The trans cult

These are not reactionary. They oppose progressivism from instinct and emotion, not from any coherent theory, so they don’t know what they’re doing. As others have said, they’re yesterday’s progressives, quite reasonably disturbed by the bizarre innovations of today’s progressivism but blind to the absurdities of the past.

Not all.

The Presbyterian Church in America has (not to be confused with the mainline Presbyterian Church USA), like our current state religion, complete continuity of organization and personnel going back all the way to the ministers kicked out of the Church of England by Charles the Second except they are not doing now what they were doing then.

They are still, to my shock and disbelief, preaching strict adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Standards. Jim likes the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles but I see no institution preaching it. This social technology is buried 6 ft underground.

What I do see is an old living breathing institution, with its presbytery governance structure allowing for a strategy of continual Exit against entryists (and they likely will need to exit again in the future), preaching the Westminster Confession of Faith which is centuries old working social technology. Yes these Christians are blue-pilled and male headship is brittle by historical standards of Christians, but they are reproducing as others have noted. Men with 3+ kids and 10+ grandchildren is not uncommon.

To my surprise, Christianity lives as something more than a mustard seed in the old historic Presbyterian Churches of the Southern Anglo, whose faith was not sufficiently suppressed during Reconstruction.

I present to Jim for this to be the official faith of the Restoration, an old rival of Puritanism which traces its roots to Colonial America and is still preached in beautiful historic and new southern Churches to this day.

We present this faith to a Caesar, or a Cromwell, or a Napoleon and this necessarily means the restoration will look more like Cromwell’s Protectorate than Charles II’s England. Although not as ideal of having the King back male headship of family, Cromwells men backing male headship is not bad.

Examples of Old Historic Churches still practicing old Christianity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Presbyterian_Church_(Clover,_South_Carolina)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Presbyterian_Church_(Greenville,_Alabama)

Example of Beautiful new church practicing old Christianity:
https://sganwdesign.com/award-winning-church/

I am a member of a PCA church, and have attended a number of PCA churches over the years, as well as CREC churches (Pastor Doug Wilson’s more conservative offshoot of PCA).

The PCA churches I’ve attended keep the church calendar and skip all secular holidays, meaning they don’t do father’s day sermons (or mother’s day, or 4th of July, election season, etc.). The belief is that Christianity is the priority in church, so secular holidays/events have no bearing on what is being taught. Occasionally current events will be used to highlight a point being made in a sermon, but the sermon is never based around the holiday/event.

Keep in mind that PCA churches choose their own type of worship service, so they can vary between “contemporary” and “traditional liturgical”. I don’t have as much experience with the churches that offer “contemporary” services, so my sample size may be biased.

Again, these folks are generally not red-pilled as we understand it. IMO one of the key factors for the PCA’s success is that we hold that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, which raises the IQ bar for entryism (eg it’s extremely difficult to argue that gay is ok when you can’t twist the Bible any way you want). Churches that can say “the Bible clearly states X is not ok” can stay more-or-less red-pilled, or at least less blue pilled, as evidenced by the number of kids running around these churches.

@Jim

Women speaking in church – zero. Across multiple churches.

Women in leadership – zero. No women pastors, elders, or deacons.

Male headship – this is where the pastors can get wiggly, depending on the pastor. Again, due to the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, all of them will agree the father is the head of the household and that wives should obey the husband.

Some of them – I’ve consistently seen this with Boomer pastors – will immediately follow that up with some version of “but the Bible also commands the husband to love the wife, and the husband shouldn’t be a tyrant”. They are clearly nervous about potential blowback.

Younger pastors seem more immune to this. I was a member at a smaller, blue-collar-ish church (~75 people), with a Gen X pastor, and he had no qualms about male headship and wifely obedience. Neither did the congregation. That pastor had several kids and a very sweet, submissive wife.

My current church is much larger and very white collar, ie filled with members who have gone through pozzed “higher education”. The pastors definitely use a softer tone than the small church pastor, but when pressed, will stick by their guns, albeit with varying levels of discomfort.

Interestingly, the only one who doesn’t seem uncomfortable with stating the Biblical position plainly also is the only one who works out. High-testosterone truly has a spiritual element to it.

That is the ancestor of the PCA.

Puritanism was not an ancestor to PCA but a peer. Both derive from Calvinism. The problem with the American Puritans were they were Congregationalist and thus had no official hierarchy.

Presbyterianism is hierarchy of assemblies instead of bishops. The General Assembly meets to vote on issues. This is what Cromwell attempted to implement into the Church of England during his rule.

[*deleted*]

“Oliver Cromwell said it as Lord Protector and proceeded to make Presbyterianism the State Church of England and Scotland. It can be said again.”

Just noted this comment and its not correct, Cromwell was an “independent” (congregationalist).

You seem to have too high a view of the Presbyterians, Boston and Mass Bay was run by Presbyterian control freaks not congregationalist seperatists. If you want to look at bad things done by the Puritan groups here is as follows.

