Monday, August 29, 2016

When is a Story Degenerate? Depiction vs. Intention

The far-right, or Alt-Right, has long been obsessed with the issue of "degeneracy" in the media, and with good reason. After all, Hollywood uses movies and television to push leftist ideals and hedonism including homosexuality, miscegenation, promiscuity, having children out of wedlock, and so on. It is something one must guard against, but, interestingly, many take a far more puritanical approach, the modern equivalent of burning books. This raises the question—when is a work degenerate?

If we use Shakespeare as an example, most would balk if you declared that it is degenerate to read his works or to attend productions of his plays. The same would be true if the Greek and Roman classics were to be burned. But both include a lot of behavior that we would surely say is degenerate in the real world. Even the Norse sagas would have to be burned for cases of degeneracy. We can also see degenerate behavior in the Bible. For example, Genesis 19:30-38 tells us that the Moabites and Ammonites descended from Lot's daughters getting their father drunk in a cave and then having sex with him so they could "preserve his seed" following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Should Christians not read the Bible because they'd be exposed to such degeneracy? It would be patently ridiculous to suggest that.

So, where is the line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable depictions of degeneracy? The answer is in the intent of the depiction. Truly degenerate works coming out of Hollywood do not warn against such behavior, but they rather depict degeneracy as fun, fulfilling, and mostly without consequences. They make such a lifestyle seem appealing. How many movies have come out of Hollywood that promote sleeping around, drinking heavily, using drugs, and so on? There is no real moral to such stories. They want to convince you that selfish, unbridled hedonism is an amazing way to live your life where you can have everything you've ever desired. Take the same stories, however, and show the characters suffering consequences because of their behavior, and you would have a very different outcome.

The Bible is not defined by any single example of degeneracy, or even every case taken together as a whole. Why? Because the overarching message is anti-degeneracy. The same is true of countless classic stories up through Shakespeare and beyond. Any degeneracy depicted is not the point in and of itself, but the authors were instead showing bad behavior as examples of what not to do. Hedonism is presented as hedonism with the expectation that the audience will understand, or come to understand, that hedonism is a bad thing.

A simplistic, puritanical worldview is sorely lacking in such nuance because it assumes that any depiction of degeneracy is in itself degenerate. A story may include behavior that you find deplorable, but the fact that you recognize it as such is a good thing. You must discern whether or not the material has good intentions, or if it instead is meant to convince you that degeneracy is an acceptable way to live. Do not hide under your bed because you see a breast, or hear something inappropriate. Instead, you must question why you are seeing the breast or hearing those words. Is the intent to show you how to be a better person, or to lead you down the rabbit hole of hedonism and degeneracy?

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Church of the Crusaders: The Case for a New Denomination

For traditionalists, there is a simple, inescapable truth regarding modern Christianity: namely, it is not anything that would be recognizable to our ancestors. The religious texts have not drastically changed aside from vulgar translations, and the liturgies of most denominations would be recognizable. No, it is rather an issue of Christendom itself—its very essence in practice—that has changed. Today, we see the Pope welcoming Muslim hordes into Europe, a lesbian "bishop" in Sweden telling a church to remove all Christian iconography to accommodate Muslims using it as a "prayer space," &c.

Some would have us believe that this is the true nature of Christianity. Obviously, this flies in the face of centuries upon centuries of the Church waging open war on Muslims and Jews. They would say, however, that our ancestors were just "bad Christians," and it is rather the multicultural crowd that truly represent the faith. The reality, as discussed in a previous post, is that the Reformation gave rise to low-church, puritanical Protestantism that embraces egalitarianism while rejecting the history and traditions of Christendom. It is not normal for Christians to wear yarmulkes and tallit prayer shawls. It is not normal to open the gates of Europe to Muslim invaders with signs welcoming them and making excuses for their crimes. These things are not the essence of Christianity, and they are instead the result of infiltrators dividing an already fractured Christendom in the aftermath of the Reformation. When Erick Erickson goes on a Twitter rant quoting the Bible out of context to claim the traditionalists are the antithesis of Christianity, he is the one betraying Christendom and every defender of the faith throughout history.

