Dealing With The Problems of Losing Wars

There is a difficulty which occurs, when the enemy invades and oppressed, and then says, ‘you have only yourself to blame.’  Dreher, baptised a Methodist, now a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, of course likes to play with this approach in his current blackface mode: What a wonderful thing to teach Black people – they are to blame for invasion and capture.

But it also works on Southerners, Germans, the Irish, Afrikaners, etc.  The actual reason for your unhappiness, is failure to kill individuals descended from Britain – Welsh corgies brought along in little cages count in this regard – but instead the Anglican church will tell you:  it is because you are a sinner.  You are full of lusts (if you are male).  You are lazy.  You covet.  Etc.

Of course, one must assess, why ‘the war’ was lost.  And, indeed, in the Black case, it was not an actual war, but so far as I can tell, the initial problem nine times out of ten, is that ancestral relatives sold other ancestral relatives into slavery.  Then the Russians decided to fill Africa with Communist propaganda, while back home, white Protestants of all stripes created wonderful government programmes designed to encourage black women to have children in poverty and get them smoking crack.  If there were features in the Black constitution that allowed for all this, still the ultimate meaning is not entirely clear.

Dreher may be more familiar with what typical Black responses to all this are.  To my mind, there are simply questions about what is meant by ‘blaming others.’  How much good does this do, anyway?  Others must be compelled to offer rectification with the sword.  There is no other means.  It has simply been found to be in the interests of elderly whites, to create a culture of white guilt and suggesting sacrifice of the lives of young whites, for the sake of Blacks.

Is blame the problem, or wrong blame?  Why blame the Southerner, when Russia and the Democrat North, has been 10,000 times worse?  The thought is simply in, ‘what is the profit in blaming Democrats?  How does this provide more government subsidy?’  And how can Russia as such be blamed, when Russian technology is classified?  Also the situation is now, simply out of hand, by about 900 million Africans.  …Obviously wrong blame is a problem, but this still tells us little about blame as such.

One may wish for revenge, but again one must remember – one cannot use words to convince the enemy, to enact revenge upon himself.  This is confusing as revenge feels like a holy issue, that all would feel the divine power and its need for Justice.  Still vengeance is almost always a matter of organising one’s own group, to demand redress, e.g. as Hitler demanded redress after French invasion and occupation (and war penalties).

The Africans calls our deeds ‘crimes,’ but we say they were part of civilizing, or of a state of nature.  To wait for an admission of guilt on the part of whites, is absurd.  It is a question of military positions.  Historically, the military position has favoured entirely, the white side, but the Soviets broke off from civilization….  I cannot say what the situation is now, but one supposes, the white leaders would have planned to maintain superiority, indefinitely.

With the war between whites, it is a different matter, and we see a new organising emerging under French leadership.  Napoleon’s goal of isolating the British, returns.  What the effects within America will be, are not clear.


Vengeance is a holy task, not to be surrendered.  Vengeance inscribes the Law of morality.  As Kant puts it – even if society were about to disbanded, we must execute the prisoners on death row, for the sake of possible future societies.

This has long been understood and that is why also, religion offers an escape from vengeance.  Central to the Christian Church, especially, is the forgiveness of sins.  However, there is as such, no way to forgive sins against the Italian family. 🙂  It is magnanimous to forgive slights against oneself, but to presumptuously forgive grave slights against family members, is mere neglect of duty.

‘These folks — like their counterparts on the Left, and like all of us — live in a culture that no longer rewards patience, restraint, honor, humility, and self-sacrifice. Instead, it rewards and encourages exactly the opposite, and catechizes citizens to believe that anything that’s wrong in their lives is the fault of somebody else. In a culture like what we have become, can’t you see why peacemakers like Franklin would despair?’  Our culture is no way, encourage any white male to believe, others could be the cause of his problem.  There is further a very limited sense, in which younger white females are encouraged to believe that others – even their elderly rapists who looked at the exposed clothing Dreher bemoans – are the cause of their problems.  Everywhere our culture teaches nothing but patience, ‘putting up with it,’ not rocking the boat, being PC, etc.  This has been the historical norm in America for some time, excluding that the idea of ‘PC’ is of a more recent vintage.

There is then a question here of:  what is the given of sociological data?  How can we even discuss with someone such as Dreher, when he seems to live in an alternate historical reality?

