This Week’s Accusation Du Jour … “Pastor Bret uses ‘Racist’ Words”

Last week I was informed by Chloe that I was being accused in some quarters of being a “white Supremacist.” As such, I posted a response trying to point out how ridiculous such a charge is and how it can only be lodged by someone who has been influenced by Cultural Marxist categories and who could possibly themselves be an unconscious part of the new Cultural Marxist proletariat crafted to overthrow historic Christianity. I tried to use quotes from some of the Dutch Reformed Church fathers to demonstrate that you can not fit a slim dime between what I was trying to communicate and what several of the Dutch Reformed fathers wrote as they handled Scripture.

This week, a friend of mine (Michael Fort) has pointed me to a blog where the accusation was recently made by an eminent person who has repeatedly (three times at last count) made the accusation that my words are racist. Color me stupid, but even I can begin to see the beginnings of a bad Zombie apocalypse movie where I serve a bit role for being devoured by the ravenous hordes. You will forgive me, dear reader, if I am to be served up as the main course if my intent is to at the very least give the Cultural Marxist Zombies a bit of indigestion on the way down.

So, here I am in the situation where the Zombie Apocalypse hordes are gathering and they are giving off that high pitched signal that you hear in those kinds of films for other Zombies to come and also shriek and dine. In this case, if I am to survive the rest of the film I am thus put in the position of having to provide a defense for why I am not a “racist.” The way things are rolling I’m sure I’ll be back the next few weeks defending myself from being a misogynist, homophobe, and one who enjoys grilling babies over an open flame.

Let me say, at the outset, as I have noted before that I am working at somewhat of a disadvantage here since I have no earthly idea of what “racist” means.  The word has no objective meaning apart from its intended work as a polemical sobriquet. If no one embraces for himself the definition of “racism” or “racist” as given by the Cultural Marxists and if further the definition is only attached to something that is in and of itself inherently wicked per those who sling around the word who would ever admit that they are a racist per the definition of Cultural Marxists? I sure don’t. The word becomes kind of a verbal biological weapon that is intended to poison the well before the conversation can begin.

But for the sake of argument lets just say that “racist” means a person who hates non-Caucasians. (Warning here … in the not too distant past I was told by another eminent person that the term non-caucasian is “racist.” I was also told by someone else that using the phrase “person of color” is “racist.” What’s a guy to do?) If the accusation that I am a “racist” means that I hate non-Caucasians then the proof that I am not a “racist” is the job of producing evidence that I don’t uniformly hate non-Caucasians.

The problem here however, is now I am put in the position of the Apostle Paul who said he spoke “as a fool” and “as a madman” in having to march out his bonafides in order to sustain his ministry among God’s people as he was dealing with the False Apostles (II Corinthians 11).  I am not comfortable in doing what follows since Scripture mentions that our deeds of charity should be done secret. However, what else can I do if I am not to be eaten alive by the Cultural Marxists Zombie hordes?

I have been in the ministry 30 years this September. Along the way, I have been honored to try and help people from countless numbers of tribes, nations, and tongues. In my first ministry in South Carolina, where I spent 6 years, for two of those years I was instrumental in creating and putting together an old-fashioned tent revival for the tiny community that I served. We went out of our way to include and invite the black churches in the area. Many folks came from both the black and white churches. One of those two years we invited a friend of mine who I graduate Seminary with — a black pastor — who gave the message on each night of the “Revival meeting.” We put up a  huge banner over the town thoroughfare (imagine a tiny version of Mayberry RFD) and we rented and pitched a huge tent. We brought in a top-notch music guy who generously donated his talents. We put down sawdust. We had the black choirs from the black churches do some of the music. We had fellowship. The children played on the lawn as children do. Then we went back to worship in our respective churches week by week. I don’t know how much of an impact that had? One can never know or measure those kinds of things. No one asked me about this before deciding to launch the potential professionally career-ending charge of using words that are “racist.”

Then there was the work my friend Karl and I did. Karl was the Presbyterian minister in the city Church (population 500) and I was the Presbyterian minister in the little country rural Church. We had attended Seminary together. I came to love Karl like a brother. And like brothers, we were involved in each other’s life at the time. One of the things we did together at Christmas time was to have our congregations wrap up and donate gifts for children which he and I would then distribute to families in need. Karl and I went to white homes and we went to black homes trying to bring a wee bit of good will to impoverished people.