It is time for actual Christians to reclaim the faith from Jew-loving, Muslim-welcoming traitors like Erick Erickson and his ilk. It is time to stop letting them abuse our people and nations by quoting their vulgar translations of the Bible out of context to mislead the masses. It is time for crusaders to take up the cross once again to combat those who would see every white, Christian nation fall to foreign, subversive elements. To that end and since no current denomination in the West represents the best interests of Latin Christendom, it may be time for a new denomination—a Church of the Crusaders—that promotes and defends Western Christendom, western values, and the European people as a whole wherever they are found.

Below is a list of doctrinal points that are important.

I. It must be Catholic: The word "catholic" comes from Latin "catholicus" and ultimately from the Ancient Greek "καθολικός," meaning "according to the whole." Whether or not Protestants wish to accept it, the history of Christianity in the West is a history of the Catholic Church. Any new denomination must be grounded in the history and traditions of Latin Christendom.

II. It must be apostolic:  The word "apostolic" comes from Latin "apostolicus," from Ancient Greek "ἀποστολικός," meaning "pertaining to the apostles." This means the Church of the Crusaders must include the Holy Orders of bishop, priest, and deacon in a line of succession going back to the Apostles. In Acts 6:1-7, we see the Apostles creating clergy from among their followers by laying hands upon them, and therein appears the word ἱερέων (priest). In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, qualifications for the offices of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) and deacon (διάκονος) are put forth. Each of the Apostolic Churches can trace their succession back to the Apostles as every cleric is created through the same laying on of hands. This grounds the Church in history.

III. It must be open to sedevacantism: "Sedevacantism" stems from the Latin "sede vacante," which means "the seat being vacant." The phrase normally references the time in between the death of the Pope and the election of the next, but sedevacantism is instead the position that an illegitimate pope cannot truly be the Bishop of Rome. Thus, in such times, the seat remains vacant. Sedevacantists are typically divided from Rome over the liberalization that occurred with Vatican II, but the term can be used in a more general sense.

Catholics who have accepted Vatican II will typically argue that sedevacantism is sinful. They argue that Jesus said, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). In essence, a "false pope" sitting (metaphorically) on the Throne of St. Peter would be "the gates of hell" prevailing against the Church, but this ignores a long history of Popes and Anti-Popes competing for control of the Church. The actual administration thereof may not always have been in the hands of a Pope independently exerting authority from the Vatican. This does not mean, however, that the gates of hell had prevailed so long as there were those striving to preserve and restore the Church.

Today, one would have difficulty justifying Francis as being in line with the Popes of the past. He has encouraged the Muslim invasion of Europe, going so far as to shame Christians trying to protect their nations. He has also attacked Donald Trump for wanting a secure border with Mexico. He has taken countless other positions that follow in the same leftist vein. The Church of the Crusaders must reserve the right to recognize or not the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals based on a given Pope holding to traditional values or not.

IV. It must be militant: In Luke 22:36, Jesus said, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." In John 18:10-11, we see that Peter indeed had a sword when the Pharisees came for Jesus, but Jesus told him to put his sword away since what was to happen was God's plan. These verses are important because Jesus told his followers to arm themselves, and Peter was clearly ready to use his sword against the Pharisees.

The Church Militant today have forgotten to be militant. They see themselves in a spiritual battle only as Christendom is invaded by savages who subvert our nations and build temples to their gods. Imagine Charles Martel refusing to do battle with the Muslims invading Europe, or Pope Urban II telling the Byzantines that they should welcome the demographic changes of Muslims invading Constantinople. Our ancestors knew that European Christians had to fight for their nations and their faith against those who would destroy both.

Today, Christians are told to "turn the other cheek" and to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:39,44). No one bothers to read the verses in context, or to consult the more nuanced language of the original Greek. For example, the context of Matthew 5 is that Jesus was telling his followers to strive to be perfect in their personal lives. Indeed, in verse 44, the word used for "enemies" is "εχθρός" rather than "πολέμιος," which would denote an enemy of the state. Similarly, the slap to the cheek found in verse 39 is a reference to a personal insult in the time of Jesus rather than a violent attack, and it came after Jesus mentioned the Old Testament law of "an eye for an eye." In context then, we should not seek vengeance when someone insults us personally, but it does not mean that we should expose our throats to foreign invaders.

