American Christian Fascists

Column by Bob Wallace.
Exclusive to STR
If fascism ever comes to America, it won’t be through insignificant groups such as American Nazis or the KKK, both of which together could field a couple of softball teams. It’ll come through “Christians,” specifically the blood-thirsty ones who support war.
This kind of Christian supports the State, and Israel and wars, because they think by doing so, they can get Jesus to come back and slaughter all the “infidels” (first those infidels were the Communists, now they’re Muslims). They won’t be around to watch any of this, because they believe they’ll be wafted to Heaven in the Rapture. They believe they’ll be watching the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse romp all over the world from on high.
Look how popular those “Left Behind” novels are. Tens of millions of copies have been sold.
These people are of course completely deluded. The belief in the Rapture is profoundly anti-Biblical, not that it’s stopped anyone in the past from using religion to slaughter people.
Yet because these people support the State, and there are millions of them, they are one of the main political groups that support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also support Israel uncritically, although they rarely mention they believe most of the Jews in Israel will be slaughtered and the rest converted to Christianity.
Most people I know who think about these things believe the wars in the Middle East are about oil, Israel and empire. Roughly speaking, I’d say that’s true. Many people howl about the political influence of the Israel lobby. But how many people know about the influence of the Christian Zionists (AKA American Christian fascists)? Without them, the “Israel lobby” couldn’t do anything.
When Jesus went though his Three Temptations, he was offered political power over all the kingdoms of the world. He refused it. Clearly political power is Satanic. Therefore, any “Christian” who supports the wars and slaughter and stealing of the State is under the influence of Satan. Even Martin Luther referred to the world as “the Devil’s playground.”
In fact, Jesus never supported the State even once. I get the impression he was more of a libertarian than anything else. How some “Christians” can support the State is beyond me. The only thing I can conclude is that they are not Christians. After all, as Shakespeare wrote, the Devil can quote Scripture.
The State always goes after the politically weak and insignificant. It went after David Koresh. Then there was Ruby Ridge. But the politically powerful? They are kowtowed to. That’s the way it is with these Christian fascists. They have political power. And that’s a shame.
I wonder what’s going to happen when Jesus doesn’t return? Will these people change their minds – or instead redouble their efforts? I suspect they’re redouble their efforts. Few people can afford to give up their religion, even if it’s utterly wrong.
So I believe we will be involved in these wars until we run out of money and the American Empire collapses. The country will survive, but the federal State will not. And I can’t say I’m sorry to see it go, considering what it’s turned into – a war-mongering, stealing, lying behemoth.
These kinds of completely self-deluded people were noticed hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Erasmus, a contemporary of Luther, referred to the average Christian of that time as “enslaved by ignorance and blindness.”
I couldn’t agree more with his assessment, not only of his time but for today.

Your rating: None Average: 9 (1 vote)
Bob Wallace's picture
Columns on STR: 89


Mitrik_Spanner's picture

The Occupy Wall Street protests seem to be a kind of left counter weight to the fascistic wing of the American statist culture. Too bad both sides are mired down in kooky ideas.

Marc's picture

How true. If you literally reversed all of Christ's teachings it would more closely approximate the madness swirling around in the head's of those Christians who who have made careers out of attempting to influence government policies - particularly those relating to foreign and military affairs.

Let's travel back in time to the very first instance of Christianity melding with state. Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor. One would assume a new era kinder, gentler, more compassionate authoritarianism during his reign. Well, not quite. He imposed a head tax throughout the empire payable (every four years) in gold and silver coin only. Since the Roman Empire had been in serious decline for over a century not many people had any gold or silver coins. Fathers were forced to prostitute their daughters or face the consequence of possibly getting beaten to death by Roman soldiers. He eventually disbanded the 25,000 soldiers comprising Rome's Praetorian Guard and moved the capitol to Constantinople. Rome was left just another defenseless town on the Italian peninsula, a shadow of its former self.

I personally have no problems with any religion so long that it does not mix with government. Government = force and religion + force is usually a bad combination.

Samarami's picture


    Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor. .... He imposed a head tax throughout the empire payable (every four years) in gold and silver coin only.

Constantine also crowned the first pope who was crowned (previous popes were not crowned). He crowned Sylvester, which was prelude to and eventually became known as "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", The First Reich.

The German word for Empire is "Reich".

Most of us know of and have studied to one degree or another The Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. But few of us have studied or given any thought to The Second Reich. Or The First Reich. Or what conditions would need to be in place for The Fourth Reich to come into fruition.