Then there was my friendship with Amos and Methrane Mateva. They belong to the Shona people and were from Zimbabwe. They lived in the trailer behind our trailer. We had classes together and had long conversations about what we were learning. My, at the time toddler-daughter Laura-Jane, and Amos’s toddler daughter Vimbai would often play together as we talked. When I took my first charge in South Carolina we continued to try and be of some service to the Matevas. We planted a huge garden together in the large plot of land that the new manse sat on. I remember Amos and I struggling together to pull up the Kudzu so as to clear the land and give our vegetable plants root room to grow. When harvest time came we shared the produce with the Matevas. I introduced the Matevas to the new congregation, Jane, I was serving. There were those in that Southern rural congregation who were at first, kind of uneasy with the idea but after Amos gave his presentation of life in Zimbabwe the congregation was largely won over.  That congregation was a wonderful place to start a career in the ministry and I praise God daily for them in my life.

Eventually, I would go on a 9-day fact-finding tour to Zimbabwe to investigate the possibility of my wife and I going there as Missionaries. While in Zimbabwe I stayed with a Shona family and ministered with a Shona pastor. I sat at their table and broke bread with them. I slept in their home. I visited the high-density suburbs of Zimbabwe and was stunned to see the conditions under which people lived. I went out into the rural areas of Zimbabwe with Rev. N. and was always graciously received by the rural people in their simple dwellings where we were uniformly offered Sadza, upon entry of each humble home. Sadza, for those accusing me of “racism” is a cooked maize staple in Zimbabwe. I often think how good it would be to have some Sadza again. On a Sunday I was in Zimbabwe I preached in the local church through a translator. I marveled not only at these people and how far they would walk to attend Church but also at the terrain they had to cover to get to Church. I also found it interesting that as they filed into Church the women sat on one side of the dirt aisle and the men sat on the other side of the aisle.

Obviously, the doors never opened to go to Zimbabwe to do Missionary work. Jane was especially disappointed as doing Missions had always been her dream growing up in a very missions-minded Pastor’s home and having spent 9 months in the Ivory Coast as a nurse just before we were married. Life has divinely ordained disappointments. You learn to trust God’s providence and move on.

We kept in touch with the Matevas as the years progressed, although we finally did lose touch with them a few years ago as communication with them became more and more difficult for several reasons. Before losing touch though, I introduced the Matevas to the congregation I was serving in Michigan and to a few folks who read this blog. Because of that, we were able to raise for the Mateva’s several thousand dollars to help them survive and do their Ministerial work in Zimbabwe among the Shona and Ndebele nations. If you type “Zimbabwe” into the Iron Ink search engine you can find fundraising appeals and correspondence from the Matevas. I’m sure this kind of action (fund-raising and friendship) is characteristic of all “racists.”

The world has become smaller and smaller because of the internet. Because of that, I have done my share of counseling and conversation over the phone with non-Caucasian friends. Several years ago, there was R from the Indian sub-continent who had married a white European woman and who called me a couple time to help with difficulties in the marriage. I tried to encourage him and counsel him the best I could in a difficult situation. Of course a “racist” would never have taken such a phone call but I gladly did and still count R as a friend. (R had been a personal friend with the Reformed Theological giant Dr. Francis Nigel Lee and we would spend considerable time online talking about that man’s abilities.)

More recently, “P” has come into my life by God’s ordination. “P” is a non-Caucasian who lives on the islands between the US Southern Coast and South America. “P” phones once or twice a month and we gladly chat for 60 to 90 minutes. I already consider him a friend. By his testimony, this twenty-something year old counts me as a mentor. I am embarrassed at how much he is impressed with me. I know I am not what he seems to think I am. “P” is starving for Biblical Christianity in a place where, by his testimony, zero Biblical Christianity exists. So he phones and we talk about God’s grace and God’s law. We talk about the challenges he faces. We talk about his relationship with his white European fiancee. To my recollection, I’ve never shrieked in racist horror. I count “P” a friend already. He and his fiancee, as well as his parents (who we have been honored to break bread with here in the States), have generously supported the ministry Jane and I are involved in here in Charlotte. I am overwhelmed with God’s goodness by putting these people in my life and by giving me the opportunity to help in whatever little “racist” way I can.

Allow me to speak a little of “G” who lives in one of the large metropolitan cities on the Eastern Seaboard. “G” is a black man who shares a common worldview and faith. Because of the wonders of the internet, we have chatted several times.  “G” tries to keep a comparatively low profile because he realizes it might well mean his job if he spoke out too boldly on the matters in which we agree. He is seeking to be as “wise as a Serpent and harmless as a dove.” I am more than confident from corresponding with “G” that he would agree with the words of Elizabeth Wright.

