Graham Walker, Michael Farris, and Fascism in a Christian Garb
Few Americans know about General Francisco Franco and his fascist regime in Spain. Even fewer know that its ideology came from the Falange, a political-ideological organization of well-meaning conservative lawyers and professors in Spain who wanted a conservative corporate state along the lines of Mussolini’s Italy – but still committed to the Catholic Church and the Christian faith – to fight socialism, communism, and the decay of morals. Franco took their ideology and created one of the most oppressive regimes in Europe at the time, destroying in the process not only communists and socialists, but also all regional autonomy, all private initiative, all political initiative, all individual liberty. A good psychologist, Franco played on the religious feelings of the Spanish people, declaring his oppressive regime to be simply a protector of good morals, of the church, and of the traditional family. In the end, the regime controlled how many hours a woman can work outside home, what clothes men and women should wear, whether a woman can drive a car or not, what the parents could teach their children, etc., etc. Franco took Primo de Rivera’s (the founder of the Falange) dream of a “collective, integral, national” faith and applied it in practice. Or, rather, imposed it in practice, by force.
At the end, when Franco died, his regime was so universally hated, that what he claimed to protect – good morals and the church – went into such steep decline, that church membership and attendance dropped by 90% within several years, and social morality crashed completely. (Spain today has the highest rate of drug addiction in all Europe, and immorality is rampant, for more info on how to get help for drug abuse contact 1st Step.) And what he claimed to oppose – socialism and communism – took over Spain without a fight. The result of Franco’s fascism was that Spain, at the end, was as close to socialism and immorality and as far away from righteousness and justice as she’s never been before, since the times of the Carthaginian dominance.
And the ideology for that fascism in traditional Christian, churchian garb was provided by a few well-meaning, conservative, pro-church and pro-traditional family academics and lawyers. Fascism in Spain was not the occult, atheistic type of fascism in Italy or Germany. It was conservative and right-wing. And it carried a cross and swore in the name of Jesus Christ.
A more thorough study in the history of Franco’s regime and its failed policies to contain socialism, communism, and the decay of morals would be necessary for today’s America. Why? Because we have our own Falangists today. Yes, we in America have our own well-meaning lawyers and academics who are concerned about the growth of socialism, and about the decay of morals, and want to deal with it in a centralized, tyrannical, fascist way. They have the same ideology as the Spanish Falange: A centralized corporate state imposing “accepted morality” upon the population. For good purposes, of course. Just like the Falangists in Spain in the 1920s and the 1930s, these American Falangists speak against liberty, against state rights (provincial autonomy, in Spain), against libertarianism (liberalism, in the language of the 1930s). Just like the Falangists of the 1930s in Spain they want a central government to intervene and impose morality in everything. They don’t believe in states’ rights, nor in county rights; they claim it is the Federal government that must intervene in issues of morality, over the responsibility of the individual and the laws of the local governments.
And just like the Falangists in Spain, they will eventually bring about our own American Franco who will eventually destroy the Christian roots and character this nation, using Christianity as an excuse for fascism. They will, that is, if they are not exposed and stopped. Some of these academics and lawyers are leaders of successful Christian ministries, and thus have influence in Christian circles. Unfortunately, they use their influence to spread their fascist ideologies. They must be exposed and stopped, before it’s too late.
These American fascists in a Christian garb have been alarmed recently of the comeback of libertarian ideas among the new generation of Christians, and especially young homeschooled Christians, as testified by the popularity of Ron Paul and his Christian libertarian ideas among these young homeschooled men and women. That’s why Graham Walker, president of Patrick Henry College, found it necessary to talk to the Institute on Religion and Democracy on what he considers an important topic, “Libertarianism, Calvinism, and Young Evangelicals.” Just like his friend and predecessor, Michael Farris, Walker finds Calvinism very dangerous. No wonder, given the fact that Calvinists were always the first to fire the opening shots for any revolution against tyranny; Farris, and Walker with him, can’t tolerate such a thing. Walker finds libertarianism dangerous too, as we will see from the article. I’d suggest, since there are three elements in the title, that Walker finds young Evangelicals dangerous too. He should. They are a threat to his fascist ideas. A serious threat.
Walker spoke to the IRD about the “challenges” posed by “Libertarian influenced” beliefs increasingly popular among young Reformed people. I am not sure what “challenges” he is talking about. I have never seen a young Reformed libertarian being “challenged” by his libertarian beliefs. To the contrary, libertarianism is exactly in line with the doctrines of the Reformation and, for that matter, as R.J. Rushdoony explained many times, with the doctrines of the Word of God. A challenge for Walker, apparently, is the fact that the young Reformed libertarians want the government out of areas like “marriage, abortion, drugs, or prostitution.” I would like to know who that Reformed believer is that wants the government out of the area of abortion. I don’t know of a such. And I am sure Walker doesn’t know of a such.