An observer today can look at the American Reich and understand that in our lifetimes (I'm 75) we've seen this nation deteriorate into the most egregious police state on earth -- more prisoners behind bars per 100m population than any other nation on earth, or in the history OF the earth. Leaving undeclared wars for another topic, we see a U.S. "president" who deems it prudent to assassinate U.S. citizens on his say-so -- no due process of law.

And it is not going to get any better under more religious "presidents" and/or congress critters.

Hang onto your hats, mates. Sam

Tony Pivetta's picture

I have a problem with force, period. Government by definition refers to the entity in society enjoying a legal monopoly on the use of force. Mixing anything with force--even freethinking, godless humanism (e.g., the Soviet Union)--is a bad combination. Ask the 20 million or so Christians who perished in the gulags.

Samarami's picture

If one is to ascribe credence for the Hebrew Book it becomes obvious The Creator, in admonishing the first human beings to abstain from the "...fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...", was in fact warning them away from faith in political authority. Throughout that book the term "fruit" as coming from a "tree" or "vine" is analogous to "works (authority) of men" (the authoritarian sense has no adequate equivalent English translation that I know of). This holds true in all the dozens and hundreds of versions and translations of that all-time best selling Book. The analogy is used many times throughout the Book.

My understanding of the metaphor is this: The Creator is quoted as instructing them, "I am offering you government OF The Creator, BY The Creator, and FOR the people!" The Law was later inscribed upon two tablets of stone as a contract between The Creator and the family of Israel.

Well, along came the first recorded smiling, waving gangster we know of today as a "politician". The translation "serpent" is grossly inaccurate -- the Hebrew would be more like "whispering enchanter". That political shyster was easily able to convince that very first woman and her man that The Creator had lied -- that he (political authority) could offer them government "...OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people!" (Lincoln plagiarized at Gettysburg)

That Book is a chronology of the desire on the part of human beings to be ruled by human authority ("...we will have a king..."), and the results thereof.

I believe we are about at the end game of the storyline of the Hebrew Book. The "protesters" have no idea what the protest is about -- their "demands" appear to be for "the hair of the dog that bit us." Voters have no idea for whom or why they vote. The depredations of unfettered agents of state appear to have finally resulted in the squandering of the productive efforts of the people who have craved to be ruled -- and who have provided legitimacy to those parasites of state. Total economic collapse appears to be in the offing.

None of them see, as we here at STR see, the incestuous relationship between "Wall Street", "giant corporations" and "Our Country" (the ancestry of that first recorded deceiver), that has given rise to the debacle now upon us.

The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

Tony Pivetta's picture

Interesting take on the Garden of Eden account! My lifelong interest in matters of faith and state notwithstanding, I was not familiar with it. It makes sense, though, especially in light of I Samuel, Chapter 8:

"Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full to those who were asking him for a king. He told them: 'The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows: he will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers. He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.

"'He will use your daughters as ointment-makers, as cooks, and as bakers. He will take the best of your fields, vineyards and olive groves, and give them to his officials. He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves.'"

There's also St. Augustine's *City of God*, in which this Doctor of the Church likens kingdoms to "great robber bands." He goes on to write:

"A fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence, 'What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor.'"

Is God an anarchist? Your typical Christian-Zionist (sic) neocon will balk at the suggestion. But if God is love, how can He not be an anarchist?

Samarami's picture


    Is God an anarchist? Your typical Christian-Zionist (sic) neocon will balk at the suggestion. But if God is love, how can He not be an anarchist?

It's important to remember that most of us had to come out from under a host of fallacious ideology before we ever landed on this web site. Anarchy does not come easily. With that, my answer (for what it's worth) is "yes". From everything I can see objectively -- not colored by preconceived religious and/or political emotional ideology -- there is nothing in Hebrew scripture to indicate otherwise. Of course that's assuming "Hebrew scripture" is the final word on Deity, which ignores all Islam, Buddha -- and how many other religious movements larger than those subscribing to Hebrew scripture.

The Book is a Testimonial to anarchy as we generally understand it (although the word is never used or implied). From stem to stern it is an admonishment to eschew political entanglement.

That's why it's such a hoot for me to stand back and watch political types -- right, left, across and hold -- getting themselves stirred up in promotion of or opposition against war or abortion or same-sex "marriage" or other state machinations. Sam