“White conservatives don’t want to take the lead in preserving what remains of this country’s now tenuous White, Anglo-Euro culture. To take on such a responsibility would make them even more vulnerable to the racial bullets and daggers they have been ducking for years.”

~ Elizabeth Wright, Black Conservative Author, and Social Critic

I highly recommend the writing of Elizabeth Wright. I have enjoyed reading her. I think you can still find them online.

“G” is a good man. His people and the Church needs many more like him.

Next we meet Dr. Jaime. I swear there are times when I think he is the humblest man who has ever lived. Actually, if it is possible to be too humble he certainly is too humble. Dr. Jaime is a Filipino professional living in the States. I will let Dr. Jaime testify in his own words to my “racist” disposition and teaching as he has recently on the blog where the eminent person is calling my words “racist.”

“I am one of the nonwhite Christian friends of Pastor Bret. We have known each other for 7 years or so. He has counseled me often, and I have financially contributed to his ministry.

I agree with the points he has made. I do not find them uncharitable. If whites can just closely observe how we are in the third world, they will realize that indeed we cause our problems that keep us stranded where we are. It is simple human depravity.

And we do critique each other in my nation, especially when we recognize how our Japanese neighbors are far more disciplined and advanced. I personally would not desire the collapse of Japan by inundating it with my own countrymen. I will not be upset if we are restrained by its citizens after they notice how we are in my nation.

For me, it is Christlike empathy, humility, and charity if we confess our own shortcomings, which we should work to repent of, and which we should not want to burden other groups with. That’s how I take Pastor Bret’s point that has been quoted about the third world here.

More importantly, I see it as a tribal issue. Even in ancient Israel, each tribe was responsible for its own members. It was so for other nations around Israel. We are to follow the same command of God.

There is nothing racist about how God has created specific tribes with their own historical evolution of unity by blood and faith. Scripture shows how Israel began as an abandoned and crying infant child ignored and rejected by greater nations around her. But then God Himself had much compassion to take her as His own offspring. Each tribe and nation can have such faith in His love, regardless of their state in history.

Here we also do see God eventually raise Israel as a mighty nation where noble kings, prophets, and warriors would arise. I find nothing wrong if anyone should note that Europeans, in particular, Anglo-Saxons, would have the most remnant raised by God to have special blessings similar to what ancient Israel and the kingdom of Judah once received from Him.

It does not offend me because it is the pleasure of God to do as He will with individuals and their tribes since the beginning of creation, all for the glory of His name. I am content and fully accepting of this truth as the sovereignty of God at work. I am neither European nor Anglo-Saxon. I am a Filipino, and yet my hope is that the remnant among my people does have its own gifts by the grace of Christ too. God has decreed in history that not everyone can be glorious Judah; others are nurtured by God to be repentant Naphtali and Zebulun.”

I would just note that Dr. Jaime is being humble when he notes simply that he has supported the ministry here in Charlotte.

Of course, I am no Albert Schweitzer, but it wouldn’t matter if I were because if the white South African missionary and Pastor, Dr. Peter Hammond can be accused of being a “racist,” as he recently has been by Dr. Joel McDurmon then any white person can be accused of being a racist simply because they will not hue the cultural Marxist line.

This is not all I could march out to provide an apologetic for why Pastor Bret is not “racist.” But I could drain every last episode and account in my life of cross-racial ministry and friendship but it wouldn’t matter to the Cultural Marxist influenced zombies who are seeking to destroy me both personally and professionally because, in the end, this isn’t about race, racism, or racists or white Supremacists. In the end, this is about theology, worldview, and ideology.  If non-Caucasians refuse to agree with the Cultural Marxist version of egalitarian reality then those non-Caucasians can just be dismissed as so many exotic “Uncle Toms,” by the Cultural Marxists. So, it doesn’t matter how many people, accounts, and friendships I march up to the microphone, I will still be condemned for being using “racist” words because I dare not fit into the zeitgeist. I challenge and so remain accused of using  racist words because I have deconstructed the Belhar Confession as proto-Marxist, and I will remain a misogynist no matter how many women would say to the contrary because I don’t believe women should be ordained as Pastors, and I will remain a homophobe no matter the friendships in my life that testify otherwise because I refuse to support sodomy as a lifestyle or an option for marriage, and I will remain being accused of using racist words because of my love for my people and my insistence that even their white lives matter. My opposition to these things is not going to change and I don’t care if I am frogged marched before courts, councils, and luminaries, I am not giving any quarter on these issues.

