Lolz aside, serious question (primarily for Ameribros and Anglobros): Why do white conservatives love black and gay "conservatives" so much? Why do they think platforming the left's client groups is a winning strategy?
Forwarded from Fundamental Christianity
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Should come as no surprise.
Forwarded from IMPERIVM
“Hope means hoping when things are hopeless, or it is no virtue at all... As long as matters are really hopeful, hope is mere flattery or platitude; it is only when everything is hopeless that hope begins to be a strength.”
~G.K. Chesterton
@ImperivmRenaissance
~G.K. Chesterton
@ImperivmRenaissance
Forwarded from Revolt Against The Modern World
"Christian and coward, Saint and deserter, are words as much opposed as heaven and hell."
~Charles Spurgeon
~Charles Spurgeon
Forwarded from The Protestant Resistance Channel (Stuart DiNenno)
“Those whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with his intercourse must prepare for a hard, laborious, troubled life, a life full of many and various kinds of evils; it being the will of our heavenly Father to exercise his people in this way while putting them to the proof.”
— John Calvin
— John Calvin
Forwarded from Disclose.tv
Forwarded from Dark_Enlightenment's aphorisms (Dark Enlightenment)
Praise the Lord and God Bless Kyle Rittenhouse.
Forwarded from 🔊 𝐍єØⓃ 乃𝑜𝕆𝕄乃ᵒχ 🔊
"Liberalism undoes nations and systematically destroys their sense of history, tradition, loyalty and value. Instead of helping man to elevate himself to the sphere of the superhuman, it divorces him from all ‘grand projects’ by declaring these projects ‘dangerous’ from the point of view of equality. No wonder, therefore, that the management of man’s individual well-being becomes his sole preoccupation. In the attempt to free man from all constraints, liberalism brings man under the yoke of other constraints which now downgrade him to the lowest level. Liberalism does not defend liberty; it destroys the independence of the
individual. By eroding historical memories, liberalism extricates man
from history. It proposes to ensure his means of existence, but robs him
of his reason to live and deprives him of the possibility of having a
destiny.”
Alain de Benoist@DissidentAesthetics
Forwarded from Bertie Bassett
I no longer support Rittenhouse because I’m dedicated to friend / enemy and he’s said he supports absolute enemy. That is the rule.
🔥1
Forwarded from 𝕱𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖘 𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕮𝖍𝖚𝖗𝖈𝖍 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖓𝖊𝖑 (Andy Underhile)
“Those today who object to Calvin’s harsh language like to present themselves as loving, sensitive souls, but often these same people can stomach television programs and movies containing violence, sexual filth, and the taking of God’s name in vain. If the people who deplore Calvin’s harsh language are theologians, they are often the same theologians who can tolerate with equanimity the defaming of God’s name by false doctrine. That fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are denied bothers them not at all, but their “sensitive” souls are troubled when Calvin refers to enemies of the gospel as ‘dogs’ and ‘hogs.’
“No Reformed Christian should object to Calvin’s harsh language. The fact is that this kind of condemnation of error is thoroughly biblical, including referring to enemies of the faith as ‘dogs’ and ‘hogs.’ In Philippians 3:2, Paul calls those who teach works-righteousness ‘dogs.’ In 2 Peter 2:22, the apostle calls those who preach and practice antinomianism ‘hogs’—swine who return to their muck and mire. I note also that the Heidelberg Catechism is sharp and vituperative in its condemnation of the Roman Catholic mass when it calls it ‘a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ [and an accursed idolatry].’
“The vehement condemnation of error by Luther, Calvin, and many of their colleagues arose from their piety. Particularly in the case of Calvin, his severe condemnation of error had its source in his godliness, his love of and reverence for God, and his corresponding abhorrence of all those who showed themselves to be enemies of God. Calvin was a ‘sensitive’ soul, but the sensitive soul of Calvin was sensitive to a diminishing of God’s honor. Of this sensitivity, there is a notable lack in the twenty-first century, especially among Protestant theologians.” - David Engelsma, The Reformed Faith of John Calvin, Chapter 4
“No Reformed Christian should object to Calvin’s harsh language. The fact is that this kind of condemnation of error is thoroughly biblical, including referring to enemies of the faith as ‘dogs’ and ‘hogs.’ In Philippians 3:2, Paul calls those who teach works-righteousness ‘dogs.’ In 2 Peter 2:22, the apostle calls those who preach and practice antinomianism ‘hogs’—swine who return to their muck and mire. I note also that the Heidelberg Catechism is sharp and vituperative in its condemnation of the Roman Catholic mass when it calls it ‘a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ [and an accursed idolatry].’
“The vehement condemnation of error by Luther, Calvin, and many of their colleagues arose from their piety. Particularly in the case of Calvin, his severe condemnation of error had its source in his godliness, his love of and reverence for God, and his corresponding abhorrence of all those who showed themselves to be enemies of God. Calvin was a ‘sensitive’ soul, but the sensitive soul of Calvin was sensitive to a diminishing of God’s honor. Of this sensitivity, there is a notable lack in the twenty-first century, especially among Protestant theologians.” - David Engelsma, The Reformed Faith of John Calvin, Chapter 4
Forwarded from Presbyterian and Reformed (Peter Ramus)
I checked Twitter. TGC responded to the racial attack in Waukesha with Advent resources and something about Wendell Berry.