Give Us Magabbas: The Second Amendment
“And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection (Mk. 15:7).”
“The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you (Acts 3)”.
—-------------------------
Murderer? Since when is killing an invader and occupier murder? Would Peter have considered Patrick Henry a murderer? Did the Pharisees consider Jesus a traitor for telling Jews that paying the Roman tax was the right thing to do? Were the Apostles with their new message of globalism (“go ye into all the world”) unpatriotic? What was Barabbas thinking when he saw Peter worshiping with Cornelius the Roman centurion? Until fairly recently, the Apostles believed that “restoring Israel” was the chief obligation of any Jew, and until they saw a demonstration of God’s new method of conquest (conversion) at Pentecost, they likely saw a few more ears on the ground in the future. Before Pentecost, they would have been hard pressed to call what Barabbas did murder. He basically did what Peter tried to do when he lopped off poor Malchus’ ear.
Today, the Evangelical church and MAGA are one. And having lost the Culture War to the government institutions that shape it, MAGA is now resorting to the ultimate kingmaker: the sword. The Left is in control of education, media, arts and entertainment, the shapers of opinion: KulturMachers. The pulpits have gone silent–what is left of preaching with Magabbas in the pew? And the 2nd Amendment is seen as the last defense against a Leftwing assault on the American Zion.
The educational fiefdom gives the Left a Federally funded platform to indoctrinate and propagandize without opposition. Leftwing media monopolies make the First Amendment useless, as there are few other outlets to exercise it. And Art/Entertainment is little more than a refined organ of blasphemy funneled through education and media: the graven image installed in the house of Zion. What can helpless Barabbas do?
All this was true in Hungary, notes the New York Times, until Orban swept away “soft power” (Leftwing institutions) with iron-fisted State control. It happened overnight. Without firing a shot. He simply kicked Soros out. The EU sat and stewed. He did it with their money.
MAGA has a complete monopoly on the Second Amendment. Evangelicals could turn the Left out overnight. They are the Pentagon (and the recruiting sixth wing of it), and the NRA. They are not frightened by mass shootings, because they feel safe behind their arsenals. If the fire gets out of control (even in their midst), well, as David would say, “the sword devours this one or that”--there are no innocents here, war never comes without collateral damage, and war, as the god of war, Sherman, said, is “the altar of Hell.” Although, Robert E. Lee (ever the saint) cautions against “growing too fond of it.” School shootings are body counts in this conflict, and wars (even Culture Wars) are bound to be messy. Battles and body bags are always redeemed by final victory. As such, there cannot be too much of the Second Amendment. The Left sees, trembles, and grows paranoid and ever more cautious–the creeping power of violence. They know when they’re told to ask for permission. Orban orchestrated his coup without firing a shot. All MAGA need do is bristle like a porcupine, and cry up “the Second Amendment.” In this motley mob there are many loose cannons who will act without direct orders: plausible deniability--“we tell them, heh, what more can we do, heh?” Once Barabbas acts, it's even safe to hang him–for the Cause. “Did I hear you mention affection, Alexander (General Haig). In our trade friendship is a luxury,” said Kissinger. These lone wolves (like illiterate suicide bombers) will become useful idiots. This is why “prayers" is all the Left hears in the aftermath of shootings. They’re asking the Right to stop the advance. “Stop?” cried Katuzov when he saw the peasants burning Ukraine to the ground as they fled Napoleon. “Let it increase.” The Left cannot cancel the NRA because the NRA is advancing behind the Second Amendment. And you cannot speak against the Second Amendment without becoming a traitor. The Second Amendment is a hair-trigger aimed at (certain) politicians. As such, the Right can fan it without suffering loss, and the more they fan it, the stronger they grow. Think of it as Stonewall Jackson savoring his peach in the midst of dying young men crying for their mothers and saying with relish, "god was merciful to us today." All in a days work. He was fulfilling his calling, and god had called him to war. The Left still marches under the banner of the EU sermon on the mount. The 2nd Amendment is everything the EU is against. And now, forced to reckon with Putin's kill-pit in their backyard, they're ready to give war another chance. Both Right and Left merge in totalitarianism when utopias fade. When the 2nd Amendment does away with the Left, it will have made itself obsolete. The Left is always Utopia, schlepping along in the cracks of wars and rumors of war. There has never been a Left (sermon on the mount) government. The Right is as muted about Ukraine as it is about the shootings: both are the Culture War become real war. Putin is taking the hammer to the EU by forcing it to abandon its globalist sermon on the mount charter, while the shootings are but eruptions of Evangelical ammo dumps. You can't touch the arsenal without tinkering with the 2nd Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment is all that's left to checkmate the Left. Force Putin to withdraw and he'll burn the world down. Give him what he wants and he'll turn the world upside down. Those are dim options, but there's no going back to perpetual peace. Politics is never more than violence. The 2nd Amendment simply puts that violence into the hands of the people to use it against the elites. But they can do that but once. Democracy never returns.