The reasons why I am giving no quarter on these issues have grown over the years. I now have 9 grandchildren and I know of a certainty that world that awaits them if this cultural Marxist one-worldism isn’t opposed and eventually stopped. I have sat by and wept at the accounts of the Soviet Gulags. I have been sleepless over what I have read at the French Revolution. I have cried out to God over the horrors of Mao’s “great leap forward,” as I have read the accounts there. Hitler’s concentration camps and the Turks treatment of the Armenians lingers in my memory. The Bolshevik slaughter of the Ukranian Christians, largely still unreported and unknown, taunts me in my sleep.  The future of my grandchildren is the present realities of the white Boers and Afrikaners in South Africa, where recently South Africa has just been upgraded to #6 on the genocide scale — the next to last step before the actual beginning of the slaughter. If I have to be personally and professionally destroyed in a fight for God’s glorious truth of the realities of nations and for the future of my offspring then let the destruction begin. I will wear that destruction as a badge of honor and will list it on my resume.

Maybe I am wrong here, however? Maybe the reason it has been said that I use “racist,” words is not because I hate non-Caucasian people. Maybe I have been said to have used “racist” words because of how many times I have written that white people have to be the stupidest people who have ever walked the planet. People, will come to me and talk about the controversial Charles Murray book, “The Bell Curve,” and my response generally is that my eyes tell me that white people should hardly be crowing about where they fall on the bell curve. Who else would give up their inheritance and patrimony in order to find satisfaction in the ability to virtue signal? Who else would embrace their own creeping destruction in order to have their enemies say nice things about them? Who else would gladly be led by women and children (Isaiah 3:12)? Countless are the times I have bemoaned that white people are the stupidest thing going because only stupidity combined with divinely imposed blindness can explain why a people would rebel against the God who has historically dealt so generously with them.  We, as white Christians, have sown the wind, and now for several generations, we have been justly reaping the whirlwind.  Part of that reaped whirlwind is the disease called Cultural Marxism.

Maybe this is why it is being said that I use “racist” words If my bemoaning of the utter stupidity of the white race as seen in what looks to be the majority attempt to live out the worse of dystopian realities is why it is being subtly suggested that I am “racist” then color me guilty.

Perhaps there is no defense against the label of “racist?” After all, if after being said to have used “racist,” words by a luminary, working for an organization committed to “racial reconciliation,” I am also told that “race is a biological myth,” what am I do to? One wonders how there can be any racial reconciliation between members of groups that do not exist? How can I defend myself against someone who at one and the same time says, “Race is a biological myth but then suggests to me that I am still a racist and  hater against something they don’t believe even exists?” It seems my real sin is believing that race is a real category and not a social construct. However, what I do to when we find studies like this being published?

https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/09/can-you-determine-race-fingerprint

Somebody better tell those fingerprints that they are being “racist.”

Like the Apostle Paul, I can at the same time, love both the whole family of God and my kinsmen after the flesh (Romans 9:3) and not feel an inch of shame for doing so.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Challenging Thabiti Anyabwile’s Marxist Narrative

 

“What we’re getting here is a “both sides” view of history that suggests all parties are equally guilty of racism. Now, I agree that something like racism, ethnic bigotry, and other species of alienation and animus and idolatry of self exists among all people. But I was talking about 1950-’60s America. I was making a comment about a particular setting in which it cannot be said that both sides were equally guilty in the animus. African Americans have never carried out lynchings. African Americans have never passed “Jim Brown laws” to retaliate for Jim Crow laws. We have never systematically ostracized and oppressed white people as a group. The sin of the period was unilaterally and systematically directed from whites toward blacks.

One of the amazing things about African Americans is that we have survived for so long without giving fully into the racial animosity that could exist given how we’ve been treated. It’s a wonderful providence and humanly speaking we have millions of mothers and fathers and the likes of the Dr. Kings of the world to thank for teaching us not to give in to hate.

Until we get these basic points of history correct we’re not having the same conversation. And when we appear to equivocate about where the guilt and responsibility actually lie, we make it far too easy for strains of that former behavior, attitude, and complicity to continue unchecked.”