If the younger white does not start to realise, her elders are to blame, there is no hope whatsoever for the future of the West.  The younger is always the future.  The interests of the elderly, are always mere private, past.  Still there is very little taught to young white women any longer, other than what Dreher suggests, women’s situation is to be blamed on males, or that, more neutrally, women are to benefit from the Establishment and its system of codified legal preferences for white females.  Regarding younger white males, there is only, indeed, Identity.

‘A reader of this blog read Mark Lilla’s new book urging his fellow liberals to abandon identity politics in favor of a politics of solidarity. “Never going to happen,” he e-mailed last night. “The Left is as tied to the boat anchor of Identity politics as the Right.”

Yep. It’s where all the passion is. This afternoon, I watched a well-informed conservative DC pundit on TV saying that Capitol Hill is crawling with Republican members of Congress who are disgusted by President Trump’s words and behavior, but who don’t dare to speak out because they are afraid of their own voters back home punishing them with primary challenges from the Right.

This can’t last. This won’t last. Something’s got to give.’

I do not want to comment on the sociological nullity that Dreher imagines.  I am quite honestly, not familiar with what Donald Trump has actually said, and question whether he actually did say anything.  Still there are more long-standing issues of identity present.  The old do not require identity, but only capital.  A person concerned instead, to have a child and to gain from this, requires a notion of identity.  Dreher’s culture, however, is both one of abortion and of Northern WASP identity, i.e. what will automatically remain even after the great works of the West have been deleted to make way for ‘multiculturalism.’  Thus Anglican and Methodist are not merely figures of tying their own identity to a lost elderly world of capital (abolitionism), but of suppressing other white identities.

Here I would wonder if a WASP such as Richard Spencer is anything but a clown, designed to blacken the notion of white identity politics?  Yet WASP hand must wash WASP hand, and so alongside Spencer, there is Dreher.



Your Identity is Controlled by the Government

It is in many ways, obvious, the government determines your legal age, etc.  Does it not issue you, government identification papers?  Who else, then, could control this?  Yet the matter is more complex, as if you will remember, prior to driving a car, you did not necessarily have a government identification card.  And to receive one of these, most likely you had to supply, a notarised hospital birth-certificate.  This leads to the notion, somehow identity is a ‘free market’ issue, even a ‘Church’ one, if the hospitals have a religious affiliation.  Is identity not determined, by a network of non-governmental hospitals?

The fallacy here is obvious.  The government not only sets the procedure for issuing documents – no one forces it to rely upon hospitals – also it set the procedure of simply not checking when fraudulent documents are provided (i.e., as accompanied by a small payment to the Church, or the CIA, etc….).  And then further, not only in issuing identity papers, but also in assigning students grade-levels at public schools, government control 99% of the show.  This is not a free market operation.

Thus we have to think carefully when libertarians such as Jefferey Tucker and Lew Rockwell suggests, the Roman Catholic Church can play an ordering role in free-market anarchy.  How could the Church censor and control, if there are so many sources of information and law available?  Etc.  Libertarianism would be a new freedom.

There is a suggestion with the idea of reliance upon the Church, of a frame of libertarianism.  Certain events and phenomena we constructively place outside the frame of our discussion as unnecessary to mention, even if privately we believe in them, e.g. we do not argue, prayer violates property rights at can involve non-consensual influence across property borders as mediated by angels or God….  In a similar way, it seems to me that libertarians such as Tucker deem certain kinds of CIA activity, to be simply something we do not discuss.  He calls for libertarianism regarding the things we do discuss, but not regarding the matters we do not:  this kind of secret coercion can go on, the suggestion I think being – thru the Church.

Obviously, of which I cannot speak, I do not – and so allow for coercion there.  Yet it is in fact possible to point out, identification papers fraud would be much less possible under libertarianism, Church involvement or no.  We are unlikely to believe the lies, without the authority of government behind them – not to mention, its wide-ranging police powers of censorship.

Now we are slaves of government – specifically, Allied government, which of course historically involves Communism – and do not even know what freedom is.  In turning to the Church to manage the freed slaves, one either offers the lie of a restricted frame of discussion, in essence simply calling for shadow government while pretending to call for anarchy. Or else one asks the Church to do, what it cannot do.  It cannot be a new censor, of the order of the old censor….

