Review: Donald Cargill, No King but Christ

The best way to describe Donald Cargill’s life is “Richard Cameron minus the muskets.”  He stood for the same principles as Cameron but ultimately did not actively confront the government.  Cargill’s life is not that different from other Covenanter field preachers, but he is set apart in that he excommunicated the king and thought out a coherent (if too cautious) theory of resistance.

No King But Christ, The Story of Donald Cargill  -              By: Maurice Grant

Like Cameron and other field preachers, Cargill rejected compromises like the Indulgence (an interesting study would be to compare the Indulgences of the post-1660 Indulgences to today’s 501(c)(3) exemptions; warning: you will lose your job as an academician if you do so). They saw this as a concession of Christ’s royal prerogatives, not only to the state, but to a debauched and degenerate monarch.  Who ruled the Church?  Jesus or the State?    If the Erastian position is true, then any resistance to his ecclesiastical claims is in fact a resistance to his civil claims.   A conservative theorist can no longer simply say, “We will resist you in the ecclesiastical realm by spiritual weapons, but we won’t resist in the civil realm.”  The Erastian (quite consistently) sees no such distinction.

Resistance

If such was the opposition between church and state, then it is hard to avoid the outcome.  This is where I think Cargill was inconsistent.  He saw the issues as clearly as Cameron did (or even more clearly), but he refused to follow the applications like Cameron did.   At his trial, his Erastian accusers asserted that Cargill’s Melvillian 2-Kingdom view led to civil disobedience (and granting their premises, they were correct):  since the Crown was metaphysically one (cf. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies), any rejection of one aspect of its sovereignty, per Head of the Church, is in fact a rejection of the Crown entire.   As Grant notes, it is civil, not ecclesiastical disobedience.

Second issue:  Charles II had sworn to abide by the sanctions of the Solemn League & Covenant–he based his legitimacy on them (which covenants, the Word of God calls binding, Galatians 3:15).  He broke the covenants; therefore, he forfeited his legitimacy over Presbyterian Scotland.  It was on these grounds that Cameron took up arms (and on other legitimate grounds; lawful self-defense and defense of the helpless, which natural law says we can do [it’s so fun to appeal to natural law when it comes to resistance; critics of theonomy don’t know what to do with that! LOL]).  And since Charles’ troops were raping and murdering their way across Presbyterian Scotland, Cameron’s struggle was a limited, defensive war which had already been justified by Samuel Rutherford.

Cargill refused to follow Cameron on these principles, but I think Cameron was right.  Given the Crown’s metaphysical assumptions, it made no sense to plead for a partial resistance.  Given that the oaths that Charles II swore to implicitly called for his removal if he broke them, resistance was justified since the law implied that.

Notwithstanding, Cargill died well.  The book is well-written and the endnotes provide a gold mine of interesting information.   Interestingly, in this book Grant is quite critical of Cameron’s actions, but in Grant’s biography of Cameron written over a decade later, he tries to justify Cameron’s actions.

Advertisements
Posted in Book Review, Scottish Reformation | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In which I survey the theology blogs

I plan to get everybody angry on this one.

Reformed

Calvinist International.  Occasionally has some insightful pieces but tends to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% is a Van Tillian Rushdoonyite.  Here is my take on this “Reformed Humanism.” Okay, you guys know all this Latin (mine’s rusty, though the first words I ever spoke to my daughter were in Latin). Why don’t you put it to good use and translate Voetius and Rutherford?  That’s useful to the church.  Nobody cares about a 14,000 word essay on how the Reformed thinker Musilius collected the poetry of the Roman poet Orgius.

Heidelblog.  Clark elicits strong reactions.  I like him, though.  I think his site is a goldmine on Reformed resources, even if I disagree with his conclusions.

Old Life.  Hart is wrong on so many issues but he is also right from time to time.  Pay particular attention to his criticism of modern day Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholic.

Called to Communion.  I don’t frequent there that often, unless Perry Robinson is commenting.  I only mention them because they are a competent version of what Orthodox Bridge tries to be.  Their mission statement sort of made sense when you had popes like B16 and JPII.  It’s hilariously awful under Francis.

Eastern Orthodox

Energetic Processions.  Perry knows his stuff.  I owe a lot of my own debating and scholarly method to reading his interactions.  Reformed readers:  if you are ever in a debate on an EO board and Perry shows up, back out gracefully.  To quote Gandalf, “This foe is beyond any of you.”