 Thabiti Anyabwile

We are dealing with a different fact set in this discussion and so the good Rev. is quite correct about not having the same conversation. The good Rev. is embracing a particular Marxist history because of the influence of Marxism on his worldview. In Marxist history, the leverage point is the conflict between in groups and out groups. In classical Marxists history, the bourgeoisie is oppressing the proletariat. In classical Marxist feminist history, males are oppressing females. In recent Marxist history of gender, heteronormativity oppresses LGBTQ normativity. In classical Marxist racial history, whites are oppressing minorities. Elsewhere Rev. TA has said,

“For a long time, I’ve just let the phrase (Marxist) and its variants go. But it seems like it’s not dying, and no one seems to be producing any actual writing or research to substantiate the term. “

However, the term is substantiated if only by the history that TA is appealing to. The Worldview that is pushing TA’s history is Marxism. Secondly, observations that TA is practicing a kind of Marxism narrative is seen in his recent support for the candidate Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist (Marxist).  Third, that TA is pushing a racial Marxist narrative is seen in the fact that his facts are disputed. Consider the following,

Myth #1 –African Americans never carried out any lynchings

In this link below, there are all kinds of examples of African-Americans carrying out lynching along with photos. Most of the information below is cut and pasted from this link.

https://theinjusticefile.blogspot.com/2012/01/blacks-who-lynched-blacks-truth-behind.html

There was without question a determined effort in the South among White people to have the Black race live separately. However, there was, prior to 1964, nothing illegal or even immoral in this desire. Nor was it an act of racism. One distinct people living separate from another distinct people was not just the norm in American history (up until 1964) but human history as well. Regarding lynching… When a White person was attacked (rape or murder) and the perpetrator was Black, this was seen as an attack on “the group” and White people responded more often than not with uncharacteristic ferocity. Blacks were rarely ever assaulted (rape or murder) by a White person in the South. 99.9% of the cases I have found where violence crossed racial lines, it was Black- on-White … and the result was a raging and maddened mob out for revenge. These were the times in which they lived. The vast number of attacks by Blacks on innocent southern White people, including rape, in this type of atmosphere, boggles my mind.

Myth #2 — Blacks didn’t give into hate in a systemic fashion

Again, this is just not true as seen in just the Whitman’s sampler below. See link provided above for active links.

. Atlanta, GA. – 1900: Black male bully sat on a white male’s lap while riding a on street car, deliberately trying to humiliate and antagonize him. A fight ensued and the black male pulled a concealed gun and gunned down the young white male. Oh, and in the state of Georgia in 1900, the color-line mandate was not being enforced, so blacks could sit where they pleased.

2.Shreveport, La. – 1901: Black Supremacist organization advocated violence against white people. One white male was murdered. Link

3. Columbus, Ga. – 1900: Negro crawled into the bedroom of young white girl thru an open window and attempted to rape her. Link

4. Columbus, Mo. 1901 – Negro raped his employer’s wife…then shot her in the head
Brother-in-law of murder victim:  “I want to speak to him, how many times we cared for him and how kind Mary was to him, and ask him why he killed her. Then, when he has answered that, I want to see him burned.”  Link

5. Tuscumbia, Ala. – 1901:  It’s a MASSACRE – Negro petty criminal ambushed sheriff and deputy and murdered both – he then gunned down seven more white males – four dead.  Link (note: the death count was later revised)

6. Dublin, Ga. -1908: Two Negro employees invaded the home of their [white] employer, beat him senseless with an ax, gang raped his wife … then slashed her to pieces demanding to know the whereabouts of household money  Link

7. Satton, W.Va. – 1908: Home Invasion By Negroes – White male homeowner was tied to a tree then whipped — negroes then gang raped his wife (no, I’m not kidding) Link

8. Hot Springs Ark. – 1908: Negro cook decides he gonna have a little fun with hungry young white male – taunts him with food offer – makes him work in the blazing heat until he can’t work any longer… Negro then guns him down. Link 

9.Eufala, Ala. 1911: Prominent American woman was stalked by a negro sexual predator as she walked from a neighbor’s home to her home. The negro finally grabbed her and wrestled her to the ground. As the negro started to tear her clothes off … to rape her… her desperate screams for help saved her.  White males quickly came to her rescue. Link

10. Stephensport, Ky. – 1904: Negroes “Lynch” Young White Male – If Emmit Till murder was a “lynching” than this one should also be judged a lynching as well. Two negro brothers went after a young white male who , their sister claimed, “insulted her”. When they found the young white male … they slit his throat from ear to ear. source  

Let us consider the 86 years of American segregation (1882 – 1968). During that time period, there were 4,743 lynchings in America according to the black founded and run Tuskegee Institute. Of those, 1,297 (27%) lynchings were of white people. Why was this? Contra Hollywood and modern history textbooks, the purpose of lynchings was not “racism”, but the public and guaranteed punishment of crime. That is why 695 (14%) of lynchings took place in one of the 33 non-segregated states. Lynching was a method of criminal justice when a particularly grievous crime had been committed and/or the citizens were unsure if they would get justice through the courts.

