In the previous part, I promised to provide my answer to the question of what exactly the duties of the civil government should be. Here I shall do so.

https://x.com/D00M42/status/1994434197637702082

Hear me, and I will show my work, judge me, that I may know I have rightly divided the word of truth, (Job 33:1-5).

To start, we must know how the scriptures define what civil government is.

I believe probably one of the best and earliest examples is in (Exo 18:13-27) where we see the only recorded formation of a civil government in Scripture. There we see Moses swamped with administration (v.13, Due 1:9-12), judging between men (v.16) and enquiring of God for men (v.15). Upon receiving wise counsel from Jethro, Moses divides the responsibility of administrating judgement between men among the people of Israel (v.24-26, Deu 1:15-18). It is particular to note that the sum of that organization was this: “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.”
Nary a mention of promoting true religion, merely to judge matters between men and make no difference between men in the handling of each case.

It has been a long few years since I first picked up Stephen Wolfe’s, @PerfInjust book, (The Case for Christian Nationalism) with the desire to see what exactly it was that Christian Nationalism (CN) was all about. Finding Stephen’s book on the absurd side, for when one makes the case for CN without really using the scriptures is like saying I'm going to make a pie but use a cake mix. I’ll quote it here.

“I make little effort to exegete biblical text… I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar… Instead of drawing from Scripture to prove the Reformed system of doctrine, I’ve chosen to assume this system and work from it.”

How does one convey the absurdity of this?

*Writes book called (The Case For Christian Nationalism) using the reformed position…

*Doesn't use Scripture…

*Calls it (The Case For Christian Nationalism) and uses the Reformed position…

If one cannot check his philosophical beliefs against Scripture because he is unskilled, methinks a bit more time in scripture is needed. “Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needth not be ashamed; rightly dividing the word of truth.”

True this is not a proper argument against his arguments, however if we are to ground ourselves in scripture, it would be wise to use it.

Since then, I've read a few more books from Douglas Wilson @douglaswils on the subject and seen more and more usage of scripture in the dialog. There have been several arguments both for and against it, but most of the ones against it were lacking in a solid scriptural basis, primarily being a refutation of the conclusions of the CN arguments rather than a refutation of the core premises, particularly of the scriptural ones. It was only about the month of July of this year that I heard of James Baird’s @james_d_baird book, (King of Kings). Granted I didn't think much of it, but I added it to the reading pile as it seemed to be the latest and best argument on the subject… Then I saw the kerfuffle on Twitter about a review that was done on it and bumped it straight to the top of the list.

To be frank, I was impressed. There was an effective usage of scripture to strengthen the points made in Stephen’s book, but trimmed down to the bare essentials. I’d consider this book to be the best and most concise piece that most efficiently makes the case for that movement known as Christian Nationalism… That being said, I have some thoughts on the arguments presented within the book and how they pertain to scripture. This will be a two part argument, I will answer the biblical arguments as well as the various other arguments presented in this part and show what the scripture actually says in regards to what a government based on scriptures actually looks like in the next part. Before going too much further, I suppose I should attempt to define that amorphous blob that is Christian Nationalism. It will be helpful, I think, to keep this definition in mind.

It is not, as some of its advocates argue, simply Christian's who have a great love of their nation and wish it to be run in a Christian manner, there are certainly those within it, but they are not the movement.

The movement in short is a political one dressed in Christian trappings with the end goal being roughly the consolidation of power behind a, depending on who you ask, oligarchal, aristocratic, feudal type system wherein you have various little kingdoms based on whichever truth each leader holds. “The Great Sort” as it’s known. Little of this is presented within the following arguments as the ones previously stated are the Motte to the following Bailey.

Investigating Jeffrey Epstein: Intelligence Connections and the "Little Black Book" 🧵

I became curious enough about the claims surrounding Jeffrey Epstein recently to do some research. My investigation was not exhaustive—I didn’t dive into the numerous books written about Epstein’s ties but instead just used basic internet searches and summaries from those who have studied the source material and reportedly are showing the most damning evidence. My goals were twofold: Was Epstein an intelligence asset, and what evidence supports this? And what exactly is the so-called "little black book"? TL:DR

Public information on Jeffrey Epstein's alleged intelligence ties originates from two sources: Vicky Ward and Ari Ben-Menashe. Ward’s claims rely on hearsay from a highly unreliable source, with most reports circling back to her work. Ben-Menashe, a former Mossad operative, claimed in 2019—post-Epstein’s arrest—that he knew of Epstein’s activities since the 1980s. His ties to controversial groups undermine his credibility.

This narrative fuels a moral outrage trap, weaponized by influencers for political gain. These actors often exhibit selective indignation, loudly condemning trafficking when it suits their agenda while ignoring or downplaying similar issues elsewhere, revealing their hypocrisy and opportunistic motives.