Category: Apologetics

The Difference Between Andrew Fraser’s “Ethnoreligious” Vision & McAtee’s Ethno-Christian Vision

Over at the link provided at the bottom of this page Andrew Fraser published an article that spilled some ink mentioning myself and Iron Ink. Upon reading the article my first thought was, “Given Andrew’s concerns in this article, I’m not sure why my name and my article dealing with dismissing the accusation that the Dissident Right is really ‘WOKE Right,’ even got into Mr. Fraser’s sites.” Most of his article dealt with the way he was dismissed and ignored by the “Right Response” chaps at a recent conference the Right Response guys held. It seems they refused Mr. Fraser the opportunity to set up a book table at the conference.

I should say at the outset that I am a wee bit familiar with Mr. Fraser’s works. Several years ago, I read, with great delight, his “Dissident Dispatches.” There was very little in that book with which I found myself disagreeing. As such, it was quite the surprise when Mr. Fraser should find himself disagreeing with me so strenuously.

It seems that Mr. Fraser thinks that the chaps at Right Response (Joel Webbon, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch,) are somehow intellectually linked with myself. I would like to say here to Mr. Fraser that I’m pretty confident that’s not true, especially given the fact that they would move heaven and earth to avoid being labeled as “Kinists” while Rev. Andy Webb has called me “The Godfather of Kinism.”

Mr. Fraser, on the other hand, seems to embrace the idea of Kinism given what he writes in one of his analysis pieces explaining his recent book;

“Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism.”

And he complains in that same analysis piece that;

 Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

So, on the narrow points of esteeming Kinism and thinking Stephen Wolfe is in error when Wolfe downplays the biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity Fraser and I are in league. If the blokes in charge of the Right Response conference knew of this conviction of Mr. Fraser regarding Kinism that would have been, by itself, reason enough for them to block Mr. Fraser from setting up a book table. For reasons that continue to completely mystify me, the Christian Nationalist movement remains scared out of their skin at the idea of Kinism. Alternately, they have no problem with the idea but the word itself makes them wet their pants with fear. They would, it seems, rather be flayed alive then to be associated with Kinism. Go figure.

In terms of the other three pillars that Mr. Fraser is building advocacy for his position upon (Royalism, Preterism, and Process Theism) I am personally indifferent to the first one (Royalism) am cautious about the second (Preterism) and am radically opposed to the third one (Process Theism).

I could easily live within a Monarchical system though I would prefer it to be a Constitutional Monarchy with the King hemmed in by the parameters of God’s Law. I have no problem with a healthy Partial Preterism though I remain convinced that Full Preterism is unabashed heresy. The Scriptures are unmistakable about the literal resurrection of the persons and physical bodies of those who have died — some to eternal misery, with the vast majority resurrected to eternal life in the renewed heavens and earth. The problems with Process of Theism are so vast that anybody who embraces it can no longer be considered a Christian. Process theism holds to a god that is a stranger to the God of the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is immutable, eternal, impassible, and is taught to have aseity. The God of process theism to the contrary is a God who is affected by temporal processes and so therefore is mutable, time-bound, passable, and lacks aseity. This is the god of Hegel who is constantly becoming as he responds to mankind in history.

Of course by embracing Process Theism one can’t help but wonder if Fraser is a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense. If the chaps at Right Response Ministries understood all this about Mr. Fraser it stands to reason they wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.

The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I agree with Mr. Fraser that what is needed is the Christ who is not only Universal but who is also particular. Christ is indeed a global Christ but He is a global Christ who rules over a confederated church that is represented by and comprised of many national churches. The New Jerusalem, we are taught, is populated by people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations. When Revelation 21 teaches that it is nation by nation that enter into the New Jerusalem we learn that Christianity is a faith that does not champion the Universal Jesus to the neglect of the particular Jesus. Because of this teaching there is no threat in my theology, as Mr. Fraser writes;

 “Of an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reducing the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).”