We are not speaking about if we *agree* with the practice, we are speaking about the historical realities of it. Lynching was about punishing criminals, not “uppity blacks who were getting out of hand” as [ as many put it]. This is seen in the reasons the Tuskegee Institute lists for the lynchings: homicide 41%, felony assault 4%, rape 19%, attempted rape 6%, robbery/theft 5%. Only 85 lynchings (less than 2% of total) over the entire course of those 86 years in the entire country are listed as “insult to white person” as the reason.

The average law-abiding Southern black had nothing to worry about, the noose was for rapists and murderers. The fact that only 3,446 blacks were lynched out of the millions of blacks living in the South during that time period puts to rest the stereotype of a noose on every tree. To put this in perspective, there are currently 7,000 blacks murdered by other blacks every year in America. So every year blacks kill twice as many blacks as were lynched in total over a 86 year time period.

Rev. Anyabwile is correct when he says that “until we get these basic points of history correct we’re not having the same conversation.” If the facts were what TA says they were then, of course, his point would stand but those “facts” that he is citing are disputable and the worldview he is using as his interpretation of facts is likewise more than disputable.  TA is playing an old and dangerous game right now and the success of his endeavors is likely to continue since most of the people he is speaking to, ignorant of other historical narratives, just accept his version and worldview of the facts.

Let it be clearly noted that I’m not denying that there were white people who did shameful things to black people. However, I am denying that it was uniformly happening in the way TA places it in his Marxist narrative.

That blacks were not the innocents that TA suggests is dismissed by any reading of the Reconstruction period from 1865-1877, as well as by considering what was provided above.

 

Wherein Classical Marxism and 21st Century Christianity Become Indistinguishable

1.) “Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.”

-Adam Weishaupt, quoted in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Orion Books Limited, 1993), p. 32.

2.) Capitalism developed the ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away by awareness of resemblance and identity.

M. Walser
Uber die neusten Stimmungen im Westen
In: Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.

3.) ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

4.) “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

5.) “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

6.) “… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination

7.) “Hess had taught Marx that socialism was inseparable from internationalism. Marx writes in his Communist Manifesto that the proletariat has no fatherland. In his Red Catechism, Hess mocks the fatherland notion of the Germans, and he would have done the same with the fatherland notion of any other European nation. Hess criticized the Erfurt program of the German Social-Democrat Party for its unconditional recognition of the national principle. But Hess is an internationalist with a difference: Jewish patriotism must remain. He writes,

‘Whoever denies Jewish nationalism is not only an apostate, a renegade in the religious sense but a traitor to his people and to his family. Should it prove true that the emancipation of the Jews is incompatible with Jewish nationalism, then the Jew must sacrifice emancipation… The Jew must be, above all, a Jewish patriot.’

I agree with Hess’ patriotic ideas to the extent that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am for every kind of patriotism – that of the Jews, the Arabs, the Germans, the Russians, the Americans. Patriotism is a virtue if it means the endeavor to promote economically, politically, spiritually, and religiously the welfare of one’s own nation, provided that it is done in friendship and cooperation with other nations.”

~Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, pp.54-55

8.) This from Igor Shafareivich’s “Socialist Phenomenon,” Shafareivich is commenting on that which is characteristic of all International Socialist expressions, 

a.) The national question: ‘National differences and antagonistic interests among various peoples are already vanishing more and more and more thanks to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the corresponding conditions of life. The supremacy of the proletariat will accelerate the disappearances of differences.’

9.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”
K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

10.) Nikita Krushchev

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

11.) “The more Christianity spreads, the more these racial, ethnic, and national distinctions will be erased because no culture will be left untouched by the Gospel. When all (cultures) are affected, they will be one culture — Christendom.”

