Recovering All the Past Doug, or only Part of It?

” There is no way for America to recover herself without recognizing the actual sources of the actual legacy we actually squandered. That legacy came from somewhere, and all the wishing in the world won’t transform it into something that will have come from somewhere else. Subtle uses of the subjunctive can’t alter the past. And our past is a covenanted past. Our past is a Christian past. Our past is the source of the good gifts we are now using in the pursuit of our debauchery.”

Doug Wilson
The Prodigal Son & Christian Nationalism
21 August 2023

I can only add an AMEN to what Doug says above even though it doesn’t cover all the territory needed to be covered.

Our past is also a White Anglo Saxon Protestant past and there is no way Doug can lead in the recovery he calls for until Doug repents of not recognizing that source of our past that he is contributing to in squandering by railing against Kinists.

Oh sure, Doug will agree with the necessity of recovering our Protestant past but he will give a “hard pass” to the need to recover our White Anglo-Saxon roots. This is what Kinists are calling for but Doug is a leading voice in denouncing this attempt by Kinists to recover our past that we have squandered. By doing so, Doug demonstrates he has a Gnostic streak running through him and that he has more in common with Moanin’ Owen Strychnine than he does with Dr. Stephen Wolfe.

Let Doug be consistent and call for the recovering the legacy of America’s White Anglo Saxon Protestant Christian past. I mean, not even Doug’s subtle usage of the subjunctive can alter the past.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” VII

“We encounter the Gospel when we experience the places made spiritually significant by our Christian loved ones.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 179

 

“The instrumentalities of the family are chosen and ordained of God as the most efficient of all means of grace—more truly and efficaciously means of saving grace than all other ordinances of the church” (p. 693)

R. L. Dabney

The Reformed are sticklers for advocating that the only means of grace are Word and Sacrament. However, I must say that I appreciate what Wolfe and before him Dabney were communicating. There can be no doubt that place and people having been ornamented by the Gospel can indeed evoke in us a great depth of thankfulness to God for bringing those Christian people and those grounds which are now hallowed in our thinking into our lives.

II.) “Those who exhibit a preference for foreigners have disordered loves — a condition we can call xenophilia, or the love of foreigners. Its conjoined condition is what Roger Scruton called ‘oikophobia,’ or the fear of home and familiarity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 150 / FN 37

Here we discover that the modern Christian Church, exceptions notwithstanding, is now a institution characterized by xenophilia. The contemporary White Church in the West is all hot to trot to have minorities in their midst seemingly thinking that to have such means that they are “really holy now.” What else can this be called except xenophilia?

On this same score, Scruton was exactly right with his label “oikophobia.” White Christians in our mega-churches are characterized by their hatred of their own ethnic people. Indeed, it has gotten so bad that it really is the case now that the stranger and alien are so loved and there is such fear of racial kin that the stranger and alien are in point of fact the new kin for these whom Wolfe and Scruton are describing. If that observation is indeed true it teaches us that “Kinism” is an inescapable categoriy.

III.) “Non-Christians living among us are entitled to justice, peace, and safety, but they are not entitled to political equality, nor do they have the right to deny the people of God their right to order civil institutions to God and their complete good.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 346

 

That will make the R2K crowd pee their pants.

IV.) “Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I agree 100% but I would bet my retirement fund that 90% of conservative clergy would viciously disagree with that quote.

Dr. Wolfe’s point here is, I believe, that people from different cultures, races, and/or classes can indeed be one in Christ but still not be able to have formal ecclesial unity. As an obvious example, imagine a group of Reformed Hmong people here in the states trying to establish formal ecclesial unity with a group of Reformed Mexicans. The very real spiritual unity would not overcome the very real cultural differences. This reality is not to diminish the reality that each people are indeed Christian through and through. It is merely to recognize that cultures and peoples differ enough to make the kind of difference that would not allow formal ecclesial unity.

V.) “It is time to recognize that the theonomists were right about the direction of Reformed political theology as it manifested itself in the late 20th century up to today.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 270

Damn straight we were right and we continue to be right about the futility of Dr. Wolfe’s natural law project.

