IN a world of fallen and unregenerate men, there is no such thing Walsingham, as a purely secular society where everybody respects everyone else’s values. This is a myth. Moreover, the principles of this myth are principles stated clearly in the Protocols of Zion as “known to be false.”

The liberal societies were founded upon the violent overthrow of Catholic nation states by the organized force of Judeo-Masonry. This entailed wholesale massacres of the Catholic population and the establishment of republican government supposedly based supposedly on the rights of man, but in reality upon the Talmud – such as the Jacobin Committes of Public Saftety and the jurisprudence of US Maritime or Emergency Law.

What these republics are in fact is a Crypto-plutocracy whereby we have a charade of people’s choices, restricted economic activities, elections and so forth; but behind the Curtain is the real business of a statecraft which governs by dictate to the stooges who are preselected to enact the rhetoric of liberty, fraternity and equality upon the political stage. Different scripts for different stooges – but the business of shearing, herding, fleecing and killing the sheeple always goes forward.

For difficult and exasperating cases (such as yourself, Walsingham) who persist in believing there is a reality base to this rhetorical lobotomy for the goyim – Today’s Catholic World has helpfully set out a compare and contrast in their July 09 post. The Rights of God Vs the Rights of Man. TCW is the approbated website of the Church in Eclipse and its hierarchy connected with Pope Gregory XVII – who was taken hostage when the Revolution inaugurated in 1789 realized one of its prime objectives in the overthrow of the Holy See in Rome.

Please refer to the TCW Archives for July 09 – The Rights of God vs the Rights of Man http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jul09tcw.htm.

And again, in the Catholic state – there were penalities for blasphemy of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and the Saints; just as today there are penalties for anti-Semitism – which is legally defined as any criticism (evidence based or otherwise) leveled against the J_w. If anyone disbelieves that penalties up to and including the death penalty have not been historically enforced against those who attempted to document the reality of the American Cryptocracy and its power – contemplate the grave of Capt Morgan. Or better yet, contemplate the anti-Semetic laws of the Bolshevik (Judaic) Revolution in Russia – 1917.

This contrasts with the Christian polity which at its best tolerated heterodox opinions – pagans carried on in these socieites, as did Jews and Gypsies and nominals who believed in themselves or just materialism or nothing. However, government, education, publication, land ownership and the professions were barred to those not of the Holy Faith for the obvious reason that a Christian polity would not tolerate infiltration and subversion. Nor would it tolerate its offices being occupied by a parasite class. This is why Christendom reached such a high level of civilization and culture.

And realistically, what polity does tolerate infiltration and subversion by those who believe and think outside to the fundamentals of the polity?

Even a society like medicine – which in the West is merely an instrument of Big Pharma. If you want to get into medical school, see how far you get (even if you have the right connections, sterling recommendations and straight As) if you say you believe that traditional Chinese medicine can cure or that homeopathy is the way to go.

IN the Christian polity, however, the common law institution of the Commons, the sanctuary of the highways, the byeways and the woodland preserves meant that those outside the law could have the means to cultivate a life. They might not have been permitted to proselytize or to blaspheme or organize themselves as revolutionaries; but the history of England up until the Reformation provides for those outside the law, so did France, so did Italy.

FYI, The Inquisition was not directed to those outside the law. It was directed towards the baptised; those claiming to be Christians and enjoying / exercising the rights of Christians in a Christian polity. But the penalty for being a Crypto, practising a faith counter to Christianity and working the subversion of the society from within – was death.

By way of contrast, in the US, however, an agent of a foreign government can be caught red-handed passing highly classified US information and technology to his government and be given a jail term. Dual natinals can commit atrocities upon the American people such as the 9-11 false flag and be rewarded with government posts.

I think it interesting Walsingham that you confine your posts to lambasting the integrity of what was once Christendom. Talk about living in the past.

Yet, you are ominously silent on the hate laws and their bureaucracy which will soon be rounding up and incarcerating (or worse) anyone who dares express opinion critical of the true power elite. Why is this so?

Whereas the Christians fearlessly name names and expose the truth about the ZOG.

You are supposedly “just trying to understand theocrats’ thoughts and opinions”
Well, the Judaic Imperium is a theocracy. It is a ruling theocracy. Why in the face of this most clear and present American crisis is your interest so focused upon the Christendom’s jurisprudence?

Note also that “expression of unbelief” is not blasphemy. Blasphemy has to do with causing the name of God to be despised or dragged through the mud.

As Schlissel observed, every society eventually protects the name of that which is its god, even when a false god is installed. We are seeing this slowly come to fruition since the 60′s revolution, as it will soon be illegal to insult kikes or fags publicly.

Ok. You don’t believe in Christ and are now compelled to evangel this to all.
Plus, in your vision of the future, there will be pagan theocracy alternatives – which you will happily join. Why then the obsession with arguing against christian theocracy? According to you it will die, it is nutty, meaningless etc, etc.
Why then the need to argue against it? Why this obsession?

“What would they do if their mother or son or grandchild told them that they just no longer believed in Christianity? What if their conviction was so strong that they decided to (against the law) take their objections public?”