And so I have no problem with what Mr. Fraser writes that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.” However, I would war against any ethno-Christian foundation that included process theism or full Preterism. Further, I would vigorously argue that one doesn’t need either full Preterism, or process theism, in order to have the rebirth of a folk Christianity that is Anglo-Protestant. Indeed, I would argue that any Christianity that is characterized by full Preterism and/or process theism would be anti-Christ and so anti-Christianity.

Mr. Fraser complains about a lack of particularity in current versions of Christian Nationalism and yet that complaint is what one would expect from a man who has the lack of the Universal in his theology. For Mr. Fraser there is no Universal to hold his particulars together into a cohesive whole. Without a Universal the particulars are not possible, just as without a “Uni” in University, there can be no “(di)versity.”

Mr. Fraser did me the courtesy of correctly stating my position when he disagreed with it. I do believe that;

“Biblical Christianity … believes in a universal ‘history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth’ in fulfillment of God’s plan ‘to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.’”

And in that statement we find the presence of the Universal and the particulars. There is one Kingdom of God (Universal) that is occupied by the “Kingdoms of this earth” becoming “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Further, as mentioned earlier, these sundry and varied Kingdoms all come into the New Jerusalem on that final day in all their particular nationalistic glory.

Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

In the end, I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation,” though I would prefer the phrase “ethno-Christian.”

Much more might be said but I think this covers both my agreements and disagreements with Mr. Fraser. Given his embrace of Process Theism with its implicit Hegelianism I would lack kindness if I did not end with politely asking Mr. Fraser to consider repenting of such non-Biblical axioms.

Those wanting to read a more exhaustive explanation of Mr. Fraser’s position should read here;

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

If more questions by the readers arise from reading Mr. Fraser’s article I would be more than glad to answer them.

The CREC is NOT Conservative & Rev. Rich Lusk Proves It

The CREC is chock full of ministers who man the walls of the “conservative” Left. Rich Lusk is one of them. Uri Brieto is another. Doug Wilson is the godfather of the WOKE LITE Left. These chaps, if you recall, were the ones who just a few years ago, led the charge in trying to redefine Reformed theology by giving us the heresy called Federal Vision. Now, they are back at it seeking to implement a kind of Christian Nationalism that is not particularly Christian nor especially concerned with Nationalism. As the old proverb goes these chaps on these subjects are all hat and no cattle.

One of their schticks is to try and gate-keep the Reformed world by thinking they can tell us who among the Reformed can be in the inner circle of the Christian Nationalism movement and who is going to be kicked out. They are the modern day version of Wm. F. Buckley kicking out one person after another (Sobran, Francis, Brimelow, Derbyshire, etc.) from the “Conservative” movement. These chaps of the CREC think they are the sheriffs of the Christian Nationalist movement and that they get to round up anybody who disagrees with them.

Well, I disagree with them. I detest their propositional nationhood type approach. I abhor their Boasian approach to race and nationhood. As such I routinely pray that they will fail and be tossed on the ash-heap of history. I especially don’t want to see their version of Christianity becoming hegemonic since Federal Vision is a return to semi-pelagian non-Reformed theology.

Recently, one of their acolytes, Rich Lusk, has been on the net insisting that certain people get read out of the Christian Nationalist movement. In this brief piece I interact with Lusk a wee bit;

Rich Lusk writes,

1. Whatever shift you think you’ve seen, none of us are multiculturalists or cultural egalitarians. Wilson, myself, and others are still happy to cite Rushdoony, Dabney, etc., when it’s fitting. I don’t subscribe to their infallibility but I do appreciate them. The question is not, “Would Dabney be excommunicated if he were in the church today?,” but, “Would Dabney make the same errors if he were in the church today?” I think Wilson has done a fair job evaluating Dabney.

Bret responds,

A.) Actually, Wilson, Lusk and company are soft multiculturalists. Sure, they aren’t as extreme as the Clergy in the mainline churches but if you compare them to Machen, or Rushdoony, or John Edwards Richards, or Clarence McCartney, or Francis Nigel Lee, or Morton Smith — Reformed theologians only a generation or two removed from Wilson — then the CREC chaps are indeed multiculturalists. It’s not even close. I have the quotes to prove it.