Presbyterians: Started the war in both Scotland (originally) and England. Responsible for 95% of the moral busybodiness of Puritanism (which is why I attribute modern progressivism more to them). These people are very interested in making sure everyone around them lives up to their standards in exacting detail… While the extremely radical Diggers and Fifth Monarchists sects were not Presbyterians the sect that founded Boston and Harvard definitely were.

Independents: Won the war against Charles the Presbyterians started. Eventually forced the execution of Charles (the Presbyterians kept balking at this despite the fact it was clear Charles would not ever surrender for real). Not especially interested in the moral life of people who weren’t the elect unless they were part of some group that threatened them (the brief rule of the Major Generals was Cromwell making a concession to Presbyterians that was revoked as soon as it became clear how unpopular it was). This group founded Plymouth not Boston… Plymouth/Cape Cod are a more easygoing and fun loving kind of people to this day.

Typical “reactionary” fallacy: opposition to tyranny is opposition to authority. Same shit as Moldbug telling us to get the clot shot because “the right of rebellion is a revolutionary idea”. Stupid.

> Might makes right. You can say it.

Harvard has the might, Harvard is the right.

A case could be made that Protestants are worse than Muslims. They should be a target for forced conversion. Destroy all copies of the KJV, in particular the New Testament, and replace them by the Vulgate.

The problem with Presbyterianism as a state religion is you end up ruled by an excessively holy theological equivalent of the type of busybodies who staff homeowners associations (and furthermore these type of assholes tend to be betas henpecked and controlled by status seeking wives)… out of power its fine but you don’t want them in power. This is where I reluctantly agree with Jim that the state church need a high priest (since Congregationalism is too close to a vacuum to be sustainable)…

Congregationalists England crushed Presbyterian (Covenanter Scotland) and I don’t think it was coincidental.

Here’s the way I see it… Theological consensus with power is a dangerous thing (and I’m surprised to here you talk about it), but so is theological autocracy.

The monarch has to be viewed as God’s representative on earth, the throne gives power to the altar and the altar sanctifies the throne. As such the high priests must be accountable to God’s representative the monarch… but theology should be defined heavily by well known tradition so that any monarch who says that Jesus ordained drag queen story hour can be deemed a madman who has forfeited the trust placed in him by God…

So I guess theological consensus can be appealed to, but it must be consensus based on ancient writing of well accepted men. Trying to make new consensus… needs to be treated as entryism.

Rather lengthy scriptural basis for Presbyterian from of church government:

First, rule by elders alone is found in the Bible. Of course, after Christ’s resurrection and His ascension shortly after Pentecost (Acts chapters 1 & 2), the Apostles ruled. The Apostle Paul took it upon himself to declare what the will of Christ was for the church. In Ephesians 4:11& 12 he says, “He (Christ) gave (to the church) some as apostles, some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” These were the gifted men that Jesus raised up to build the New Testament Church (which was the continuing of Israel which was the Old Testament “Church”).

Now we know that somewhere near the end of the first century all of the apostles were dead. During the early years of the Church, however, while the New Testament was in the process of formation, prophets existed, through whom Jesus sent specific messages to His Church. All of the apostles had the prophetic gift, but some who were not apostles also wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Such men included Mark, Luke, James and Jude the brothers of our Lord, and the writer of Hebrews. (Incidentally, the last—contrary to the claim of the King James Version—probably was not Paul. Earlier New Testament manuscripts discovered since the Reformation do not ascribe authorship to Paul.) The important point is that whoever may have been the Holy Spirit’s instrument in writing the New Testament was either an apostle or wrote under apostolic oversight and approval.

Now Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles which were late in his life. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 he set forth the qualifications and functions of the office of “bishop.” He does the same in Titus 1:5-9, where he gives rules for Titus to use in choosing “elders” in Crete.

It’s interesting that Paul doesn’t use “elders” but “bishops” in 1 Timothy, but in Titus, he begins with “elders” in verse 5 and in verse 7 switches to “bishop” or “overseer” (depending on how the Greek word “episcopos” is translated in varying English versions).

It is clear that the same office is in view in both chapters, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. “Elder” speaks of the maturity of the man gifted to rule. “Bishop” (or “Overseer”) speaks of his function. There is no contradiction here. In American parlance, we sometimes refer to our president as that, again as “chief executive”, yet again as “commander-in-chief,” But it’s one man and one office that he holds.

Another matter needs to be considered concerning office in the early church, “pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). It’s one office. A pastor is a “shepherd of the flock of God” (cf. John 10:11-15).

All elders need to be highly qualified and to know the Bible in order to honor Christ in their office. They must know the Scriptures so as to rule righteously. Some elders, however, are called to teach or preach the Word. In the OPC we call them “ministers” or “teaching elders.” The distinction is clearly set forth in 1 Timothy 5:17. (Incidentally, the “double honor” in that verse undoubtedly means honor in the general sense—as in “honorable in all things”—but also has to do with “honorarium”—meaning pay for their labors.)