Christians need to again embrace the martial spirit of our ancestors. For comparison, baptized Sikh males are expected to be armed with a knife at all times as an article of faith, and, according to Luke 22:36, Christians can and should be following a similar commandment from Jesus. Imagine the change in attitude that would come from Christians focusing on the martial and defending themselves and others rather than mistakenly thinking Jesus commanded them to surrender to every criminal or foreign invader. After all, Jesus whipped the money changers and flipped over their tables rather than making excuses for and encouraging their behavior (John 2:15).

V. It must reject multiculturalism: According to many, Christians must open our nations to any and all foreigners who claim to be in need, and any concern as to how that may affect one's own nation and people is dismissed as racism. The same is true of miscegenation where we are apparently supposed to tolerate and even encourage mixing between races. Ultimately, if peoples and cultures continue to mix, the result would be a single muddled race with a single culture and language. In Genesis 11:9, we see that God purposely divided mankind over the Tower of Babel, and what is multiculturalism but an effort to build a new tower against God's will? And let's be clear—God's will is that mankind is to be divided (Deuteronomy 32:8). Indeed, Man was spread over the Earth and divided into nations with set boundaries (Acts 17:26).

Furthermore, the Lord's Prayer tells us, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10). As we have seen, God's will is that Mankind was divided into peoples and nations with established boundaries, and it follows then that the same is true in Heaven. In essence, anyone can be a Christian as said in Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 12:13, but that only makes sense. Why would God divide Mankind just to reject some parts thereof even if they become Christian? That does not mean, however, that the Lord's will is for Christ to be used as an excuse to build the new Tower of Babel.

The Church of the Crusaders must thus embrace brothers and sisters in Christ in spirit while keeping the divisions that God set forth. An African can be a Christian in Africa, and he need not be brought into America or Europe for any reason. Similarly, we can work with those of other races where it is needed, but we mustn't combine that which God purposely divided according to plan.

VI. It must reject Zionism:One of the most subversive and harmful movements within Christendom today is so-called "Christian Zionism," or the belief that the modern state of Israel must exist as a Jewish ethno-state supported by Christians. Common refrains in support of this position include that "Jesus was a Jew" and that "Jews are God's Chosen," and the result is many supposed Christians going so far as to put Jews above their fellow Christians. This is seen frequently in American politics.

First, let's address the argument that "Jesus was a Jew." On its face, this is meaningless as "Jews" as we know them today did not exist. In the time of Jesus, the Levant was a Roman province known as Judea after the Hebraic Kingdom of Judah that had been destroyed in the 6th century BC. By that time, the Hebrews had been conquered, divided, and even exiled for a time. Indeed, the Hebrews had also come to be divided into sects along religious lines. Thus, the Judaeans (Latin: iudaei/Greek: Ἰουδαῖοι) were not a single, monolithic bloc that could be called the "Jews."

Secondly, of the sects in Jesus's time, it was the Pharisees that would become Rabbinic Judaism following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Additionally, modern Jews are divided into the "Jews of Germany" (Ashkenazi), "Jews of Spain" (Sephardi), and the "Jews of the East" (Mizrahi). We also know that Jesus was not a Pharisee. Indeed, in John 8:42-47, it was the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as being the children of Satan, being given to the murderous and traitorous lusts of their father. If the modern Pharisees are God's Chosen, why did Jesus condemn them as hellspawn? In short, Jews as they exist today are not ethnically or spiritually representative of the Hebrews in Jesus's time.

Finally, Jesus was to shepherd the people of Israel (Matthew 2:6), and Christians are indeed citizens of Israel and of God's household (Ephesians 2:12-19). In John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." And, again, in John 8:44, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." In Revelation 3:9, we are warned of "the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie." How can any Christian say that a non-Christian Israel is God's will, or that the Pharisees are God's Chosen?

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Low-Church Protestantism, Anti-Catholicism, Zionism, and Dividing Christendom

The United States has a long history of anti-Catholic sentiment going back to the colonies, but many people, if not most, alive today do not even know why that was the case. The history has largely been forgotten, and a sort of chauvinistic revisionism has stepped in to fill in the gaps. This is at least partly due to the fact that many Protestant denominations have not remained uniform in the last 240 years, so they can be somewhat removed from even their own recent history. This is a rather important fact since current divisiveness among Christians stems from those past divisions.