Orthodox Bridge.  This is the EO knock-off of Catholic Answers.  The one thing it does right is show you what Orthodoxy (in its post-Nikonian, modern day American form) looks like.  If you want a detailed analysis, it’s worse than useless.

Posted in American Theology | 2 Comments

Review: Puritan Theology (Beeke and Jones)

Beeke, Joel.  and Jones, Mark.  Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life.  Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

This is one of those “game-changer” books.  Beeke provides decades of pastoral reflection from the Puritans (and admittedly, there is a lot of repetition) while Jones brings clear Christological reflection from giants like Thomas Goodwin and John Owen.  The book is structured around the standard loci.  While we perhaps would like more from some chapters, the overwhelming amount of primary sources, and the clear mastery of secondary literature, allows us to continue the research if necessary.

My review will reflect my biases and what I like to study.  That can’t be helped, otherwise an exegetical review of this book would take ten pages.  This book is a Christological masterpiece.  I learned more from the chapters on Christology than I did in my week-long seminary class on Christology.  I agree with Carl Trueman, this book is both doctrinal and devotional.

Christological Supralapsarianism

In regard to the end, Goodwin viewed mankind as unfallen in His election of human beings, but fallen in His decrees as the means to that end” (155).

“Means” — what Christ, as redeemer of God’s elect, performed for his people.  It has reference to Christ’s redemptive work, which presupposes a fall.

Key point: “whether God’s decree regarding both the end and the means was pitched ‘either wholly upon man considered in the mass of creability [potential human beings] afore the Fall, or wholly upon the mass of mankind considered and viewed first as fallen into sin” (Jones, quoting Goodwin 156).

The decree to elect falls under a twofold consideration: a) regarding the end, the fall was not a necessity…but an impediment; b) the decree to elect may be understood also with respect to man fallen, which God foresaw, as the means.

Election has reference to the end.  Here God decrees to give men eternal life without consideration of the fall.  But when we look at predestination, we view man as fallen.  Predestination involves the means to the end.

Covenants

While some have noted concern on the section of the Covenant of Works, the section on the Covenant of Redemption is fantastic. Differences between Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption

(1) CoR sprang from grace in both parties (Father and Christ), whereas the CoG sprang from grace only from the Father.
(2) Though both are everlasting, only the CoR is eternal.
(3) The parties in the CoR are equal; the parties in CoG (and CoW) are not.
(4) The parties differ in both covenants.
(5) There is no mediator in the CoR
(6) The promises of the New Covenant (such as a new heart and forgiveness of sins) cannot be applied to Christ.
(7) Christ was not threatened in the CoR, whereas those in the CoG are (Heb. 2.3; 1 Cor. 16.22).
(8) The conditions in each covenant differ.
(9) The CoR did not require man’s consent.

Taken from Patrick Gillespie, Ark of the Covenant Opened, 113-117, quoted in Beeke and Jones, 254.

On Coming to Christ

The chapter on preparationism, while correct in rebutting the “Calvin vs. Calvinists/Preparationists” thesis, didn’t quite address the reality of those covenant children  who hear the covenant promises from earliest days and trust in the Christ of these promises, yet don’t appear to go through the preparationist stages.  

Owen on Justification and Union

For Puritans like Owen and Goodwin, there is a Three fold union

Immanent: being elected in union with Christ from all eternity
Transient: union with Christ in time past; to wit, his mediatorial death and resurrection
Applicatory: experience of union in the present time.

Christ “apprehends” and gives his Spirit to the believer.

Owen: Christ is the first and principal grace in respect of causality and efficacy” (20:150). Union is the cause of the other graces.  It is the ground of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.  Such is the logical priority of union regarding justification.  The act whereby Christ unites himself to the elect is the same act whereby he regenerates them (3:464).

Witsius: the elect are united to Christ when his Spirit takes a hold of them and infuses a new principal of life.  Yet, there is a mutual union whereby the soul draws near to Christ by faith only.  From this follows the other benefits of the covenant of grace.

Charnock: justification gives us a right; regeneration gives us a fitness (3:90).

Conclusion

This review did not cover all, or even much of the book.  Indeed, it could not.  But not only does it encourage you to read the Puritans, it points one to a number of crucial studies on the Puritans.