Evangelicals are silent because they cannot discuss guns without touching on the 6th Commandment ("thou shalt not kill"). R. E. Lee and Stonewell Jackson are the closest Evangelicals come to having saints. They own the Pentagon and NRA. Most people who read the Bible come away with the sense that the Sermon on the Mounts is basically an amplification of the 6th Commandment. So what could you possibly say about guns that would not run you headlong into the Sermon on the Mount? For Evangelicals have even more exceptions to the 6th Commandment than they do to the 7th. What is there left to say? Hence the silence. And more guns. "They that take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Which makes it likely that more and more of the carnage will occur within churches. The Pope with his mercenary army is but ahead of his time: kill or be killed. He's not about to repeat the mistake of Abel. You get Cain before he gets to you. Jesus, Protestant/Catholics say, did not take up the 6th Commandment any more than he did the 7th. The gist of the Sermon on the Mount is merely "don't take revenge," and don't teach "easy divorce." In which case there's is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that the Pharisees would disagree with. Unfortunately, 99 percent of the people reading it (and the people who heard him) thought he spoke "not as the scribes."
Do you think the Sermon on the Mount makes sense in a common sense (literal) reading--the Beatitudes, for instance?
Would Abel be seen differently if he had slain Cain in self-defense? Would it make a difference if Jesus had slain a man in self defense, legally, that is.
Why do Protestants argue about the actual text of divorce and remarriage in the Sermon on the Mount but not about the text on turning the other cheek. With regard to the latter, the words are plain enough, but cannot possible mean what they say because they contradict the right to self defense. With regard to divorce, the words mean what they say and allow for "one" exception. But then why do the people who argue for this "one" exception, then immediately list four (the Puritans could give you twenty) more from the writings of Paul?
The conservative Pharisees were sticklers on divorce and killing. Is Jesus only just laying down conservative interpretations here? And is the exalted tone (what even Pagans call the Golden Rule) no more than condemnation of Pharisaical hypocrisy and narrow minded judgementalism? In other words, if you need a new wife or if you end up killing someone in self defense, it's not the end of the world. Just don't think you can get away with everything. Would you think less of Peter if you discovered that he preached with a concealed weapon? In times of danger, wouldn't it make sense to preach in tactical gear, behind bullet proof glass, surrounded by a SWAT team with machine guns?
Should you read the Beatitudes the same way as you do the divorce and killing texts in the same chapter. Which should be taken literally?
When the disciples said, "If you can't divorce, it's better not to marry," (Mt. 19) did they really get what Jesus was driving at, or did they twist Jesus' words into Pharisaical legalism?
Protestant/Catholic gallows humor that "we don't know if Christianity works because it's never been tried" refers to the killing and divorce in the Sermon on the Mount. In other words, if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is--heh, too good to be true, heh. But the Pagans sure think it sounds good. Take it with a grain of salt, etc. Perhaps it was meant for the Millennium when sin will have been banished and you wouldn't need the Beatitudes, and the saints will no longer marry--like the angels. And yet the Sermon on the Mount is what Christians are judged by because they're accused of not practicing what Jesus taught.. Luther sneered at the Book of James because it reads like the Sermon on the Mount: Good works. That's why they say it's never been tried. Try fitting the 2nd Amendment in here and you'll see.