Today, it is common for traditionally-minded Protestants to try to seek out some earlier Christianity that has not been tainted by the modern world. This has become increasingly necessary as many of the mainstream denominations have started to embrace homosexuality and such. This is not an easy journey, however, since fundamentalist American Protestantism is also extremely anti-Catholic. It is easy to see why seeking out the historical Church is difficult when you reject the Latin Church, which was obviously The Church for most of Christianity's history. Now, at least some Protestants reading this just said something impolite or threw something, but they can be excused since they have been taught—likely from a young age—to replace objective history with their own doctrine.

First, let's begin with the Church of England since so much of American Protestantism stems directly from the same origins. In 1534, Henry VIII famously separated the Church of England from Rome. That was followed by the Dissolution of Lesser Monasteries Act and the Act for the Dissolution of the Greater Monasteries to disband all religious houses in 1535 and 1539, respectively. England and Scotland also came into conflict shortly thereafter, and the English used the opportunity to spread their Protestant message in the Scottish Lowlands. This is not to say that the English were united, however, as there were radicals who did not think the reforms had gone far enough. These would come to be known as Puritans, and they enacted many of their reforms following the English Civil War. Many would become Separatists after the restoration of Charles II and the subsequent Act of Uniformity in 1662, which required episcopal ordination to be restored (against Puritan wishes). Funnily enough, that was a century after the Scottish Reformation resulted in the rise of Presbyterianism, at least partially attributable to the earlier efforts of the English Protestants.

The complex history of the Church of England is important because it provides a basis for 3 of the 5 largest (non-Anglican) Protestant denominations in the United States today. These include Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and the various denominations that have split off from those. For example, all Baptists today can be traced back to John Smyth, an Anglican priest who broke from the Church of England before founding the first Baptist church in Amsterdam in 1609. Adventist churches can then be traced to William Miller, a 19th century Baptist minister. Likewise, Methodism is directly traceable to John Wesley, an Anglican priest who started the movement as a revival within the Church of England. It was only after Wesley's death that his followers separated fully, and his writings would also give rise to Pentecostalism/Holiness movements. All told, more than 40% of Americans today belong to denominations that trace back to the Church of England, which accounts for the vast majority of American Protestants.

Secondly, at this point, it should be obvious why so many Protestants in the United States belong to so-called "low church" denominations. This means they have largely (or entirely) abandoned the rituals and episcopal structure of the Church prior to the Reformation. In essence, they are descendants of the Puritans, at least in the sense of rejecting anything they saw as needless, and it is that puritanism that at least begins to explain anti-Catholic sentiments among these Protestants. They may not know their own collective history, or actively preach puritanism, but it is in the DNA of these denominations to reject the "unreformed" because the "reformed" is all that they know. They have never lived in a time where everyone was under the one and only Church, but they have been taught the past was horrible and thus justified their forefathers' reforms.

We can see from this that the vast majority of American Protestants are severely limited in being able to seek out a more traditional form of Christianity. After all, the Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Adventists, and so on only have a non-Roman history back to 1534, and most of them would not be content with the Church of England as it is still episcopal and catholic. What then are reactionary Protestants to do? There have been two answers to this conundrum: namely, Protestant successionism and Christian Zionism. Each has its own problems, but they both ultimately result in division and serve to subvert actual traditionalism.

In the case of Protestant successionism, the claim is that Protestants—and specifically Baptists—are not Protestant at all and are instead descendants of an unbroken line of non-Catholic Christian movements including the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Patarenes, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. This claim largely stems from "The Trail of Blood" (1931), a booklet by a Baptist minister by the name of James Milton Carroll. The most obvious problem with this "theory" is that none of the listed movements were connected to each other, and they certainly did not survive hidden among Catholics and then the Church of England before separating yet again. In fact, the supposed "unbroken line" includes isolated movements ranging from Europe to North Africa to the Near East, spread over a millennium of history. The various heretical sects also did not share the same views, and Protestants today would roundly reject many, if not most, of their beliefs. The objective of successionism is to assert that the reactionary Protestants are already the most ancient and traditional form of Christianity, but they have to ignore their own history as well as the collective history of Christendom to make the claim. It allows them to keep the denomination(s) and anti-Catholicism they are used to, but cognitive dissonance is hardly a solid foundation for a movement. It becomes particularly odd when rabid anti-Catholics nonetheless use iconography and language from the Crusades, which were intrinsically Catholic and even targeted some of the heretical movements that the Protestants are now trying to claim as their direct ancestors.