21st Century  “Christian Reconstructionist Theologian”

12.)  “We hear much about “identity politics” today. Christianity beat the movement to that concept by many centuries. Our identity is not ours to choose, however. Our identity is not determined by our genetics or our economic status. No, the Christian message about identity is an easy one: Christ is all and in all. He is our identity. His sacrifice redeems us, His intercession assures us, and as we live in recognition of His centrality in all things, the human-derived divisions that plague all of mankind are put aside. We come to one table, as one people, and the only lens we need for that is the one that shows us the Lord of glory, Jesus.”

21st Century Baptist High Profile “Apologist”

 

 

 

A Few Thoughts On Blasphemy

[Otto Scott] Well, there are still social sanctions against blasphemy, but the idols have changed.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Scott] You can’t blaspheme against certain minorities and that includes even discussing their behavior.

[Rushdoony] Yes, very good.

[Scott] Um, Judge Bork is being attacked because in the 1971 article. (In) 1971, he questioned the right to privacy as far as the Constitution is concerned. So he was committing blasphemy against Liberalism.

[Rushdoony] Very good. Excellent point… this is what blasphemy is about. And today, of course, as you have said Otto, we have reversed the moral order. We have made it blasphemy to speak ill of certain minority groups. And this is the problem.

RJR Lecture 
Blasphemy

1.) Blasphemy is an inescapable category. All social orders and cultures have either defacto or dejure blasphemy laws.

2.) Once one identifies what subject matter is outside the bounds of sustained and harsh criticism for a social order there one has identified the sacred. Once the sacred is identified then you know what is and is not considered blasphemy in that social order.

3.) Blasphemy laws can be of a dejure nature and often when crafted so the violation of blasphemy means a severe legal penalty. However, more often blasphemy laws are defacto and are not visited with a severe legal penalty but rather are visited with social and economic ostracism. We are seeing this increasingly in the West as a violation of non-legislated speech codes can cost someone their reputation, career and so livelihood.

4.) When the God of the Bible is eliminated from that which cannot be blasphemed the consequence is most usually it is the State which cannot be blasphemed or whatever the State by law or by precedent says may not be blasphemed.  That the State sets the parameter for what can and cannot be blasphemed one only needs to look at the Statist youth centers where the children are taught whom the god and gods are in the social order who must not be blasphemed. For example, the whole work going on against “bullying of the LGBQT community,” is largely just a program to set up the LGBQT community and their behavior as sacred and so not to be blasphemed.

5.) Blasphemy laws are about thought control. If one cannot say something one generally does not think that something. There is a tight connection between what one is allowed to say and what someone will end up thinking. If one cannot verbally denigrate God one will not likely give much thought to denigrating God. This is the way political correctness is working today. When we are not allowed to say something because the saying of it is considered blasphemy then the thinking of those thoughts will eventually dry up. For example, people very seldom use the word “sodomite” anymore to describe same-gender relation. The reason is that is the word “sodomite” has successfully been turned into a blasphemous word. To use that word is to raise a hand against that behavior which has become considered sacred.

6.) It is interesting that in Scripture there is little distinction between the sinner who deliberately abuses the name of the Lord ( Lev. 24:10-16), and the one who deliberately flouts his commandments ( Numbers 15:30-31). So tightly is God’s character/name and God’s law bound together that the flouting of either is the flouting of both. For both blasphemy and for the one who deliberately flouts God’s law, the death penalty is prescribed.

7.) Clearly, the God of the Bible is not considered sacred in our social order. In point of fact, a good case could be made that in order to advance in this social order one must not hold God as sacred for to hold God as sacred so as to not blaspheme His name would mean to blaspheme what this current social order takes as sacred.

8.) Summarizing, when one discovers in a social order what can or cannot be harshly criticized (blasphemed) there one has discovered the sacred in that social order. Once one has discovered the sacred in the social order one begins to unravel what the religion of that social order is. Blasphemy is an inescapable concept for all social orders because God and religion are inescapable concepts in all social orders.

The Shape of Water — A Review

“The Shape of Water,” just won the Academy Award for best film of the year. Having viewed the film last night I found just one more Cultural Marxist attack on the norms and values of the Christendom norms that normed Western civilization in favor of the putative superiority of the alien, the stranger, and the other.

The storyline introduces us to a “wild creature that can’t be anything else.” The film informs us that the wild creature comes from the third world Amazon and was abducted from his previous god-like existence by the evil white man and was brought by force and ill-treatment in order to possibly advance science and to beat the Russians to the moon. Of course, the wild creature while wild is cast as morally superior to his captors, even if he does eat a housecat along the way.