Posted in Book Review, Puritanism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Owen Communion With God (Works 2)

My copy of Owen was from his Works, volume 2.  Nonetheless, this review will also serve for the shorter Puritan Paperbacks edition.  following the review is an outline on the book.

Owen gives us a dense, thorough, yet manageable snapshot, not only of Reformed prolegomena, but of Trinitarian piety as well. Given the current (if overblown) popularity of the YRR crowd–who know not Turretin nor his principia–yet strangely seek Owen, Owen can give them a taste of proper Reformed theologomena. In many ways, this can function as a primer to systematic theology. So here it goes:

Basic definitions:

communion: A mutual communication of such good things grounded upon some union (Owen, II:8). The person of Christ, as head of the Church, communicates grace to us via his Holy Spirit, to the members of his body. Our communion with God is his communication of himself to us, flowing from our union which we have in Christ. Our union with Christ is mystical and spiritual, not hypostatic (313). He is the Head, we the members and he freely communicates “grace, righteousness, and salvation, in the several and distinct ways whereby we are capable to receive them from him.”

Sealing the Union

Any act of sealing always imparts the character of the seal to the thing (242). Owen is clear: The Spirit really communicates the image of God unto us. “To have the stamp of the Holy Ghost…is to be sealed in the Spirit.”

This isn’t the most concise treatment of the issues, but Owen is quite fine in his own way. His writing is only difficult when he gets off topic (as in his otherwise fine Vindication of the Trinity at the end of the volume). Some in the YRR make it seem like Owen is borderline incomprehensible. He isn’t.

Short Outline:

  1. That the saints have communion with God
    1. Communion as to state and Communion as to condition
      1. Things internal and spiritual
      2. Outward things
    2. Communion fellowship and action.
    3. Definition:   A mutual communication of such good things grounded upon some union (Owen, II:8).  The person of Christ, as head of the Church, communicates grace to us via his Holy Spirit, to the members of his body. Our communion with God is his communication of himself to us, flowing from our union which we have in Christ.
  2. The saints have this communion with the Trinity.
    1. The way and means of this communion:
      1. Moral and worship of God: faith, hope, love.
        1. For the Father: He gives testimony and beareth witness to the Son (1 John 5.9).
        2. For the Son:
        3. For the Holy Spirit:
      2. The Persons communicate good things to us:
        1. Grace and peace (Rev. 1.4-5)
        2. The Father communicates all grace by way of original authority (Owen 17).
        3. The Son by way of making a purchased treasury (John 1.16; Isa. 53.10-11).
        4. The Spirit doth it by way of immediate efficacy (Rom. 8.11).
  3. Peculiar and Distinct Communion with the Father:
    1. Our communion with the Father is principialy and by way of eminence (18).
    2. There is a concurrence of actings and operations of the whole Deity in that dispensation, wherein each person concurs to the work of salvation.
    3. If we speak particularly of a person, it does not exclude other media of communion.
    4. God’s love (19).
      1. God’s love is antecedent to the purchase of Christ.
      2. The apostles particularly ascribe love to God the father (2 Cor. 13).
      3. Love itself is free and needs no intercession.  Jesus doesn’t even bother to pray that the Father will love his own (John 16.26-27).
      4. Twofold divine love
        1. Beneplaciti:  Love of good destination for us
        2. Amicitiae: love of friendship (21).
      5. The father is the fountain of all following gracious dispensations:
    5. Communion with the Father in love
      1. That they receive it of him
      2. That they make suitable returns unto him.
Posted in Book Review, Puritanism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Thomas Vincent on the Shorter catechism

This is the “unofficial” commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, having received imprimaturs from John Owen and Thomas Watson.  It differs from Watson’s in that it follows a more exegetical approach to the Catechism (though Watson’s is written with more verve). It is mildly polemical, as Vincent will take pains to show why the “Papist” or antinomian is wrong, but even then he doesn’t let himself be sidetracked.

After quoting a particular Q&A, Vincent will then ask several follow up questions and most of his answers are quotes from Scripture.  He is particularly strong on the doctrine of God, 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments, and the sacraments.  Some examples:

God’s substance is spirit. A spirit is an immaterial substance. God’s knowledge: “The wisdom of God is his essential property, whereby, by one simple and eternal act, he knoweth both himself and all possible things perfectly, and according to which he maketh, directeth, and ordereth all future things for his own glory” (29).