Where Protestant successionism is a matter of historical revisionism, Protestant Zionism is a matter of religious revisionism. It is not difficult to understand how American Protestantism has come to be consumed with a zeal for Zion since many of the denominations were still growing and developing in the 19th century, a time marked by the development of Zionism in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Church of England, Baptists, Methodists, and others all produced notable Zionists at the time, and the common argument was that Israel must exist as a state in the hands of the Jews to fit with Protestant readings of the New Testament. This went hand-in-hand with "The Rapture" teachings of John Nelson Darby, an Anglican priest, albeit he was not the first to claim a "rapture"-like event would occur. In essence, the belief became that the End Times were near, and that the Jews must control Israel as a prerequisite for Jesus to return to the Earth. This simultaneously taught Christians to place their focus on helping Jews while also encouraging them to ignore their own future as the world could end soon. This belief is still common among many denominations of American Protestants, and many rabidly support Israel and the Jewish diaspora.

Interestingly, Christian Zionism mixed with a desire for traditionalism has spawned American Protestants who now assert that they are "Jewish Christians," "Christian Jews," "Messianic Jews," and so on. In essence, they skipped the mental gymnastics of Protestant successionism and declared that mimicking Judaism is the closest they can get to the original Christianity. The most obvious problem with this is that Judaism as we know it today did not exist in the time of Jesus, and the closest thing to Rabbinic Judaism was the Pharisaic sect. Indeed, the Pharisees would ultimately provide the basis for modern Judaism following the destruction of the Temple. In John 8:42-47, however, Jesus told the Pharisees that they were children of Satan and did not know Him because they did not know God. It is quite odd then that Christians seeking a more traditional Christianity would try to find it among the Pharisees. Regardless, one will find these "Messianic Jews" wearing yarmulkes, Israeli prayer shawls, and observing Jewish holidays that often celebrate Jews killing gentiles. Their hatred of the Church runs so deeply that they would rather embrace those Jesus condemned as satanic than Catholic crusaders; those who helped kill Jesus rather than those who spent centuries developing and defending Christianity against infidels.

The puritanism of "low church" Protestantism has ingrained anti-Catholicism into so many, and that has helped to give rise to disjointed and misguided movements that only further divide Christendom and actively promote others over our own. Where these Protestants could be taking up the sword in the name of a new Crusade, they are instead ranting that Catholics are their real enemies, some going so far as to mimic the rituals and rites of the modern Pharisees. Some of them even claim that the Church created Islam as a tool to kill Jews and "real Christians," never mind that Islam rose at a time where there were only Catholics and that Islam spent centuries invading Catholic lands, most of which are still being defiled by Muslims to this very day. These Protestants are quick to blame Catholics and the Church for anything and everything, and they often gleefully join with Jews, Muslims, and atheists to condemn the Church for the Crusades, Inquisition, and so on. They peddle all manner of conspiracy theories about Catholics working to divide and destroy Christianity, and it never occurs to them that it is they who align with our enemies and divide Christendom.

Once, the Church did not have a single liturgy, and national churches often had their own ways of doing things while everyone was still a part of the whole of Christendom. There were bishops and priests and some sense of central authority, but there was room for differences. Even today there are the 23 independent Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, and the Orthodox Church could just as easily rejoin with its other half. There are also Old Catholics such as myself, who are considered valid yet "illicit" for being outside of Rome's purview. Rather than embracing the chance of Christendom standing united against our enemies, many Protestants cannot step outside of their puritanical, anti-Catholic worldview and realize that it is far better to be a crusader than a traitor.

Friday, August 5, 2016

"Believing what the Founders believed is un-American," says staff writer at The Atlantic

Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at The Atlantic, informed me earlier today that he has a "disdain for white identity politics" and that he knows "multiple illegal immigrants who understand & appreciate America's founding values better than" I do. My grand crime that so provoked this supposedly conservative journalist's ire was that I made a joke about Hillary Clinton being crazy, and I defended Trump when Mr. Friedersdorf asserted that Trump was the greater (and crazier) of two evils.

