - an all-powerful, divinized ‘America’ that is awash with material riches at home and that can do as it pleases abroad.  If the remnants of the traditional family, we may infer, must be sacrificed for the good of this wonderful deity, then let us draw our knives and see to it that it withers and dies and troubles us no more.

With apologies to the ancients:  ‘Let America rule though the heavens fall.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum

Let us turn away from them.  There are better guides.  Richard Weaver is one.

Distinctions of many kinds will have to be restored, and I would mention especially one whose loss has added immeasurably to the malaise of our civilization—the fruitful distinction between the sexes, with the recognition of respective spheres of influence.  The re-establishment of woman as the cohesive force of the family, the end of the era of “long-haired men and short-haired women,” should bring a renewal of well-being to the whole of society.  On this point Southerners of the old school were adamant, and even today, with our power of discrimination at its lowest point in history, there arises a feeling that the roles of the sexes must again be made explicit.  George Fitzhugh’s brutal remark that if women put on trousers, men would use them for plowing has been borne out, and I think that women would have more influence actually if they did not vote, but, according to the advice of Augusta Evans Wilson, made their firesides seats of Delphic wisdom (The Southern Tradition at Bay, Regnery Gateway, 1989, p. 378).

Rev Dabney, another.

It is indignantly asked, "Why should politics corrupt the morals of women more than of the 'lords of creation'?" Suppose now we reply: American politics have corrupted the morals of the men? Suppose we argue that the retort is so true and just and the result has actually gone to so deplorable an extent, that were the female side of our social organization as corrupt as the male side has already become, American society would crumble into ruin by its own putrescence? It is better to save half the fabric than to lose all. And especially is it better to save the purity of the mothers who are, under God, to form the characters of our future citizens, and of the wives who are to restrain and elevate them, whatever else we endanger. Is it argued that since women are now confessedly purer than men, their entrance into politics must tend to purify politics? We reply again that the women of the present were reared and attained this comparative purity under the Bible system. Adopt the infidel plan, and we shall corrupt our women without purifying oar politics. What shall save us then? (‘Women’s Rights Women’, Discussions, Vol. IV, Secular, https://archive.org/details/DiscussionsOfRobertLewisDabneyVol.4Secular, p. 500)

‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols.  Amen’ (I John 5:21 KJV).