“A covenant is a mutual agreement and engagement, between two or more parties, to give or to do something” (51).  Vincent’s definition of covenant is superior to accoutns that try to define covenant as “a bond in blood.”  The Pactum Salutis made in eternity is bloodless, for example.

“God doth bring his elect into an estate of salvation in the way of his covenant” (68).  The covenant of grace was made with Christ and the elect as his seed (68).  Vincent rightly notes this is not the same covenant God made with Christ in eternity.

While the prose reflects the 17th century, Vincent’s writing is clear and to the point (though he never matches Watson).  This is a fine all-around volume to the catechism.

Posted in Book Review, Puritanism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Turretin volume 3

And so ends one of the two greatest works of Christian dogmatics. Turretin covers a number of issues that were existentially pressing for Protestants in the 17th century, both concerning salvation and persecution. From surveying the topics concerning the Church, Sacraments, and Eschaton, Turretin vindicates the calling of the Reformed ministers, the simplicity of the two sacraments, and the final hope in glory. Some highlights:

Was the Calling of the Reformers legitimate?

If ministers ought to be called, and we reject the Anabaptists who reject this, then were the Reformers legitimate ministers since they did not receive their call from an ordained ministry (in this case, the Roman Catholic Church)? Turretin makes a distinction between a church constituted and a church to be constituted (239). In a constituted church, we expect a call because we want to maintain good order. However, if we find ourselves in an area with no constituted church, granted it is an extreme example, no call is needed.

Turretin also represents the older, more robust view of the civil magistrate: Calling a Council

A godly magistrate can call a council, for magistrates are nurse-fathers to the church (Isa. 49:21-23, p. 308). Thesis: the pious and believing magistrate cannot and ought not to be excluded from all care of religion and sacred things, which has been enjoined upon him by God (316). Magistrates have a limited, not absolute sacred right.

Although the magistrate cannot compel belief, he is responsible to see that heretics are marginalized, although not executed. They can poison a nation just as thoroughly as an “external criminal.” However, Turretin makes a distinction between the ringleaders and those deceived. The latter shouldn’t really be punished. Turretin gives three propositions: Heretics can be coerced. Most heretics shouldn’t be executed. One may kill blasphemous arch-heretics (332).

Turretin gives a fine treatment on the beauty and simplicity of Reformed sacraments. Sign and thing signified: the sign is external and sensible (339). The signified thing is heavenly and invisible, in the soul, and communicated in a spiritual mode. The Form: analogy of relation (schesi). The thing promised is represented to our minds. There is a union between the sign and thing signified.

This is not easy reading but it is indispensable. We judge that Turretin should be a lifelong companion

Posted in Book Review, Scholasticism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Vos: Redemptive History, Biblical Interpretation

While a collection of individual essays, in many ways this is a coherent whole of Vos’s larger theology.  We can review the material around several themes: biblical theology, covenant, and eschatology.  While the prose is dense, and Vos does spend quite a bit of time dealing with dead Germans, there are numerous insights of biblical wisdom.

Biblical theology

The first feature of supernatural revelation is its historical progress (7).  God doesn’t communicate the calm light of eternity all at once. God’s self-revelation proceeds in a sequence of words and acts. “By imparting elements of knowledge in a divinely arranged sequence God has pointed out to us the way in which we might gradually grasp and know Him” (7). Revelation is interwoven and conditioned at every point by the redeeming activity of

Eschatology

The two ages are increasingly recognized as answering to two spheres of being which coexist from of old, so that the coming of the new age assumes the character of a revelation and extension of the supernal order of things (28). Contrary to Platonism, where there is an ideal first and a physical (and probably inferior) copy later, Paul’s resurrection thought places the pneumatikon last, not first.

Covenant

His essay on the Covenant in Reformed Theology is worth the price of the book. The covenant idea dominates the work of redemption.  Is this the equivalent of positing a central dogma?  Maybe, but so what if it is?  The question is whether it is correct or not. The work of salvation corresponds to the unfolding of the covenant and proceeds in a covenantal way. The CoR is the pattern for the CoG. Covenantal relation unfolds as the essence of the riches of the ordo. Image of God in man: for the Reformed image is not identified with the moral qualities of the soul.