That’s why ministers are required to meet the highest standard of biblical education. One of my seminary professors said to us: “Ministers need to know everything about the theology and something about everything else.” I’ve been ordained for 64 years. I think I qualify for general knowledge, but I’m still striving for total biblical knowledge. I’m sure I fall short here and there, but I want to be a learner to my dying day! And, in my understanding of the Bible, ministers and elders are “pastors” or “shepherds,” using the biblical model (see Acts 20:17 and 28 and 1 Pet. 5:1 & 2).

Now, in true Presbyterian churches, all rule is by elders (including ministers or “teaching elders” and non-teaching elders). The only higher office in the church today is that of Head of the Church, held by Jesus Christ. And under the teachers and elders (the “Sessions” of the churches) are the members, including teachers and elders. A ruling elder is a member of the local church; a minister is a member of a Presbytery (which oversee the lives of churches in a given geographical area) and sometimes also a member of a local church.

As a minister I have been a member of many “Sessions,” that is, ruling over the life of the local church, administering according to the Bible, which is the Word of God. I’ve also sat as a member of many Presbyteries. In addition, I have been a member of many annual General Assemblies.

Each of these—Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly—is a “court” of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Matters that cannot be dealt with and resolved by a Session can go for advice or appeal to the Presbytery to which the particular church belongs. Similarly, matters not resolved, or situations where advice may have been improperly given, come to the General Assembly. It’s something like our USA system of courts, though less complicated and (I hope) more just and righteous.

Finally, we have seen that Presbyterians do not adopt the Episcopal model of government, because in the New Testament “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same office rather than one being over the other.

https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=274

A better fit is the feudalism of the Holy Roman Empire.

The feudal lords of the Holy Roman Empire ultimately answered to the Emperor as the final authority. What you describe sounds like monarchy albeit with better parliamentary consensus. How is it not a monarchy? Is the “leader” of your system not a monarch?

I go to a Presbyterian Church and also attend a men’s Bible study there. The pastor is very based. We’re studying the Book of Isaiah now, and he often compares those times to modern America. Isaiah’s mission was to warn the Israelites of GOD’s wrath to come if they did not repent. He was told by GOD that they would be destroyed, but that his mission was to preach to a Remnant of the faithful that would rebuild.

I have heard several PCA pastors say similar things. And they all have 3+ kids.

Conservative Presbyterianism tempts disaffected men with the promise of traditional Christianity but upon closer examination is no more or less converged than any other religious group in the West.

This impression arises from the reputation of Reformed thinkers and theologians. R.J. Rushdoony was the inspiration behind the advent of the American homeschooling movement and Robert Lewis Dabney is perhaps the most influential American reactionary thinker pre-1945, although both the PCA and OPA have repudiated both theologians’ political beliefs.

Regarding the dozens of Presbyterian and Reformed groups in North America, most differ on petty theological minutia but can be divided into the liberal and conservative factions, PCUSA and PCA the largest denominations of both groups respectively.

Conservative Reformed Protestants in my experience follow the letter of the law inherited by their spiritual heirs without adhering to the spirit of the law intended by those men. They “homeschool” but school-at-home. Their seminaries are no more or less immune to being converged. Some years back I attended a PCA church service with a friend; the pastor with six children, one of them with down syndrome, broadcasted a video of a single mother proudly being sustained by church money. Neither him nor any other of his friends viewed promoting single motherhood as a problem, and the priest rebuked me after conveying my grievances.

This is not indented to antagonize, rather to dispel illusions. One should go to church because he believes in the faith, not because he wants something, for attending of the latter reason is bound to lead to disappointment.

> Petty theological minutia that is important and significant. This is how Harvard has inverted Christianity over the process of several centuries with its mission to establish “God’s Kingdom on Earth” chucking all the petty theological minutia that was standing in the way of that.

Harvard inverted Christianity by claiming moral superiority over their neighbors; also, Harvard does not reject theology rather adjusts it to fit whatever wicked agenda they wished to implement. Disagreements over theological minutia is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations each with their own version of Christianity.

> I only seek to make sure a faith will be ready for him when he arrives, which may be centuries from now.

The faith we wish to implement has already been implemented; that is why we are “reactionaries” and not “revolutionaries.” All we need to do is show up to church, have families, and wait for Caesar to arrive.

Protestants have been splintering with each other since the Reformation.

Along ethnic lines. Luther with the Germans and Calvin with Anglos. Everyone that came after those two were largely holiness spiralers attempting to dive at all the apples rolling around.

Calvinism and descendants of Calvinism has been the state religion of the Anglos for 500 years.

American Caesar with a state church of Lutheranism or Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholicism is not going to go down smooth with Americans.

American Caesar with a state Church of American Presbyterianism will go down as smooth as a milkshake.

I can confirm the same with my church going family members. The wives rule. Has even lead to divorces because of it (after 2 or 3 kids).

Seems like we have identified the main problem of the churches. The traditional denominations can fight off globohomo fine enough but can’t control their women.