So, the question these blokes present to us is; “Do we want to settle for ceasing the multicultural slide thus sticking with the present status quo or do we really want to reverse and undo what is now known as the Post-War consensus that includes all the advances of the civil rights movement — a movement that was driven by Marxist ideology?” Getting on the CREC wagon means that we codify as normal where we are right now. Sure, it might mean an end to the continuing slide leftward (though I seriously doubt that) but it will do nothing to reverse the hell-ward slide we’ve been on since the 1960s.

B.) When Lusk says that he and his CREC mavens are happy to cite Rushdoony and Dabney when it is fitting he means that the CREC mavens are glad to cite Rush and Dabney when it is convenient. I promise you that both Rush and Dabney would want nothing to do with Wilson, Brieto, Lusk, and the CREC headcases. If Rush could criticize Francis Schaeffer (and he did) then Rush would certainly light out after these compromisers.

Secondly, on this score, keep in mind that Wilson has publicly said that he has no interest in being Rushdoony 2.0 preferring instead to be Rushdoony 0.5. Which being interpreted means that Wilson wants to dilute and water down Rushdoony. It means that he thought Rush was too extreme. Wilson wants to be a kinder and gentler Rushdoony, which means he’s not interested in Rushdoony except for when Wilson can cloak himself in Rush’s mantle.

C.) Note that Luks speaks of Dabney’s errors in the same breath as saying he appreciates Dabney. Lusk does so without saying what errors it is that Dabney would no longer embrace. I guarantee you that if Lusk were to list Dabney’s “errors” that Dabney would no longer embrace a vigorous debate would immediately break out as to whether or not what Lusk says was a Dabney mistake was indeed a Dabney mistake.

D.) The idea that we should take seriously Wilson evaluating Dabney is akin to saying we should take seriously Joel Osteen evaluating John Calvin.

Rich Lusk wrote;

2. A Christian, conservative political agenda can be accomplished without racial identity politics (the successes of the Trump administration are an excellent test case for this).

Bret responds,

First, we are way way too early to talk about the “successes of the Trump Administration as a test case for the CREC’s position on negating multiculturalism.

Second, a conservative political agenda might have been accomplished without racial politics back when Pat Buchanan was running for President but we past that exit long ago. There will be no genuine conservative political agenda accomplished apart from racial realism. This reality is seen by the voting patterns in Presidential elections. To this point only white people are voting in majority for conservative, populist, or nationalist candidates. This has been the case for several Presidential cycles and there is no reason to think this is going to change UNLESS Trump is able to send upwards of 30 million illegals back home while at the same time extremely narrowing the amount of legal immigration.

Rich Lusk wrote,

3. Racial identity politics from the right, including making a big issue of interracial marriage, is bound to lose. If you want to be a martyr for racial identity politics, go ahead. I’d rather win as a Christian – and I do think significant victories are possible if Christians will be wise and vigilant about it. The alt right, or Neo-Nazis, or whatever they should be called, are fools and a distraction from the task at hand.

McAtee responds,

Here we find the proof that the CREC is not serious. Our culture is being bombarded with the New World Order push for interracial marriage. It is being pushed in our advertising world, in our film world, in our television programs, on University campuses and in “conservative” churches and Lusk is saying that resisting this New World Order push for interracial marriage is a loser issue. This is proof that the CREC is multicultural. If they are willing to give up on this issue they have planted their flag on the side of the One Worlder types. This is an example of CREC pragmatism at its worse.

Lusk says he’d rather win as a Christian but I’m here to tell you if Lusk and the CREC wins like this then the Christian faith loses. Lusk wants to lose gracefully and then call that losing, “winning.”

Fools like Lusk from the Lite-left or Neo-Cultural Marxists, or whatever they should be called, are idiots and will only, in the end, at best temporarily slow down but not reverse the slide we are currently experiencing. People need to realize that “Conservative” denominations like the CREC and “Conservative” clergy like Joe Boot, Andrew Sandlin, Rich Lusk, Doug Wilson, Uri Brieto and Peter Leithart are in reality just a variant of what is called “controlled opposition.”