Nota Bene

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is Vos’s exegesis of Romans 1:3-4, which overturns older manuals.  Vos argues this can’t refer to two existing states in the constitution of the Messiah, but rather to two eschatological modes (104). The two prepositional phrases have adverbial force: they describe the mode of the process. The resurrection is a new status of Sonship.  Of course, Vos isn’t denying the two natures of Christ, perish the thought.  Rather, he is suggesting that such isn’t what this passage is teaching.

Problem with the older view: it has to restrict σαρξ to the body, because Spirit is already psychologically conceived and thus takes the place of the immaterial element.  Yet, this is the Apollinarian heresy. Secondly, it is compelled to take the κατα clauses in two different senses.

Conclusion:

Like all of Vos’s work, this is difficult, but it repays careful reading.

Posted in Book Review, Eschatology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Intro notes to Bahnsen

One of my goals this summer was to do an analytical outline to Bahnsen’s Van Til reader.  That demands more energy than time left in the summer.  But I didn’t want the project to hang suspended between heaven and earth, so here you go.  Maybe this will help some seminarian or licensiate.

Van Til’s Metaphysics (58)

  1. Ontological, self-contained Trinity
  2. Predestinating eternal counsel
  3. Creation is the origin of all temporal facts
  4. Providence
  5. Miracles

Covenantal Knowing

The unbeliever knows God in unbelief and covenantal curse (42).  The covenant shapes everything.  In all things, all created facts, man is brought face-to-face with God.  There are only two types of men in the world: covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers (Bahnsen 66, CVT: Apologetics, 25ff).

Chapter 2: The Task of Apologetics

  1. Apologetics defends Christianity as a whole (Bahnsen 34).
    1. “To interpret a fact of history involves a philosophy of history,” but that involves a metaphysics (CVT: Apologetics, 23-24).
    2. Systematic Theology is necessary:  organizes our thoughts into an organic whole.  (JA: One could really develop some Vosian themes).
  2. We can’t make absolute separations between apologetics, evangelism, and theology.  Paul refuses to do so in Acts 17.
  3. The Aim of Apologetics:
    1. The Gospel as intellectual challenge.  1 Corinthians asserts the bankruptcy of Greek thought.

Chapter 3: A Simple Summary and Illustration

  1. Apologetics as a conflict between final authorities.
    1. Our reasoning is itself an ethical matter (Bahnsen 90).
    2. We all use some ultimate standard.  
      1. Not only do we say that reason isn’t neutral.  Appealing to reason is simply appealing to an abstraction.
      2. Who authorizes God’s authority (95)?  
  2. Implicit clash of worldviews (101).
  3. Refutation of the unbeliever’s presuppositions. We must remove the foundation of the unbeliever’s argument (108).

Chapter 4: The Epistemological Side of Apologetics

  1. Apologetics as epistemological disagreement.  We cannot appeal to “reason” since reason in the abstract doesn’t exist.  
    1. Epistemology is ethical in character: either we know as covenant-keepers or we know as covenant-breakers.
    2. Different theories of truth:
      1. Correspondence: usually emphasizes that the world is made of separate and discontinuous things. Thinking occurs in the mind (147). The problem is explaining how independent minds “correspond” with independently existing objects outside the mind.
      2. Coherence: usually emphasizes world as unity (of more or lesser degree).  Thinking as itself is the mind. The problem, however, is how a finite mind can have a wide enough system to include all (or a lot) of reality.
      3. The problem isn’t simply coherentism vs. correspondence.  You will find both covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers on both sides
      4. Van Til passage from Survey:
        1. Contra the Greeks, the idea of creation implies a certain concept of “being” and a certain concept of “becoming.”
        2. Eve in the garden: by not being committed to God intellectually from the outset, she granted Satan “equal ultimacy” (CVT 152).  To borrow the language of Heidegger, Even was already “thrown” (Geworfenheit) into a realm where God was ultimate.  It was sin to think otherwise.
      5. Van Til passage from Defense (154).
        1. We always deal with concrete individual men.  They are sinners.  They have an axe to grind.
        2. The work of Christ:  Christ’s work as priest, king, and prophet organically relates (157).
  2. Knowing as having belief, truth, and evidence.
Posted in Apologetics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On why I never became Arminian…

Just browsing through some google searches on audio lectures by certain syngergist philosophers and the search results brought up several Arminian pages.  Everyone was framed on “why I am not a Calvinist.”  Fair enough, I suppose, and I have my own problems with high Calvinism, but if I were wanting to leave Calvinism, I would leave it.  I wouldn’t keep bringing it up.  Kind of like Atheists with God and Vegans with everything.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Something happened the ring did not expect (Putin)

I wrote this article five or six years ago, but I will update it via prefatory remarks.  Had Putin not intervened in Syria, Assad would have fallen and ISIS/moderate rebels (and a moderate rebel is just a jihadi who hasn’t yet uploaded his beheading video) would have butchered Christians and Shi’ites.

