Paul Rassinier has been thoroughly discredited by serious scholars. His figures are a fantasy. This is very intersting material Sugg has unearthed.

= = = The Public Eye: Website of Political Research Associates
Chip's Blog = = =

by Chip Berlet on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 12:04:52 AM EST

David Ortiz, in his comments on John Suggs' Mother Jones article for the Chalcedon blog on December 5 and December 7, 2005, repeatedly insists on accuracy. Ortiz points out, with some justification, that Suggs' article contains "a few factual errors," and calls for researchers and writers to be "careful in consulting primary source material." He also expresses his commitment to "accurately representing" statements from people with whose views he disagrees, and asks that those who disagree with him perform "due diligence" before drawing conclusions. Fair enough.

Suggs responds, "To call Chris Ortiz at Chalcedon disingenuous would be an understatement." He then cites major examples where Ortiz has made statements that seem unsupportable, since they fly in the face of clear and convincing evidence that Reconstructionists "want to conquer the nation and world." Suggs then muses that much of Ortiz's corrections amount to examples of a "quibble."


What's going on here? What would be the point of Ortiz insisting on veracity and accuracy in scrupulous reporting of numerous and sometimes arcane details? Is Ortiz busying himself with the footnotes of history while deliberately ignoring or denying the book titles and chapter headlines?

By all means, let's all be as accurate as we can be, and let's gently correct one another and politely accept correction so that we may all be more enlightened. But what's going on when Ortiz turns his microscope on the details, while simultaneously declaring, "We do not advocate political takeover"?


Ortiz points to the easily-found Chalcedon "Credo," in which it is written:

"Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.

It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however."

Now, I'm a critic of Chalcedon, but I would not imply or state outright that they're engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to gain political power; nope, there's nothing subtle about it. I just look at their titles and chapter headings, and read them in their own words, and take all that at face value.

by jhutson on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 06:18:34 AM EST

A theme intimately related to John Suggs post here :

"The Theology of Deception"

Now, Chris Ortiz and Mark Rushdoony would of course strenuously deny the very existence of such a concept, but it may well be inherent in the writings of R.J. Rushdoony himself. The Theology of Deception ( rarely refered to a such by adherents to Recostructionist or Dominionist theologies ) is arguably embedded within the dense mass of closely worked "principles" of Rushdoony, as a special, provisional, case, a provision for self-defense which is opposed to normal Biblical or Rushdoonian injunctions against lying and deception.

[ from "The Institutes of Biblical Law" by Rushdoony, Pg. 565-569 ] - "...Thus, not only are we under no obligation to tell the truth to a lawless enemy who is bent on doing us harm, or destroying us, but the requirement to tell the truth in a court of law is strictly governed by law........As noted previously, we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy us. The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships which are within the frame­work of law, and to the proceedings of courts of law in church, state, and other institutions. Even here, however, there are limitations on the power of the court or the demands of other persons." [ emphasis mine ]

The key words to notice in that statement are "harm" and "enemy" :

Who might that "enemy" be, and what might constitute "harm" ?

Well, Rushdoony voiced some clear opinions on that as this invitational announcement a special appearance of Rushdoony at a Chicago area church, in 1995, suggests :

"Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, Reformed Scholar and Founder of the Christian Reconstructionist movement will be lecturing in the Chicago/Milwaukee area, September 29-October 1, 1995. The Church of Christian Liberty, pastored by Dr. Paul Lindstrom, will be hosting Dr. Rushdoony Friday Night and Saturday Morning, September 29-30. Dr. Rushdoony will be giving three lectures on Christian and Homeschooling, the ongoing War with Humanism and the Future of the American System. Saturday evening, and Sunday morning, Dr. Rushdoony wll be hosted by Lakeside Church-PCA Milwaukee. There will be an invitational only reception for Dr. Rushdoony Saturday night and he will be preaching at Lakeside Church during the Lord's Day service. Those interested in attending the Chicago lectures should contact Dr. Paul Lindstrom, (708) 394-9220 for specific times and locations. Those interested in attending the Saturday evening reception or hearing Dr. Rushdoony preach Sunday morning should contact Rev. Brian Abshire, (414) 228-1590. This is a rare opportunity to meet and learn from one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century. Christian Liberty and Lakeside Church are very honored to be able to host him." [ emphasis mine ]

In this epitaph, titled "Dr. Rushdoony and phonics" and written following R.J. Rushdoony's death, Samuel L. Blumenfeld - avowed follower of Rushdoony - describes Rushdoony's position on the "culture war" :

[ "Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including, "Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers," "The Whole Language/OBE Fraud," and "Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children." " ]

In his book, "The Messianic Character of American Education," first published in 1963, he [  RJ Rushdoony ] recognized that the war between humanism and Christianity was a struggle unto death, and that the humanist control of the public schools gave the enemies of Christianity a decided advantage over believers. [ emphasis mine ]

Now, those are not the words of Mr. Rushdoony himself, but I'm sure others here on Talk To Action can provide the necessary quotes.

At issue is this : if R.J. Rushdoony asserted that there is a literal war - implying a "combat unto [ literal ] death" between "Christianity" ( as defined, of course, by Rushdony himself ) and states, governments, purported foes such as "secular humanism", then Rushdoony's self defense escape clause comes into force - deception in that war is justified.

Hence, the "Theology of Deception"

In practice - and this may be a very sore point for some of Rushdoony's follower's - it might be very hard to prevent such an approach from devolving into, well......moral relativism, and situational ethics.

by Bruce Wilson on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 09:31:05 AM EST