___

Addendum

So similar analysis from Nate Keane;

They live in a complete echo chamber of their own creation. Any of us outside that echo chamber recognizes that a reckoning is coming on these issues, and a tearing down of all the presuppositions and theories that have undergirded the modern egalitarian world. They’re busy saying they’re not woke, while endorsing all of those assumptions. They think that because they can purge dissent in THEIR ranks, that they can stave off the reckoning by just Tabula Rasa-ing harder. That reckoning is coming, the question is Will Christians have a voice in it or not. They’re doing their best to ensure that we don’t. They won’t like what comes next. The lesson they took from WW2 is “we must root out racism and antisemitism” not, “when the magistrate abdicates his duties, you will get an Absalom”.

McAtee Vindicated By President Donald J. Trump … CRC’s Rev. Reggie Smith Seen As Clueless

“It’s a genocide. White Farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated. And the media doesn’t even talk about it. If it were the other way around (Whites killing Black farmers), that would be the only story they talk about.”

President Donald J. Trump
Press Conference

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1921944478778069489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1921944478778069489%7Ctwgr%5E2e8d7cff0847334521c42deaa6460434852a5cb4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frevolver.news%2Fnewsfeed%2F

This has been known for a very long time now. However, it has also been denied as being true by the usual Marxist apologists. Indeed, in point of fact, my praying about this reality mentioned above became fodder for a front page Lansing State Journal story in 2021. The Lansing State Journal is the Paper of record for Mid-Michigan – located in the State Capital as it is. Here is their report that they featured so prominently. They are quoting from one “Rev. Reggie Smith” a black denominational chieftain of the CRC, who at the time was in attendance at a Charlotte Christ the King church service in order to attempt to destroy myself and the Church; Here is what the Lansing State Journal printed quoting this black chieftain of the CRC;

“McAtee’s sermon was like “any other traditional church until the prayer time came,” Smith said, and a woman in the crowd of about 20 asked for prayers for the white people living in South Africa.

“There was this supposedly false rumor that white people were being killed by Black people in South Africa, which was totally untrue,” Smith said.

Smith said McAtee “embraced” her sentiment.

“That’s when I knew this was not what I thought it would be,” he said. “There’s something wrong here.”

I just want to emphasize here now that Trump has made this clearly known before God and all the world that what we prayed for that morning was not based on a false rumor. It was true then and it is true now that white farmers are being viciously murdered by blacks and Rev. Reggie Smith, the CRC, and the Lansing State Journal were and are providing cover for the black murderers of white farmers in South Africa. Nothing that happened on that Sunday Morning in 2021 was racist unless you consider “the sin of noticing” to be racist.

Five years later very few people will care that I was right and wrongly indicted by Rev. Reggie Smith, the CRC, and the Lansing State Journal for praying that God would avenge Himself on these black animals who are torturing and murdering judicially innocent white farmers and their families. Very few people will care that Trump has vindicated my concern for South African White farmers and that Rev. Reggie Smith and the CRC has been revealed to either being knowing liars or a unwitting dupes.

Finally, to put a fine point on this, when all this occurred in 2021 I personally knew a South African man whose own grandfather farmer had been murdered by blacks. I wasn’t speaking out of my hat that morning. Some ministers in the US still keep abreast of what is happening elsewhere in the world.

Leo XIV; Divorcing The Doctrine of Christ From Knowing Jesus Christ

“We are often preoccupied with teaching doctrine, but we risk forgetting that our first task is to know Jesus Christ.”

Leo XIV
Newly Minted Pope

A few words here on the new Pope. First, all Popes…. all Roman Catholic Bishops, Priests, Monsignors, and members who embrace the official teaching of Rome (which includes the council of Trent) are anti-Christs without exception. Now many individual Protestants are as well but the Roman Catholic church as an institution is officially anti-Christ. Now, this is not to say that there does not exist within the membership of the Roman Catholic Church genuine Christians but if they are genuine Christians then they are not genuine Roman Catholics.