Globalism died in the sands of Aleppo and we have Putin to thank, praise be to Thee, O Christ!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One has to be careful with “conspiritorial” views of history.  It’s not that they are wrong-headed, but that given the nature of the case there is so much information that “just can’t be known.”   Theologians who stand in traditionalist schools of thought (some Catholics, some Orthodox, maybe one or two Evangelicals) usually have a better angle on conspiracy history than the average “pop news” watcher.   These theologians have some training in writing, have read and interacted with numerous footnoted and scholarly peer-reviewed books, and given the nature of their reading, and reading in general, they don’t have time to watch TV (which means they miss out or ignore what Fox News says).

Yes, the above title is a reference to the Lord of the Rings, particularly the movie version of the Fellowship…The Ring didn’t expect to be found by a Hobbit.    The title represents another problem with conspiracy views–the unexpected often happens, and when this does, it shatters paradigms.

While it’s a controversial thesis, it seriously cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-American bankers, particularly the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, have orchestrated European politics for over 100 years.  The Rothschilds–with their Jewish agents in Thessaloniki– were behind the Armenian genocide of 1915.  Some scholarship has been done on the connection between London/New York bankers and the rise of the Bolshevieks.   Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks became too powerful, the Regime needed a counter-weight, and they found one in the person of Adolf Hitler.

Unfortunately…well, the rest is history.    The West became entangled in one huge dialectic–it was social engineering at its finest.   When the Nazis were able to place key individuals in the “freedom-loving West,” essentially turning America into a military-industrial complex, the only entity powerful enough to stop them was Soviet Russia.  Not really a happy array of choices.  This is social dialectic at its starkest.

The bankers themselves weren’t too bothered.   They were able to heavily invest in Soviet infrastructure.

I suppose even the most ardent socialist saw the coming demise of the USSR.  However, given that Marxism and capitalism share the same root presuppositions, and that these economic forces control the Western countries (if you doubt that, google which entity contributed both to McCain and Obama’s campaign.  When you are done, get back to me…), the fall of socialism presented no real problem to these elites.   In fact, given there was no strong leadership in Russia, it was now possible to siphon trillions of dollars of Russian capital back to the West via Harvard university, the Carnegie Institutes, and others.   Given that Yeltsin was a dying alcoholic, and that the Russo-Jewish mafia controlled Russia, the game went on as before.

But something happened which the ring did not expect.   One of Yeltsin’s last moves to was appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor.   Putin was not Yeltsin.  Putin had his training in the security services.   Long story short, Putin marginalized the Jewish Mafia in Russia, rebuilt the military, and was able to capitalize on Russia’s nigh-infinite oil reserves.  In short, he brought Russia from a Third World Country to a First World Country in fewer than ten years.

Unfortunately for the Regime, Putin is a nationalist.  While his Orthodoxy is not always perfect, and he has compromised on some issues, Russia has began a slow revival under Putin (and the Moscow Patriarchate).  Putin’s moves have blocked the Regime in countless ways.  The most obvious is when Putin prevented an Israeli-trained Georgian army from ethnically cleansing Russian citizens in South Ossetia.

Few realize just how major this was.   For the first time in ten years, NATO-inspired military interests were stopped cold.   America was clearly not in a position to react.   Secondly, after the debacle in Kosovo in 1999 the Russian army demonstrated it could respond to highly sophisticated threats.    For Americans, this meant that the Regime would wait a little longer before sending American boys to die in Iran (some suggest that Putin’s moves in Ossetia delayed a Zionist war against Iran).

I know there are some in the extreme “white nationalist” camp who think that Putin is a Zionist stooge and Putin supporters like Daniel Estulin are simply Zionists front-men.   Besides questioning their IQ, I don’t know really what to say.  If Putin were really a Zionist front-man, why has he been consistently thwarting Zionist designs?  Further, for those who still think Putin is a front-man for the New World Order, why did the Bilderbergers try to kill him?

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 2 Comments