A hidden call for shadow government is un-acceptable.  If we need government, then its nature must be visible.  It is clear to all, our government is a feminist, Brythonic, and Communist creature, based in Zionism.  If some matters are beyond discussion, still there has to be a way of selecting a government for inevitably-needed coercion, that is a government that matches ones own values.  So, my argument here has anti-anarchist import:  the needs for collective identity, one might think, cannot be done away with.  Politics continues.  We need the State.  Or at least – it is very hard to get rid of….

Control of hidden coercion – this is the only important political issue of our times. 


I do not then say anarchy is impossible.  De-centralisation remains a worthy goal.  If we could simply return decisions about control of police powers, etc., to a more local level, the decisions more adequately meet the needs of the people, and there would be more pluralism and more appealing choices for wanderers.

As it is, in America we are more or less stuck with rule by the needs of the dwindling Anglo-Saxon-Celtic, Protestant minority population. (And I ought to point out that in these matters, falling away from the faith or converting to Catholicism, plays no role – it is a question of an ethnicity and of demands of early family life).  Central to their claims have been two wars on Germany, which somehow they managed to turn into wars on the Catholic population of America, and on the Dutch and the Scandinavians.  Yet this is the situation we have, where Catholic Presidents are simply – shot dead.  Etc.

The Church’s response has largely been that of rolling over, ‘we can be like the Protestants too,’ etc.  The Church has had many problems since 1942, as at least in Italy, it seems to have felt, Axis victory is likely.  The role of Jews and of Russia, then, is not one it readily can understand – so too, the role of ‘journalists.’  …This is not the time to explore all these matters, and I merely point out, the reality of oppression by a mongrel group descended from the British Isles and organised by the Anglican and Methodist churches.  Through American foreign policy, this monolith influence is international, and allies itself with invasion of the Boer, the Chinese, and the Germans, while never firing a shot against the Russians.  Responses are then diverse in character, being not only Catholic, but also Dutch, Reformed, Chinese, Lutheran, German, Scandinavian, etc. Also French, re the Brexit affair.  Still there is enormous power present in D.C. and in Langley, and in the Episcopal Church, regarding how hidden coercion precedes, not only on American soil, but also in, e.g., CIA detainment of foreign nationals in foreign lands….

There must be decentralisation, including the ending of monolithic American power structures on the international scene, but ultimately, there must be wise choices for leadership in the units of governmental power that remain.  Politics will continue.

Today, the wealthy elderly of Germany, have found a friend in Protestant, Anglo-America.  A new politics, then, most not only question the viability of Protestant family life such as it has hitherto existed – when it has – but address once more, our stance toward capital accumulation and living on past the age of 50.





‘Conservatism is the Negation of Ideology’

In the world of the Internet, ‘conservatism’ has its draw.  The human being is able to consider an amazing variety of political and spiritual stances as potentially attractive.  How many then think, perhaps they will gain by taking up a ‘conservative’ philosophy?  However, here I approach ‘conservatism’ as something, already cast aside.  In INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT, I offer some critiques of ‘white nationalism’ and American nationalism.  Still I consider myself more of a nationalist than a conservative.  ‘The white race’ and America, are not the only nations available….  Then too in ‘Pragmatic Libertarianism,’ I argue for libertarianism rather than ‘conservatism.’  And ultimately, doctrines of equality draw me much more than conservatism.  I think few must truly believe, equality is the highest political value, yet still there is a tendency on the Left to have it as being, practically speaking, a goal above which there is no other.  Here is another case where my objections are of means than of goals.  I am hardly a ‘conservative.’

We all have to think about what is wrong and what is right in conservatism. And then there is a tendency to keep thinking about this, for those of us who do not accept any of the main competing systems – Marxism, internationalist reformist-socialism (e.g., Bernstein), natural-rights libertarianism (Rand, Rothbard, the Libertarian Party), etc.  But what is ‘conservatism’?  It seems it can be defined in various ways, although I do not know how we would understand it if we do not look to Burke and Kirk.  Then with Kirk, there is a notion of conservatism as ‘the negation of ideology.’

This is a view of conservatism as sceptical in character. but also as potentially pietistic.  It is Burkean, but also Humean.  This says, do not trust ‘systems.’  Obviously, this is a thought very appeal for, well, dumb people.  People who cannot quite figure things out.  And, indeed, those systems can be tricky.  No, let us not forget Socrates, ‘I know that I do not know.’  It is hard to know, the Form of the State, even if too, there is a need to separate simple inability to get started with Philosophy, from a more seasoned scepticism.