Second, we already see the post-modern mindset of this freshly minted Pope in the quote above. His words sound so noble… so pious and yet that sentence is stupidity on stilts.

a.) We wonder how is it we come to know Jesus Christ apart from teaching doctrine. What does knowing a doctrine-less Jesus look like?

b.) Underneath this statement is the assumption that experience trumps doctrine. What is being left unsaid is that knowing Jesus (in an experiential way) trumps knowing Jesus in a doctrinal way. However, there is no knowing Jesus in an experiential way that is not first anchored in doctrine.

c.) I would go as far to say that there is no knowing Jesus … no growth in knowing Jesus apart from knowing Christology (the doctrine of Christ). I can’t have Jesus over for a meal. I can’t go to a ball game with Him. There is no knowing Jesus on that kind of a “personal” level. The only way for me to know Jesus is to grow in my understanding of the doctrine of Christ.

Now, I suppose that knowledge could become sterile and antiseptic but a sterile and antiseptic knowledge of Jesus could only be cured by our doctrine of Jesus (Christology) improving. It would not be cured by having a greater experience of Jesus unless that experience was conveyed via a greater understanding of the doctrine of Christ.

Now, we should immediately recognize here that what the Pope says above is not unique to the most recently minted papal anti-Christ. All kinds of Protestants today say that kind of nonsense. Moderns and postmoderns alike have this mad infatuation with all things experiential. Similarly, moderns and postmoderns alike are allergic to the idea of doctrine.

It is a fact that the more we learn of the doctrine of Christ (Christology) the more we have a deep experiential love for our great Captain and Liege-Lord; Jesus the Christ. The more we come to understand the grandness and greatness of His person and work as mediated via the means of doctrine (Christology) as found in Scripture and as illumined by the Holy Spirit the more we are lost in wonder, love, and praise.

As an aside here, we should note that a man’s knowing of Christ will typically look different than a woman’s knowing of Christ. Neither knowing is superior or inferior. The point is that when a man increases his knowing of Christ it is an increased knowing that leads to a response that is akin to how a soldier responds in his increased knowing of his great Captain and leader in battle. When a woman increases her knowing of Christ it is an increased knowing that leads to a response that is akin to how a wife responds to increasingly knowing the way her husband loves her and for the way he cherishes and takes care of her. Men and women are different and so the way they respond to an increased understanding of Jesus via the doctrine of Christology, as drawn from the Scripture and illumined by the Spirit will be different.

The Lite WOKE Left’s Accusation That The Dissident Christian Right Is Really “WOKE Right”

Recently, it has become all the rage for the lite WOKE left to accuse the dissident right of being “WOKE RIGHT.” The like WOKE left is doing this in order to try and gate-keep for the hard WOKE left. It is hoped by those slinging around the accusation of “WOKE RIGHT” that they will be able to discredit the dissident and Christian Right with many who are not epistemologically self conscious in our current truth contest.

Now, I have never understood the guts of this accusation and I have legitimately tried to understand that the WOKE Right and the WOKE Left are really the same only as mirror opposites. The argument that the WOKE Right is the same as the WOKE left is that both use the same methodology to arrive at their opposite positions.

I hope to give the lie to that idiocy in this post.

The only way to examine a position is to look at the Worldview and theology undergirding it. That is how I intend to answer the question; “Is there such a thing as the WOKE Right which mirrors the WOKE Left?”

When it comes to Worldviews we have to consider the issue of Ontology. Ontology (or metaphysics) examines  the principles and causes of being. It examine issues of origins and the nature of reality. The Ontology of the WOKE Left, not believing in an extra-mundane personal God, is time + chance + circumstance. Because of this denial of an extra-mundane personal God, man becomes the agent who determines all of reality. The WOKE left thus have created, whole-cloth, an ideological narrative that posits an Oppressed vs. Oppressor dynamic wherein those defined as “Oppressed” by the WOKE left are now allowed to be the “Oppressors” in the WOKE Left worldview. The problem here is that those labeled as “Oppressed” and “Oppressors”are completely arbitrary. This arbitrariness is allowed because, in their Ontology there is no extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who can set the standard for “Oppressed” and “Oppressor.” Not believing in the God of the Bible they are their own God and being their own God they create, by manipulating the evidence, who occupies the “Oppressed” and “Oppressor” categories and lo and behold the chief “Oppressor” in this God hating worldview is the Christian White man who has been, by God’s grace alone, the chief carrier of civilizational Christianity.