Here is one of my conclusion on Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Wolfe, as a Natural Law theorist, is giving a rejoinder to the Natural Law theorists who are R2K. This discussion is a in house discussion between those who champion Natural Law.
Presuppositionalists will be dissatisfied with both parties, though as it pertains to the contest between Wolfe’s theories and R2K’s theories we are clearly praying that Wolfe wins out.

McAtee Interacts with Jon Harris (Friend) & Owen Strachan (Foe) On Kinism

I.) “Andrew (Torba) I pray you understand the true biblical gospel, which has nothing to do with your kinist message of ethnic preservation and propagation. I say this in love: you are promoting a false gospel.”

Dr. Rev. Owen Strachan

Baptist Idiot (Tautology alert)

1.) There is a category confusion here that has gained a wide-spread footing and that is to reduce Christianity to “the gospel.” The gospel is at the heart of Biblical Christianity inasmuch as it answers the question, “How shall I be saved.” However it is Biblical Christianity as a whole that provides the answer to another question that arises for those who have been united to Christ and so redeemed by the Gospel and that question that Biblical Christianity answers is “How shall we then live.”

I add this because it is true, in a sense, that the Gospel, narrowly considered, doesn’t have anything to do with ethnic preservation and propagation unless, of course, one observes that the Gospel can’t be preached to white people who have experienced genocide.  Further, because this is true it is quite possible for someone who follows the model of Biblical Christianity in preserving and propagating their people to still advocate for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, as is customary for these blithering idiots (with apologies to all blithering idiots for suggesting that y’all are as bad as these people), they are confusing categories.

2.) Still, to take this as Strachan obviously intends it, we would counter with the observation that it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that one ignores the ongoing attempted genocide of your people because of Strachan’s version of LUV.  It would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant that we LUV our children enough to turn a blind eye to their being replaced. it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that we LUV God enough to ignore the 6th commandment. Strachan would have us believe that the true gospel once embraced is a ethnocide pact.

3.) Moanin’ Owen is fundamentally opposed to the Gospel in its broadest sense. You see, Jesus told the disciples to baptize and disciple the nations (not merely individuals), which cannot happen if those nations cease to exist. The true Gospel is about the reconciliation of the nations to God, not deeming the existence and health of nations as irrelevant, such as Strychnine Strachan would have it.

II.) “Real talk: You go against inter-ethnic marriage, you go against God.”

Rev. Dr. Owen Strychnine Strachan

Pssst…. someone tell Moanin’ Owen that Ezra (ch. 9) and Nehemiah (13) are two books in the Bible and he might want to consult before tweeting such abject stupidity.

III.)“So, if someone is going to use what I just said to try to say I am a Kinist or something they just have no clue what they are talking about.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter
The Shadow that Follow Liberalism

55:00 mark

 

I have a real problem here with this. Jon is communicating here as if there is something wrong with being called a Kinist. Jon is acting as if it would be the worst thing in the world to be (gasp) a “Kinist. This mindset keeps Kinists behind the 8 ball in the minds of the people he is influencing.

Now, if Jon doesn’t think that there is any problem with Kinism then he wouldn’t care about being called a “Kinist.” But Jon is afraid of being called a Kinist and he wants people to not dare call him a Kinist. This suggest that somehow being a Kinist is out of bounds for Jon and that is to give in to the idiots out there who are shrieking about the presence of Kinists in the Church.

The funny thing is, is that from what I hear Jon saying in this podcast (“The Shadow that follows Liberalism”)  it moves me to conclude that the man is indeed what is called a weak “weak Kinist.” When people name Jon Harris as a Kinist they are exactly correct even if Jon is repulsed.

Bottom line? I don’t think Jon has any idea what Kinism is except as he has heard it described from its enemies.

IV.) “Know, that culture is linked to lineage, at least on a mass scale.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter

The Shadow That Follows Liberalism — 102:15

The problem here is that one can NOT get to a mass scale apart from individuals of a particular lineage maintaining their particular lineage by not marrying inter-racially.