The trick, here, though, is to cast Roman Catholicism as somehow being other than ‘ideology.’  It must be a matter of the heart, no?  Yet considering the history of the Church, one sees it is a history of ideas.  One simply has to decide what is true, and in what way.  Specific claims are offered, e.g., concerning the fallibility of the Pope.  …Then with the Protestant traditions, it is just the same situation.  Either faith in Christ is judged sufficient for salvation, or else one leaves Christianity and looks to something else.  These are not mere matters of feeling.  Cognitive judgment is involved.  Then there are competing systems, e.g. Neoplatonism seems to teach a need to learn to techniques to rise spiritually toward the One.  That is not what Martin Luther claims.

Conservatism seems, then, less a negation of ideology than a movement founded above all else, in Idea.  Conservatism as a political force, has been little apart from thought of a divine ideal, a metaphysical realm.  It opposes itself to those who are sceptical of the spiritual world, and cling to matter.  On the other hand, there is the Sceptic philosophy, which says to follow custom and tradition when one does not think one knows.  Socrates claims the same.  Perhaps, then, it is merely that Kirk’s point is not well put?  Tradition, after all, is in part about spiritual matters.  Is the thought of ‘ideology’ in Kirk, not a thought of non-traditional systems of ideas?  It is a non-standard use of the term.  Still, for our purposes, ‘conservatism’ is not ‘the negation of ideology.’  It is a politics of the Spirit, centered on scepticism toward non-traditional and non-tested ways of proceeding.  Capitalism precedes the welfare state; it is more tested.  (On the other hand, there are different forms of capitalism I cannot see how what we experience, is any more ‘tested’ for positive results, than socialism….  But as I say, I am not a conservative.)

Cultural Marxism

William Lind, in ‘The Poison and the Antidote,’ offers us an historical account masquarading as discussion of contemporary American politics:

What is first of all not understood here, is that there has been a dialectic leading from Horkheimer, not to Marcuse – a figure with whom I am barely familiar apart from his calls to censor Gentiles in the name of ‘liberalism’ – but to Jacques Derrida.  Then as I argued at length in my Vrije Universiteit scriptie, ‘Ghostwriting:  Derrida’ Spectral Ethics,’ Derrida pursues the notion of ideology to deconstruct the equality focus of Marxism.  Thus in honoring a mere spirit of Marx, we find that the spirit of the volk speaks against Marxism.  ‘Ideology,’ understood with Marx as the ideas of society not developing from the material from a supposed Higher source, is not the bane of healthy politics, but its source.  To allow spirit to return, with Horkheimer, is inevitably to allow politics of ‘blood and iron’ to counter the call for equality.  Then a new harmony must emerge.

Horkheimer, then, was a true ‘Critic’ of Marxism!

On the other hand, Lind is correct in claiming culture to be opened as a new plane of combat, as never before.  After Wiener, the 1950’s are a new cybernetic era of information interaction, Soviet and Western Communist fighting together against British and post-Nazi alienation.  Caught in the crossfire here are the devout Christians, who essentially are now cast as lambs in the lion show.

Horkheimer and Adorno play a role in all of this, and the conservatives insist, Marcuse did as well – though how we would verify the historical claim is a bit unclear to me.  Then too when Lind claims, somehow the 1960’s culture was an ‘effect’ of the Frankfurt School, I must profess, I am rather sceptical.  Might there not have been other causes, such as Soviets repeatedly pulling off and re-attaching East German limbs?  I am not seeing the great divide between the Frankfurt School and Moscow that Lind suggests, apart from this point I have made, Horkheimer struggled with himself and unwittingly deconstructs his own project, in his own brilliant way.  As with the Cultural Revolution, also Muscovite Leninist culture has been focused on reshaping the subject to be the new, de-alienated worker in whom there are ‘no division.’  These are ideas straight out of Marx.  The Soviet merely add some finishing touches involving electrodes and unpleasant chemicals.

Alas, here in America, all they had to work with was the TV set – but is that not more effective in the end?