Now along comes the WOKE lite left who has a vested interested in coming to the aid and assistance of the hard WOKE left and the WOKE lite left accuses the Dissident Right of being WOKE right. However, this accusation fails, particularly as pointed at the Christian dissident right, because   the Christian dissident rights worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God. The dissident right holds that God created all things in six days and all very good. Because of this affirmation of the extra-mundane personal and authoritative God, the dissident right bows to God’s determination of reality. This means that the dissident right does not move in terms of the WOKE left’s “Oppressor vs. Oppressed” categories but rather moves in terms of the Christian antithesis which teaches that Christians are blessed and the wicked are cursed. When the dissident right looks at world history they see not “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” but they see blessed vs. cursed. When the cursed are successful over the righteous the Christian sees that as the chastening hand of God against His people for their rebellion against God.

All this means that the Christian sees history as much more complex than merely a “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” dynamic. This also means that the idea that a WOKE right exists is just pure bollix. The ontology embraced in the Christian worldview does not allow for a WOKE ontology. Something else that should be noted here is that the dissident Christian right also believes that the righteous should rule over the wicked. That rule over the wicked is to be consistent with God’s revealed Word but make no mistake — it is God’s good toward the wicked that the righteous rule over them.

This brings us in turn to the issue of epistemology in the competing worldviews of the dissident Christian right and the WOKE left. Epistemolgoy answers the question; “How do we know what we know.” The epistemology that the WOKE left has embraced is that of Critical theory as applied across a host of disciplines. Critical theory thus provides the WOKE left epistemological foundation. Critical theory arose in the context of postmodernism. Postmodernism held that true truth (absolute truth) did not exist and that as such all that existed was what they called “social constructs.” “Social constructs” were human inventions serving as “arbitrary truth dynamics” that different people groups and sub-groups would abide by until such a time they changed their minds moving to a different “social construct truth paradigm.” Critical theory arises in this mix insisting that absolute truth does not exist while agreeing with the pomo project about truth as social construct and the social construct truth that the Critical theory builds is, as we have seen, the whole myth of “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” as they alone – solely upon their own authority – designate the “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” categories. Now, WOKE epistemology hates the God of the Bible and hates the idea that true truth exists and so not surprisingly, as noted above, the WOKE project has labeled as the chief “Oppressor” throughout world history as the people who own the worldview handed down from God and revealed in Scripture. The anti-Christ worldview that is WOKE finds their natural #1 enemy to be the ones guilty of being the “Oppressors” throughout history. How convenient. Now, the WOKE lite left (many of whom insist they are Christian) come along and support the worldview of the hard WOKE left in the name of Christ. The WOKE lite left join hands with the hard WOKE left to put Christian Nationalists in the dock in order to accuse them of being just like the hard WOKE left. This is a classic example of the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of that which you are guilty.

So, the WOKE Left uses Critical Race theory as their epistemology. This epistemic part of the post-modern project and worldview that the hard WOKE left embraces, rejects the idea of true truth. Contrasted with this is the so-called WOKE Right which rejects CRT as their epistemology choosing instead God’s Word as their epistemic authority. As such, we have to ask, “How can WOKE Right be the same as the WOKE Left when their epistemology is diametrically opposed to one another?”