IMO, Jon, desires to say that “Kinists like” convictions are right on a mass scale but wrong on a micro scale and this does not follow. One can not get to the mass apart from the micro.

And I note this as one who understands that advocacy for legal definitions of purity of lineage are stupid and counter-productive. I say this as someone who understands that inter-racial marriages are going to happen. However, inter-racial marriages should be discouraged if we want to keep a Anglo-Protestant culture as Jon says he desires. Inter-racial marriage may not be sin, but it is normatively unwise.

On the whole I consider Jon to be friend to the cause to crush WOKE, but I think the man is still simmering and has not yet come to full boil. Time will tell.

Sey, Not Allowed To Have The Final Say

The attacks against the biblical doctrine of Kinism continue and it is past apparent that people (Alienists) are getting desperate. We saw that previously in some of the really inane things Rev. Toby Sumpter said that we interacted with on Iron Ink. Not to be outdone by Rev. Sumpter a new contestant steps forward to see if he can out stupid Rev. Sumpter in his claims. Frankly, we have now arrived at the point where Kinists don’t have any need to refute the things that are being written because the depth of torpidity that the Alienists are reaching are making such large craters of stupidity that the Kinists can just point and roll their eyes. Indeed, there is a old political principle that states that if your opponent is blowing himself up, shut up and get out of the way.

However, having said that, as a Kinist, I have to understand that many people might look at an argument and have a instinct that there is something wrong while not being able to put their finger exactly on the problem. So, with that in mind we turn to a recent column by one Samuel Sey. I don’t know much about Sey except he is some kind of African married to a white woman and I only know that because Sey goes out of his way to tell everyone that in his column, which can be found here;

Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism

We are not going to look at all Sey says, choosing instead to point out the really really dumb stuff;

Samuel Sey writes (hereinafter SS)

“Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.”

Bret responds,

1.) Well, yes, if one traces the descent of the sons of Europe back far enough they will find that they are descendants of a common father, just as when one traces the descent of the sons of Africa back far enough will discover that they are descendants of a different common father. As such, they are indeed “kin.”

2.)  Kinists believe, not only that white people should be preserved but also that all races should be preserved. However, since it is the white race that is being pursued that it might be replaced, white Kinists perhaps spend a wee bit more of time saying, “excuse me, but I quite desire my people to continue as a people. I mean, I don’t want to be pushy or anything like that, but I’d prefer very much if my people did not experience genocide.”

That genocide is on the table can be seen from quotes like this;

“My concern is doing away with Whiteness. Whiteness is a form of racial oppression. Sure the suggestion is that is somehow possible to separate Whiteness from oppression and it is not. There can be no White Race without the phenomena of the White supremacies. In the same way if you abolish racial oppression you do away with Whiteness. Treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The task is to bring these minorities together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of Whiteness to reproduce itself.”

Noel Ignatiev
Harvard Professor

3.) It is true that Kinists believe that white should have communities that uniquely belong to them, just as Israel belongs to the Jews, just as China belong to the Han people, just as Zimbabwe belongs largely to the Shona people. So, color Kinists guilty that we desire our own Christian communities, with our own Christian cultures, speaking our own language, having our own Christian history, customs and habits.

4.) From this it naturally follows that Kinists are not excited by a immigration policy that has as its core goal, to change the community. This is the goal of the current so called US immigration policy.

5.) Finally, it is true that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage as a general rule because Kinists realize that if inter-racial marriage is pursued as a matter of policy the results is genocide of white people. Did I mention that Kinists are opposed to experiencing genocide?