We find in the narrative thus that the white man as the protagonist as embodied in evil white General, the bumbling white scientist, and the evil white project head. The only slightly favorable white straight male character is the Communist Russian scientist spy who works to help save the wild creature. Hence the film reinforces our modern Cultural Marxist narrative of the stupid and evil white man who oppresses everything he lays his hands on.

White women only fare slightly better. Except for the lead, which we will return to later, the three white women who have minuscule roles are cast in traditional female roles and are subtly mocked in the film. The film gives us the white wife of the chief villain who is mocked as the traditional white stay at home Mother of two who is subservient to her husband and whose only ability is the sex she provides for her husband and her ability to be at home with the children. In such a way patriarchy is also mocked in the film. A second bit white female role is of the secretary at work who likewise is portraying a traditional white female role of “our girl Friday.” The third bit white female role lead is that of a bitchy co-worker who is always complaining or casting demeaning insults at the lead mute female. There are the three white women bit-roles we are given in the film. White traditional women like white men take it on the chin in this Cultural Marxist film.

The leading lady of the film is a white female who while not beautiful is comely. She is cast as a white woman who is missing something (her voice) that only the wild creature from an exotic land can finally cure.  The supporting male role is filled by a middle-aged sodomite who aids the female lead in rescuing the wild creature from the grip of the evil white men. The supporting female role is played by a black female who is forever telling us about the deficiencies of her husband. Except for the wild creature, the Communist scientist spy, and the sodomite, males in the film are bumbling, or evil beings. More Cultural Marxist fare; straight non-Communist white men are evil while perverted wild males from other lands or sodomites or Communists are good.

I’m convinced the leading white lady is supposed to represent the every day western white woman who can only find her voice by throwing themselves sexually at the wild thing from an exotic land who heals her of her lost voice while imparting to her immortal life as living in his environment.  White women and poor misunderstood wild males from exotic lands can only save one another as they conspire to overcome the wicked white man by copulating. So, we have the Cultural Marxist film selling the idea that there is something lacking in comely white women that only the wild thing can heal while at the same time wild exotic things from other lands can only be rescued by white women. I would contend that this is an obvious push for White women to copulate with that which is wild and untamed (illegal or legal immigrants from other countries). Only then can white women find that which is lacking and be healed and only then can wild things from exotic lands find salvation.

It is not even subtle. All you European and American women the way to find your voice is by copulating with wild males from exotic countries who are totally other. The inter-species relationship in the film stands as a metaphor for white women who have no voice giving themselves to the wild things from exotic lands and so finding what is lacking in themselves and their whiteness. Only by the White women working in concert with minority women, and homosexual man can evil white men be defeated. In the film, the wild thing from an exotic land is always morally better, restorative and redemptive.  And all this cast as a romantic love story.

A few other ancillary observations regarding the film,

1.) The white male lead, who is cast as a detestable and hateable character makes a sexual advance on the leading white female. Of course, such an advance is crude, and as coming in the context of the white male lead being already married to a wife which the film shows filling her husband’s bedroom needs, what is being communicated is the hypocrisy of the patriarchal family. The film’s clear intent is to communicate to white women that wild things from exotic lands are superior to white men and that white men should be surrendered for wild things from exotic lands.

2.) The film uses the Christian Scriptures accounts of Samson and Ruth. The evil white man in the film casts himself as Samson bringing down the plot of the sodomite, Communist scientist spy, black female co-worker, and the mute white girl to release the wild thing from an exotic land. The film places the apartment of the mute girl over a theatre that is playing the film “Ruth.” Ruth, you will recall is the bible story of the woman who is thought to have left her Moabite people in order to be a foremother of the Messiah.

3.) This film is basically the film version cast as a Romantic love story of Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality.” The patriarchal family in both the book and the film is cast as twisted and evil and the origin of much of what is wrong with Western civilization. To be trapped in this patriarchal family culture is to be mentally ill and so villainous.

4.) There may be even in the film an attempt to normalize bestiality as a sexual norm though I am convinced that the creature from the black lagoon is a stand-in not for sex with animals but as a stand-in for sex with wild things from exotic lands.

The film is an ideological Cultural Marxist attack on Christianity, White Males, patriarchy, Western Civilization, the whole idea of distinct nations, and normative sexuality cast as a Romance. In other words, typical Hollywood fare.