By continuing to examine the worldviews of both WOKE left and dissident right we continue to discover complete opposition at every point. Another example would be the anthropology of WOKE left vs. dissident Christian right. The WOKE left hold an anthropology that man is merely matter in motion. Not owning a personal God all that is left for the WOKE left is to affirm that man only has the meaning that man himself gives to himself. With this anthropology the WOKE left has chosen to take as the ideal man the pervert, the feminist, and the Christless minority to be their “Oppressed” heroes. This arbitrary choice is completely in concord with Rousseau’s noble savage theory. For Rousseau and the Romanticist worldview there existed an idealized concept of uncivilized man who symbolized the innate goodness of man as not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization. This anthropology continues for the WOKE left. The only thing that has been changed out is that whereas for the worldview of Romanticism it was the frontier Indian in the new World who served as the noble savage who was to be esteemed as the ideal man, now it is sexual pervert, feminist, and Christ-hating minority who now serves as the noble savage. Further, the anthropology of the current WOKE left, teaches that the man who is the least of all mankind is the Biblical Christian who insists that justice needs to be brought against the modern noble savage.

To the contrary of all this the dissident Christian right embraces an anthropology that teaches that man outside of Jesus Christ is a sinner who can only sin all the time since he has a sin nature out of which arises nothing but sin. The anthropology of the dissident Christian right rejects the idea that man is basically good — and this is never more true than when considering the WOKE left’s noble savages. Because of this the WOKE left hates with all their might the dissident right.

The “Christian” Woke lite left once again does the dirty work of the Hard WOKE left by indicting other Christians with sharing the same worldview as the hard WOKE left. We begin to see then a pattern. The lite WOKE left, though claiming Christ, are operating out of a Christless world and life view. They are, by their accusations against their dissident Right brothers of being WOKE Right demonstrating that they belong to their father the Devil.

We move next to the worldview issue of teleology. Teleology deals with man’s conviction concerning the purposeful development toward an end, as in history. Teleology answers the question “where are we headed.” For the dissident Christian the answer that is “the Kingdom of God and His Christ.” For the Hard WOKE left the answer is “the Kingdom of man.” Note the diametrical opposition between these two answers. The Hard Woke left believes he is building a better if indeed not perfect Utopia and the one group of people who stand most decidedly against his Utopian project are the dissident Christian right who absolutely hate the idea of building Utopias where, because man is the god in the Utopian visions, always end up being the ugliest of Dystopias. The dissident Right does not look for a man centered Utopia but instead sees history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth due to the God’s determination to, by the work of His Holy Spirit to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.

So, given this opposition how can the WOKE lite left – manned by “Christians” who hate Christian Nationalism –  ever accuse, with a straight face, that the dissident Christian right is in point of fact serving as a “WOKE” right? The idea is just ludicrous and could only be vomited up by those who have no capacity to think in Biblical categories.

Our last Christian worldview category that we will consider is the worldview issue of axiology. Axiology is the study of values and value judgments. Axiology answers the question; “What is our ultimate value.” For the dissident right the answer to that question is always; “Our ultimate value is the glory of God and His Christ being seen, as determined by God’s revelation found in Scripture.” For the WOKE left the answer to that question is alaway; “Our ultimate value is the advancement of the glory of man, as determined by our completely subjective analysis.” Remember in the WOKE left world and life view there is no God who exists to whom glory can be given. As such, the question of axiology is always reduced to man being his own ultimate value. The hard WOKE worldview is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite. This Christless God hating elite most usually exists as occupying seats of power located in the Mega-State or the Mega-Corporate or the Mega-Banking world. This Christless, God hating elite finds their penultimate value in destroying any Biblical Christian belonging to the dissident Right who would oppose their Hard WOKE or even lite WOKE left world and life view and agenda.

So, we see the whole accusation of being “WOKE Right” is utterly without foundation and so completely ridiculous. The Hard WOKE left and the lite WOKE left are operating out of a completely different Weltanschauung as compared to the Dissident Christian Right. To suggest that the Hard WOKE right is the same as the Hard WOKE is just a ploy to poison the well of what the dissident Christian right advocates as it advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule – the Lord Jesus Christ – over every area of life. The accusation of “Hard WOKE Right” is a brilliant subterfuge birthed from the womb of Satan purposed to dilute the impact of the advance of Biblical Christianity as championed by the dissident Christian Right.