It is reasonable to speak of ‘Cultural Marxism,’ yet I would reject the idea, it is not Marxism.  However, I have said, it leads to the end of Marxism, and in this way, the cultural turn is good….  To dwell on culture, inevitably leads the German to consider the ‘thinking, dwelling, living’ that Heidegger discusses.  With culture, there is distinction, not only the rude beginnings of primitive man, and there is a possibility of saying, a given person is not equal to the task of representing the tribe.  With culture, there are norms.  Norms do not have to be moral in character.  Also they can be aesthetic.  Culture is pure distinction, inequality.

Equality and inequality must exist in a happy medium, which has been understood by many, whether we look to Edmund Burke or Charles Fourier.  Marxism is the corruption of socialism, not merely the foe of ‘conservatism.’  Then as a corruption, it does show the kind of continuity that Lind suggests!  It is merely, we ought not actually talk about what happens apart from Cultural Marxist, as being Cultural Marxism.  The continuity is in an ideal of corruption, nothing more.  The strategy is to turn, a call for equality, into a strategy for inequality.  The inequality may be that of the Politburo, or American government-managed capitalism.  The substance is corruption.

The Democrats of the 1960’s, are in general, no Cultural Marxists, and they get their ‘inspiration,’ as much from Moscow as New York or the Pacific Palisades.  Then too there are many other sources for ideas present.  One cannot pretend, reaction to the nuclear bomb, is an effect of Marxism.  Often, it is the reverse.

There is no simple story regarding Cultural Marxism to tell.  The Center-Left uses various strategies of halting movement toward economic equality and halting movement toward the future:  all base themselves in attacking younger white generations, whether through direct child abuse or simply leaving on a TV in their rooms.  Marcuse plays only a very limited role here, apart from his advocacy of censorship along Zionist-feminist lines.


The Center-Left and the Soviet Left have movements of abortion and child-battery, of ending the world in 1966, at the height of Israeli and Soviet power.  My question for Lind would be: how has American ‘conservatism’ been any different?  Was it ‘cultural Marxism’ that convinced Reagan, to turn Los Angeles into North Mexico, while the other neoconservatives cheered from the National Review, etc.?  Was it ‘cultural Marxism,’ that convinced the fundamentalist Christian to bash his young ‘Russian’ child near to death, throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s?  Was it ‘cultural Marxism,’ that encourages conservatives to further a capitalist culture of corporate malfeasance and subsidy from government?

Nationalism is necessarily future-oriented, concerned then for the younger.  The American ‘paleoconservative’ has ties to nationalism and has taken steps to preserve useful feature of institutions, e.g. maintaining logical rigour in approaching Christian tradition.  Still the surrenders to government and corporate lie, are vast beyond belief.

Would it not be better to see the fundamentalist, whipping his son in the street, rather than living with the ‘soft’ world of cane attacks on the bottom of the foot, etc.?  Many paleos have more or less abandoned the public world, and try to avoid complicity (but perhaps not a toxic fundamentalist culture…).  Others, though, we must fear, further illusion, in a manner indistinguishable from the lie of ‘Cultural Marxism.’

Likewise, we must ask, whether the ‘conservative’ use of the State, is any better than Center-Left use?  Is the problem not simply, that there are no good leaders after Stalin and Churchill kill or banish them all?  How then can we have, useful large government?  Only if first, there is a new leadership.  The people tend to continue on with their ‘idiocy’ of trying to meet moral norms, thinking about the future, etc., unless omnipotent government comes along to share with them, the importance of abortion and child-killing.  Unless one is going to claim, the plan of Government we have seen since 1942, is a good and useful plan – and not a plan of the 1% that it obviously is – then there seems to be only two sides present:  a good libertarian one, and a bad, non-libertarian one.  The counter-argument is less that government’s destruction of life is good, as that government is just too powerful to stop.  No longer a moral argument, but an argument about strategy and tactics.  Possibly then one will want to say to the libertarian:  hang it up, as well all must.  Politics is over.


Lind seems to align with this kind of thinking in discussing ‘retroculture.’  Now however I have to ask, what the purpose of setting a 1950’s ‘example’ is?  Were the 1950’s not a period of bestial Soviet power, where England and America gloat over conquering Germany with the help of their Communist friends?  Is it not a period where Harry Truman commits the United States, to the maintenance of the State of Israel, and oppression of Muslim peoples in the Middle East?  Then already we have discussed its ties to ‘Biblical’ procedures of child-sacrifice, paralleling also many of the accounts of Jewish living from the Dead Sea Scrolls. What are American conservatism and Cultural Marxism, but two sides of one Gnostic Judaism?

