Most mileposts along the present slide into apostasy pass by relatively unnoticed. But every so often someone raises a totem-grotesque so large that it simply cannot be ignored. At least as regards Reconstructionism, Gary North’s recent piece “The Anti-Semitic Fringe of the American Right” was such a waymarker.

Gary opens condemning one of his subscribers for a category of sin unknown to biblical penology — anti-Semitism. And he assures the world that upon discovery of such a one lurking among his regular readers he cancelled the man’s subscription. A most peculiar reaction to an already strange accusation. Why upon suspicion that a reader held a particular view at variance with himself would North cancel his subscription? I mean, wouldn’t he want to keep the guy’s ear so as to disabuse him of his error? What’s more, he doesn’t prohibit atheists, Muslims, Talmudists, or other heathen in general from his rolls, so how heinous must this fellow’s commentary have been to warrant immediate banishment?

Get this — it all has to do with the guy’s commentary about an interview of Ron Paul wherein your standard MSM apparatchik challenges Dr. Paul to condemn his supporters for being ‘white supremacists’. Because Paul succumbed to this staple Marxist blockbusting tactic, the subscriber offered this poignant commentary:

Did Ron ever declare a similar distaste for black supremacists? Zion supremacists? [S]ino supremacists? Latino supremacists? Did he denounce the oft-stated aims, visions and exclusivity of their racially and ethnically focused organizations – several of which receive gov’t. protection and largess?

This Gary describes as ‘bile-spewing’, and for which he condemned the bloke as an ‘anti-Semite’.

Say, Gary, it’s hard not to notice you’ve singled out one group in that lineup as sacrosanct. And in so doing, you tacitly grant the thrust of the man’s argument:

Firstly, that all ethnoreligious identities are tribal, and pursue their respective interests.

Secondly, that these groups are not all being held to the same standard.

Thirdly, that when confronted with these facts, most people will capitulate to the double standard even whilst denying the existence thereof.

Just as Ron licked the boot, so did Gary. Only much more vigorously, he condemned inarguable truth as ‘bile’ in his myopic response, all “for fear of the Jews.”

Most comically, as he mocks the fact of Jewish conspiracy, he conversely weaves a theory of a covert ‘anti-Semitic’ conspiracy always lurking under the camouflage of feigned right-wing positions. Talk about straining at a gnat to swallow a camel!

He cites Marx’s criticism of Judaism as conclusive proof of his ‘anti-Semitism’ and camps on Stalin’s assassinations of certain Jewish rivals as proving ‘anti-Semitism’ to be a Marxist and therefore a patently left-wing phenomenon. Even though the matter of supposed Semitic heritage is irrelevant to Marx’s apologetic. In fact, because Marx argues for an eschaton in which Talmudic religion will be laid down and all races blended into one, we fail to see where North disagrees with Marx at all!

Unless, that is, North is now openly advocating a millennium in which Jews and Judaism remain intact entities while all other peoples and cults are homogenized into one. Interestingly enough, that would align with traditional Judaism. Just not Christianity. The Reformed faith, least of which.

But North’s denial of Marxism’s Jewish background flies in the face of the fact that Karl Marx was an ethnic Jew descended from a long line of rabbis, and personally mentored by Moses Hess, the father of modern Zionism.

His critiques of Judaism notwithstanding, the system Marx framed was embraced immediately, and in virtual unanimity by Jews worldwide as literally synonymous with Judaism.

“And now, what is the conclusion? This is the conclusion. The Jews must identify themselves with communism, with internationalism, with Marxism, and with the working class.”

“It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this is in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews.”

Even Elie Wiesel, foremost witness to the holocaust*, attests repeatedly that every Jewish home was a little Soviet satellite and outpost of Bolshevism. Yes, Jews have generally understood Marxism as preceding Marx all the way back to Abraham.

North simply declares inadmissible the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Jews, Milner, Kuhn, Loeb, Warburg, and especially Schiff (all of whom are intermarried with the Rothschild family), and led by Jews Lenin (yes), Trotsky, Chudnovsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yoffe, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Radek, et al. for the establishment of a government which was almost entirely comprised of Jews; which abolished the “Pale of Settlement” and other laws which had previously suppressed Talmudism in Christian lands. Immediately after which, ‘anti-Semitism’ was suppressed. Indeed, in the Soviet as originally established, the law was, say the J-word and die.

None of which is a matter of paranoia or theory, as North suggests. It is the plain history of the matter; and the substance of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s magnum opus, 200 Years Together, a work which even he — one of the few true moral figures of the twentieth century — purposely deferred to the end of his life. And the English translation came only posthumously.

Seeing now North’s senseless Pavlovian response, is it any wonder why? Had Solzhenitsyn not deferred breaking that secular taboo, his reputation and career would have followed the same course as David Irving’s. One round in the gulag was enough for Aleksandr.

As an aside, North mockingly insists the Baptist Rockefellers amidst the cabal represent a fatal inconsistency in the conspiratorial view. But if he looked into the matter at all, he’d find several Jewish works of history and genealogy confirm the Rockefellers to be a Marrano-Jewish clan.

But even if North were right, Baptists, at least since publication of Scofield’s commentary represent the most strident vein of Zionism in the Gentile world. The Judaica dictionary entry for shabbos goy might as well feature a picture of John Hagee. Whether or not they are crypto-Jews or merely Gentile-Judaizers, their motives are quite confluent. And given your spin of the subject, Gary, you’d no doubt jump at the chance to be their errand boy too.

North also invokes the Trotskyite juju word against Marx himself:“Marx was a racist.” Even if no one can come up with a definition of this new sin category that comports with logic or biblical penology, the consensus of everyone to your left, Gary, is that you’re a ‘racist’ too. And due to the ephemeral nature of the concept, all those who follow you on the matter will a couple years hence condemn you for the same as well. That’s the nature of the revolution — it eats its own.

North cites Rushdoony’s warnings against the distractions in conspiratorial thought. But he misconstrues Rush’s view of the matter. For instance, in The Nature of the American System Rush says:

From beginning to end, this is the perspective of Scripture, and only a willful misreading of it can lead to any other position. In Psalm 2, this concept of history as conspiracy is briefly summarized. . . . While the liberals may view belief in the conspiracy view of history as absurd, or even as a sign of membership in the ‘lunatic fringe,’ the orthodox Christian must assert it to be basic to the philosophy of history.

What Rushdoony objected to was any sort of focus on conspiracies which would seem to tempt men from confidence in the sovereignty of God or the doctrinal matters back of them. While warning against the attribution of too much power to human schemes, Rushdoony affirmed the Christian view of history to be conspiratorial.

And how not? From the plot of Lucifer and his angels, and recruitment of man into the same, to the Babelite empire, to the various plots against judges and prophets, to Herod’s schemes against the infant Christ, to the Jews’ plan to crucify the Lord, and their subsequent plot to suppress word of His resurrection, conspiracy pervades and defines the whole of salvation history. To repudiate the conspiratorial view of history is to forfeit the Christian lens completely.