No, he's not anti-Christian. He works very closely with Michael O'Fallon of Sovereign Nations (see yt channel), for example. He is anti-"Christian Nationalism" (as we all should be, IMO). Lindsay is personally agnostic the last I heard. He is an old school liberal; his beef was partly that no persons should destroy the property of others (regardless of either's religion), but more particulalry that the left is baiting Christians into violence in order to justify "the rising danger of Christian Nationalism" and thus get gov support to crack down on it -- and all Christians would fall into that dragnet. An attack like that is giving the left exactly the ammunition they want. "The real action is your target's reaction."

Lindsay is not a Christian, so is not exactly an "ally" but is certainly what Francis Schaeffer called a "co-belligerent" against the forces of collectivism / the modern "woke" who are explicitly anti-liberal (as in classical liberalism).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I would argue that he is then controlled opposition, if you seriously have a problem with a literal satanic statue being errected in the capitol maybe you should question whether or not you are even christian or just a bible thumper ready to hand off the entire generation to a bunch of violent pedophiles

Well, I've been listening to and reading his work for a few years now, and I don't think he's controlled opposition. He has done more to expose how the CRT movement has (or is trying to) infect the church than most theologians. His fit was less ideological than it was tactical/strategic. He is more strongly opposed to ESG, DEI, and the LGBTQ agenda than some popular "conservative Christians" I know, too. It's not that he's OK with statues to Satan (he definitely isn't--listen to the last few of his podcasts) it's that the left is baiting Christians into violence and that's exactly what they want us to do. They're trying to build a narrative that Christians *in general* are violent, "domestic terrorists" and we must be surveilled and curtailed. We don't want that. We must object to Satanic sculptures, obviously, but as peaceful pilgrims using legal avenues--not as new crusaders. Does that make sense?

Shorter: he's saying fight back but don't take the bait. They *want* a violent "drag Floyd" event they can plaster all over the news and use to support their "Christians are domestic terrorists" narrative. Our weapon is truth, not the sword.

if they want that bad enough they will simply stage it themselves...

then what?

They probably have and will, yes. Use legal means, but also trust in Providence, be comfortable with self-defense, etc. Natural Law trumps positive law wherever they conflict.

...let the reader understand.

whats the concern with "christian nationalism"?

It goes against Scripture for one thing, but it's also (usually) contrary to the 1st Amendment. The term means too many things to accurately critique it--it depends on who's saying it--but that's exactly how it is being exploited: taking the theonomists' extreme version of it, making that the given meaning, then saying they're "unconstitional" for wanting to remove the 1st Amendment and establish Christianity.

I think the whole thing -- the revived Christian Nationalism -- is a trap.

How is it against scripture ?

Muh constitution ? rekt anyway and useless, no ?

How to battle the ZOG or Jesuit planned takedown , the great replacement , fentanyl tranny culture , etc ad nauseum w/out resorting to something as potent as a militant christian nationalism ?

Extreme deviance needs to be matched with extreme resitance, no ?

whats the plan here, to use logic and reason ?

It's against Scripture because the kingdom of God is not built by the sword, but by the Word and the Spirit. We are pilgrims; "here we have no continuing city," etc. We are, for now, like Rahabs in a cosmic Jericho and the King is coming (that's how we pray, isn't it? 'Thy kingdom come'?) There's more to it, but that's a short answer.

I agree (with Spooner) that the Constitution (specifically, the Bill of Rights) is a dead letter--but that's not how the Left (and their media) would spin it: they always trot out the Constitution and civil liberties when it suits their ends (and ignore it altogether when it doesn't). I'm not saying it's a legitimate argument, I'm saying that's how it will be used. "The real action is your target's reaction." "The issue is never the issue: the issue is the [Marxist] revolution." They are trying very hard to paint *all* Christians as domestic terrorists and it won't take much to do it if people keep taking their obvious bait. Think how easy it was for the masses to buy the "George Floyd" and BLM nonsense? Think how easy it was to fool the masses into fear over a glorified flu?

As to how to battle enemies of liberty -- we have to recognize their linguistic tactics and counter them. We have to not fall into their traps (and they are sneaky). And we have to speak the truth. I don't hold out much hope for political "saviors" to end the cultural dilution we're experiencing, but (IMO) we can still pursue peaceful and legal means to stop it. Either way, militant Christian nationalism will backfire drastically as it always has. Who would be in charge, the Roman catholics? The Presbys? The Babtists? The Quakers? It's quixotic. We need to return to the principles of the founding (i.e., classical liberalism) culturally, regardless of our elected leaders or whatever "paper tigers" exist. That means education, evangelism, persuasion--a return to Natural Law and Natural Rights. Yes: that's an enormous amount of work to undo the last 60 years of Marxist indoctrination in the schools. It may or may not work--but the church *as church* grasping after the sword of the State is NOT the way. Citizens *as citizens* who understand our true classical liberal heritage, rooted in a transcendent Creator and Divine lawgiver, who will write and enforce wholesome laws (and repeal the unwholesome) are needed in local office--regardless of their personally held religion. One does not need to be a Christian per se to recognize these Natural Law and Natural Rights principles to govern well.

...I'll stop there, it's already probably too long. Thank you for the engagement.

scripture is written by humans not god

I'm disappointed to hear you say that...

"All scripture is breathed out by God..."

It is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. It carries the weight, meaning, and authority of its Author.

You can believe whatever you think is true, I am completely disenchanted from everything. I will believe that scripture is god when it actually protects us against evil in this world right here in which evil is being turned away from and not focused on every single day and being permitted by people who are to afraid to fight back.

Friend, Scripture does not promise protection from harm in this life and in this age. Its aim is higher, and everlasting. It promises that for those in Christ, death the last enemy has no power over them. As Christ was raised, we too shall be raised. And Christ promises ultimate victory, not necessarily immediate victory.

Think bigger, think eternally, and compare "the light and momentary afflictions of this age are not worthy to be compared with the eternal weight of glory that awaits us."

That's not to say there aren't provisional solutions for the here and now. But it should be enough--if you have faith--to prevent fear.

"God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power, love, and a sound mind."

its not that deep, its either nationalism or the great replacement. the trap is that they have made you ideologically opposed to fighting back

doesnt have to be christian nationalism but as a jew I can personally say that if you dont fight for your freedoms you will simply just fear walking the streets in public with others knowing your religion if your plan is just allowing evil and not fighting back

There is a time to turn the other cheek, and there is a time to strike back. It takes discernment to when to do which.

If you dont have the dicernment to realize that now is the time to act you are utterly blind, it will take until your own loved ones are directly affected that you will choose to act just like every other complacent twat

Fear is unbecoming. I am not saying we should not act. I am saying we should not choose violence (except in cases of self-defense or imminent threat toward others). We must keep our wits about us.

Do you think Jesus' repeated exhortations to not be afraid were for nothing? Read Hebrews 2. And do not fear.

If the choice is between being a sovereign nation and succumbing to an internationalist/globalist cabal, then yes obviously I believe in political self-determination at the local level.

"Fighting back" takes many forms. I believe in self-defense even to the taking of life if warranted. But so far this fight is mostly ideological and that's why the response is also ideological and not violent.