Lind suggests the 50’s are accessible. That is because he lived through them.  Personally, I find the thought of them makes me throw up, and history is a story leading up to 1944 and starting again circa 1978.  In between, there is just a big black spot of Israeli culture.  Fine if that’s how you want to live, but, indeed, I find the 18th and 19th centuries more ‘accessible’ – not to mention, more human!  Yet I am not going to parade around in 19th century dress.  And I am not going to kill myself doing the incredibly boring things that Lind suggests, such as visiting the facilities that Americans call ‘art museums,’ or listening to conservatives tell their abysmal lies regarding their children in ‘family time.’  I am not going to try to live in a way suitable for an environment, that America and Britain destroyed through its alliance with Communism.  That environment is gone, and the old ways, no longer function.

I have no interest in classic cars….  What I would like is to be able to hear new rock music, or read a new ‘counter cultural’ book, that has not been censored by omnipotent government.  Simply because the censorship is the result of a government programme, not labelled as ‘the censor office,’ does not make it any less, government censorship.  If the programme was approved by Mr. Conservative trying to protect his children, ever so young and in need of guidance through his Wisdom – that does make it any less, government censorship.

I agree with the notion of turning off the TV set, but beyond this:  until American ‘conservatives’ settle on having one highest goal, that of ending the the U.S. Federal government and returning to de facto separate nation-states, there is nothing to talk about.







Are Humans Created Equal?

I do not wish to discuss any longer, the fake media reports which emerge from the presses.  It is not a case of a fake media vs. an ‘alternative’ press, but of two groups, equally committed to lie, one to lies of feminism, the other to lies of a ‘Jack Donovan,’ ‘Way of Men,’ antidote – which never as such challenges the core of deviant feminism, which is lie.

Quite simply – enough of American political debate.  It is not so much ‘garbage in, garbage out’ – although that is close to the truth – but simply, ‘nothing in, garbage out.’  There is no way at all to verify media reports, in 9 out of 10 cases.

Still I see out there, arguments concerning timeless or historical matters….  A debate now rages concerning the Christian religion, where well-known theologians such as Rod Dreher and Mona Charen now deign to clarify for us, the inner essence of Christian religion.  Concerning these matters I feel I might offer a few words.

Dreher’s Column:

Commentary from Tom Piatak:


The argument then, is, all men are created equal as all men are created in the likeness of God.  Is that not what makes us human beings in the first place?  Still, it obviously does not follow logically, if all men are created in the likeness of God, all are equal.  There could readily be additional factors counting for worth besides this basic of being made in the image of God.

I am not certain whether Dreher has read the Bible, but the discussion of the original Garden of Eden where all was well, soon gives way to an account of sin and The Fall, where – last I checked – the normal Protestant view is that the human soul and much of the rest of creation, becomes totally corrupt.  So, yes, true dat Dreher, originally it was going good, but then, yeah – some problems.  These may have disrupted equality.

The men who founded this country and ran it for most of its life, almost all believed in one key teaching: predestination.  Even Lincoln, who does not even seem a Christian, seems to place great store in this doctrine.  It was not till 1877 and Rutherford Hayes, that this country even had Methodist in office, although of course, it was possible earlier, more Deist presidents rejected predestination in a fashion similar to what is typical of the Methodist church.  In any case, the leaders of America were strongly influenced by Martin Luther and John Calvin, and most were members of Protestant churches teaching the doctrine of divine election.  Whether one takes a supralapsarian or infralapsarian position – there is an idea of creation, fall, and predestination of some but not others, all as occurring before the beginning of time.  The traditional teaching, then, is that before the beginning of time, some are saved and other damned.  Not equal.  It is a mere question of rhetoric, when one wishes to see ‘creation’ as stopping and ‘the managing of creation’ beginning.  But to offer, ‘all men are created equal,’ while believing some are saved and others damned from the beginning of time – that is not something one can do.  That is an absurd contradiction of rhetoric, no matter how one looks at it.

No, Mr. Dreher, the Declaration is not Christian, it is anti-Christian.  And as Piatak points out, it is not a foundation for our Constitutional order.  It is merely Jefferson’s badly put point, there is no divine right of kings.