I pointed out that Hillary Clinton would change the face of the Supreme Court for a generation and work to give citizenship to the 10-40 million illegals inside of the United States. In essence, the US would be permanently lost at that point. A progressive Court would redefine the Constitution just as was the case throughout much of the 20th century, and, as history shows us, it is virtually impossible to fix such things once people have come to accept the new status quo. Hillary's Court would move to say that the Second Amendment is not an expansive right belonging to individuals, and they would certainly confirm that all restrictions proposed by the Democrats are perfectly constitutional. That is in addition to the fact that at least 60% of the new Mexican voters would vote Democrat. Rationally, anyone claiming to care about "America's founding values" should be able to recognize that Hillary Clinton would be their absolute worst nightmare. America would not survive her presidency.

Mr. Friedersdorf's rebuttal was that Donald Trump is a "bigot" and that my views were "abhorrent," although he never actually explained what I had said was that was so disgusting to him. Seemingly, he favors open borders, mass immigration from the Third World, and believes that the United States was always meant to be an entirely secular nation where the Founders would have opposed Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration (in the midst of an Islamic terror campaign). This begs the question—Would the Founding Fathers have actually shared Mr. Friedersdorf's views?

First, let's dispense with the notion that the United States was founded by men collectively dedicated to a secular nation equally welcoming to Muslims as it was to Christians. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence marked the beginning of the United States, and, in its first two paragraphs, it spoke of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The document ended with the signatories stating that they were relying "on the protection of divine Providence." Of the 56 signatories, 54 belonged to one of a few different Christian denominations, and Jefferson and Franklin were both considered to be Deists. Now, while it is true that the Constitution did not directly reference God and guaranteed freedom of religion with the First Amendment, the signatures on that document do appear under the date, which was rendered in the traditional format: namely, "in the year of our Lord." That is obviously odd for a supposedly secularist group from a 100% white, Christian background. There was a decidedly Christian—not "Judeo-Christian"—character underpinning the United States. Indeed, for the Founders, "separation of Church and State" was about there not being one Christian denomination that came to dominate, which was so common in Europe at the time and had been common in the British colonies. They certainly were not concerned with protecting hostile, foreign religions.

Second, people who espouse open borders and mass immigration as an "American value" are fond of citing "The New Colossus"—"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"—which people mistakenly see as intrinsically linked with the Statue of Liberty. There is a small problem, however, as that poem was not added to Lady Liberty until nearly two decades after she was first dedicated in 1886. Open-border proponents also like to cite the phrase "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence. But did the Founders truly mean that they were creating a nation that belonged to the entire world? In short, no. In 1790, the free population of the new nation was 98.15% white, and the Founders nonetheless decided to pass the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalized citizenship to free whites. It certainly seems odd that humanists building a 'nation for the world' would say, "Our 98% white citizenry will only allow other whites to move to our nation and become citizens. Others need not apply."

Third, now, let's combine the previous two points—the United States was clearly founded as a white, Christian nation. How then would the Founders have felt about mass Muslim immigration? Some leftists would have you believe that it is impossible to "separate the story of Muslims in America from the story" of our nation itself (Source). As with Mr. Friedersdorf, however, this begs the question—Do isolated cases here and there somehow negate everything else we know? Some slaves were Muslim, but slaves also were not citizens. Two Muslims were soldiers during the Revolution, but what of the countless white Christians who fought and died? Globalists would have us believe that even a single Muslim found at some point in American history means that our entire history was secular with every culture in the world sharing in our successes. Of course, the Founding Fathers had no problem limiting citizenship to free whites, who naturally would have come from Europe, which was almost entirely Christian. How can someone possibly square what the Founders said and did—defining American values in the process—with what globalists claim? They can't.

Finally, the overarching issue is that globalists think that it is inherently wrong for nations to retain their unique cultures. Why must the United States—a nation founded by white Christians for white Christians—become a multiracial, secular humanist nation? Clearly, the Founders did not intend for the United States to import countless immigrants from the Third World, and, as an extension, they also did not intend for the First Amendment to be used to defend the import of violent savages that were and are entirely foreign from the Christian European identity of the Founders.

People like Mr. Friedersdorf can say that I am a "bigot" with "abhorrent views," but I reject the notion that sharing beliefs with our grandfathers and the Founders is un-American.