If memory serves correctly, blasphemy would be cursing/slandering God – not the situation you described. This blog speaks from a christian kinist perspective. Your objections are not going to make anyone give up their faith. Indeed, one could characterise them as “nutty, meaningless etc, etc”. Why not go to Majority rights, stormfront, vnn etc, and heap up your disdain for the faith there? I honestly don’t understand.

Not sure where you get the idea that I’m advocating for unbridled libertinism, but you’re right- I don’t think anyone has the right to oppress me or mine by the forced imposition of what in the end is only their set of mortal, human opinions on morality, not God’s. Christians don’t have access to a book written by God, nor does anyone else, because God doesn’t write books. The Bible is NOT God’s word, and that’s just a simple fact. I’m not trying to antagonize or incite a riot. I know this is considered taboo to ssy out loud, but it is just a nutty belief (which I admittedly used to share) that we have to get beyond. A spade needs to be labeled a spade.

Randall, et al.,

I can’t see any reason to FEAR a Christian theocracy, primarily because there’s no indication there will ever be another one, at least not within my lifetime. Even if one were unambiguously looming on the horizon, it would inevitably be the result of the Jews having been either expelled or totally dispossessed, which would also probably mean that “pagan” Nationalists, who I believe make up half (if not more) of the movement, would be in the process of forming their own alternatives, which relates back to my question.

Initially, a Christian theocracy should be extremely homogeneous, subject to slow, but steady and inevitable erosion as the number of unbelievers rises every generation, and it’s the implications of this that I wonder if theocrats have carefully considered.

What would they do if their mother or son or grandchild told them that they just no longer believed in Christianity? What if their conviction was so strong that they decided to (against the law) take their objections public? Would Randall, Christopher, Tim or Admin REALLY be willing to stand by and watch their loved one shunned, harshly punished or even possibly executed for the “sin” of “blasphemy”?

Nota bene, the most fundamental tenet of the various flavors of “Theocracy” is that God rules, not that God should rule. My own take is that to the extent that true tolerance is possible, a biblical, consistently Christian commonwealth has the potential to be the most tolerant society of all. That is because all societies that conflict with God’s revealed will are inevitably oppressive. A good book-length argument can be found in Rushdoony’s The Foundations of Social Order.

Having said that, it is impossible for any law-order to embrace its antithesis and prosper. If tolerance has to be defined as open-ended acceptance of anything without limits, that’s problematic for the Christian society. And it’s just as problematic for the non-christian society. Where does one draw the line? At least the Bible gives us more objective guidelines than anything man has been able to produce.

Most of Hollywood will be emptied out the first week. What a blessing that will be!

The dominant ‘religion’ in the west for at least 200 years has been secular pluralism. You should be asking yourself this question: Do our people benefit more from a self-consciously secular order, or historically, did they benefit more from a self-consciously christian order? I believe the christian faith made the nations of Europe great, not the other way around. And I’ll gladly compare the sins and excesses of christian europe with the supposedly ‘religiously neutral’ governments of the last 200 years.

But I can understand your fear of biblical law. Welcome to our world. We fear and loathe secular law; which is a man-centered religious order that I’ve had to live under my whole life, despite my personal allegiance to King Jesus. You worry christians might prohibit public expression of that which you consider good. The decalogue prohibits blasphemy, false worship, dishonoring parents, all forms of murder, all forms of theft, all expressions of sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, all forms of dishonesty and all forms of covetousness and greed. The ball is now in your court. Which of these offends you? Which of these do you regard as detrimental to our people, and the proper ordering of society? I’m not trying to be provocative here, I honestly want to know. Historically, christian europe has been far more free and tolerant of dissent then any muslim, hindu, buddhist or secular order. With respect, I believe your fears are misdirected. You should rightly fear any civil order that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

You don’t see what my questions have to do with reality? Well, everything, if Reconstructionists actually believe that one day there will be such a society. They do, right? I assume it’s not just a pastime that permits them to engage in theorizing about eventualities they know are really never going to occur.

“I’m not familiar with your parallel universe in which dissent is outlawed. As I look around the real world, I see that thought crimes are being enforced by Christ-haters. The real world is nothing like your John Lennon world (”imagine no religion”). Here in the non-theoretical world, there is always a theocracy, always a dominant religion.”

I didn’t say dissent was outlawed, I’m trying to find out it would be. Of course, thought-crimes of a certain variety are CURRENTLY enforced, but that has nothing to do with my question. It’s a deflection. Christian theocrats don’t enforce anything (like anti-blasphemy laws) critical of their religion CURRENTLY because they have no power to do so. That is, if that would be their inclination, which is what I’m asking, but can’t seem to ever get an answer. Therefore, I have to assume that the answer is that unbelievers would be second or third-class citizens and that disssent and criticism of the religion itself would be illegal, subject to a range of punishments from heavy fines, to public humiliation, to the death penalty, depending. Bear in mind, I’m not trying to put words into anyone’s mouth, but since no one apparently has the stones go on record and say, “Yes, we will kill blasphemers,” I have to draw my own conclusions.