Concerning marriage, drugs, and prostitution, I would like to know where the Bible says the government should involve in these issues. After all, Walker claims to be a Christian, and before he talks about any issue, he should be able to give Biblical verses. The problem is real given the fact that Walker, just like Michael Farris, is not only anti-Reformed, he is also anti-theonomic, that is, he doesn’t believe that the Biblical Law applies to our modern world. Neither does the article tell us that Walker ever quoted the Bible in defense of his ideas. His only defense for government interference in these areas – marriage, drugs, and prostitution – is that there is no way to fully privatize those issues, and that the government can not remain neutral. Notice his argument: If an issue is a public issue, it is by default a civil government issue. And, for the government not to remain neutral, it must regulate. He doesn’t allow for the possibility that there is “public” outside the government; and he does say that “if the government privatizes marriage, that would mean that marriage has no public purpose.” That means that whatever public purpose your marriage has must be controlled and regulated by the government. He doesn’t allow for the possibility that the government may be restrained from a certain action even if it doesn’t remain neutral. Walker doesn’t believe in limited government. He believes in a totalitarian government which acts in all situations, no matter what, in order to not remain “neutral.”
That’s why he describes the alternative to his position in the following words:
. . . post moderns love Libertarianism because it often implies there is no “accepted moral truth.”
In other words, Walker claims indirectly, in order to believe in “accepted moral truth,” we must subject all areas of life to the government – since, after all, no area of life can be completely “privatized.” Economy can’t be completely “privatized,” can it? And it has “public purpose,” doesn’t it? Therefore, by Walker’s logic, it must be regulated by the civil government. Family, as we already saw, should be regulated by the government too. Church? It has public purpose too. Regulate it, of course. Our eating, sleeping, education – homeschooling, too – they all have some public purpose. So, if we follow Walker’s ideology, they all must be regulated by the government. Walker’s logic, if we submit to it, should lead to a happy big centralized totalitarian state. Otherwise, if we reject his logic, then we don’t believe in “accepted moral truth.”
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,” said Mussolini in a speech to the Chamber of Deputies in 1928. Walker concurs: Anything outside the state must be outside the “accepted moral truth.”
Walker’s friend and predecessor, Michael Farris, criticized Ron Paul for one thing mainly: That Ron Paul believed in the Tenth Amendment, that is, in decentralized government. Farris couldn’t tolerate that, and he countered it with the Fourteenth Amendment which was passed to give more power to the Federal government. Farris continues to praise the Fourteenth Amendment even though it is the sole legal foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision, and therefore the sole legal reason for the slaughter of 50 million unborn babies in the US. But Farris is a firm believer in centralized government; therefore, all other considerations are secondary to him.
Another lawyer, a fascist in a Christian garb, is Tony Perkins, who annulled the poll results of his own Value Voters Summit when Ron Paul won it. The reason? Perkins wasn’t very clear, he just said that Ron Paul’s is not a conservative. The true reason? At that very summit, Ron Paul spoke . . . no, he actually preached to the audience from 1 Samuel 8, the Biblical chapter against centralized socialist government. Perkins had no problems when a few years earlier Mitt Romney – at the time clearly pro-abortion and anti-family – won the same poll. Romney, of course, is dear to Perkins for Romney believes in centralized big government. Ron Paul, with his anti-statist positions, is the enemy.
There are others as well, anti-libertarian, anti-theonomic lawyers who love a big, centralized, totalitarian state, and therefore reject liberty and decentralization, all in the name of Christ, of course: Jeffery Ventrella of ADF, Gary Bauer, and many others. They claim they defend morality, and fight socialism, just like those Falangists in Spain 80 years ago. And they are all fascists in their beliefs. They never go to the Law of God to ask, “How much is the civil government allowed to regulate and control our lives?” Their solution to socialism is . . . more government control. And make it centralized, please. The state is their true god; and as long as it has a cross on the top, it must be good.
Romney’s defeat in the elections was good news: These “Christian” fascists have no serious influence over the Christian voters. The Christian voters didn’t listen to them. The ideas of liberty as a Biblical value are more attractive than the ideas of a centralized government which is grown out of control to control every aspect of our lives. And, which is even better: Those young, evangelical voters are not listening to Walker and the rest of the fascist crowd. Ron Paul and Christian libertarianism are winning the next generation. There is hope.
Mark Levin is not overtly Christian that I know of. After reading all the wrangling in the comments here, I would like for you all to comment on your views of Mark Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation. What think ye?
Levin considers Farris a friend in the fight for the Constitutional Convention (just said so this week). That may be all we need to know.
I also challenged Ventrella back when he was cheer-leading for Judge Roberts’ confirmation to the USSC, even when I could prove Roberts was pro-gay, a fraud, and a host of other problems. I’ve called him out a couple of times since then on Roberts and he sits quiet.