6.) Another reason that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage is because Kinists understand that strong marriages, like strong communities, are begun and maintained when the people entering into marriages have as much in common as possible and since Kinists understand that there is, normatively speaking, a strong continuity between race and culture, therefore Kinists, desiring that marriages be strong, discourage inter-racial marriage due to the differences that the prospective bride and groom will bring into the marriage. Kinists perfectly understand that some inter-racial marriages will exist and we will do our best to support these marriages, however we will not encourage them for our children. None of this is controversial in the least as our Christian Fathers understood this principle and we simply agree with our Fathers as against the current Babel zeitgeist;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS);

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

So, Kinists do think that inter-racial is almost always unwise and even often sin and we are not ashamed in the least to stake out that position, since in staking out such a position has the felicitous outcome of perhaps saving people from getting into a unhappy marriage.

SS writes,

 However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory. 

Bret responds,

Actually, this is not a point that is in SS’s interest to push lest soft Kinists conclude that if their weak (soft) Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of CRT then they might as well go ahead and become hard Kinists.

SS writes,

These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think. 

Bret responds,

Be afraid SS. Be very afraid because our numbers are growing and momentum is on our side.

SS writes accusing Dr. Stephen Wolfe of Kinism, (if only)

“While intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves…there is a difference between something being sinful absolutely and something being sinful relatively. Interethnic marriage can be sinful relatively and absolutely.”

“People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance…What I am saying is that in-group solidarity and right of difference along ethnic lines are necessary for the complete good for each and all.”

In the book, he also positively quotes white nationalist Sam Francis. If you’re unfamiliar with him, American Renaissance (a white supremacist website) said “Francis was the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.”

Sey now quotes Andrew Torba,

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Bret responds,

I like those quotes SS. Keep them coming.

SS writes,

Like all racists, Kinists are fundamentally foolish. God ordains ethnicity, but he didn’t create all ethnicities in the Garden of Eden. Meaning, my Akan ethnicity or Fanti tribe didn’t exist in the Garden. My race existed in Adam and Eve, but my ethnicity didn’t. Humanity—the human race—was created in the Garden, but our ethnicities were ordained by God over time.

Bret responds,

1.) Given how dumb SS is, I take it as a badge of honor to be called fundamentally foolish. Thank you Samuel.

2.) If God has ordained races/ethnicities our knowing how it happened doesn’t matter. The fact that God ordained races/ethnicities is all I need. Thanks SS for making that point.

3.) Not to state the obvious SS, but you do realize that what you are promoting is precisely what was being promoted at the Tower of Babel right?

SS writes,

Therefore, since our ethnicities didn’t exist at some point in the past—we shouldn’t attempt to preserve them in the future. The purpose of ethnicity isn’t to preserve our image, it’s to preserve the image of God. He will do whatever he wants with our ethnicities for his glory (Rev. 5:9-10)

Bret responds,

1.) I think that first sentence above was cribbed by SS from Nimrod as he sought to build Babel.

2.) Unless, SS thinks that the Kinists thought world will lead to the extinction of the human race, I’m pretty sure that the image of God is going to be preserved in the Kinist world.

3.) Revelation 5 is completely irrelevant to this argument as Kinists believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations will be present in the new Jerusalem.

4.) It is true that God will do whatever he desires with our races/ethnicities. But as God made His mind known about this project to sink the world into one latte colored world where raceS/ethnicitieS don’t exist, Kinists are on solid ground in rejecting this aspect of the New World Order agenda that SS is pursuing.

SS writes,

So although I want my pre-born son to look just like me, just like the average Akan or Fanti person—I want him to look more like Christ. That’s why I married a godly woman, though she has a different ethnicity so that we can raise a godly son.

Bret responds,

Non-sequitur.

1.) Presumably godly women existed among the Akan and Fanti people that SS could have married, thus not contributing to the “Christian” version of the New World Order agenda.

2.)   Is SS arguing that a mixed-race child is automatically going to look more like Christ than a child from the union of two Akan/Fanti people?

3.) Is SS arguing that the issue of godly white women is more likely to be godly than the issue of godly Fanti/Akan women?

4.) Does SS realize that he could have had a son who would have looked both like him and like Christ? He did not have to decide between the two.

5.) Understand that there is a confusion of categories going on here. When we look like our parents that is genetic coding. When we look like Christ that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SS quote Sam Francis,

“At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge.”

Bret responds,

I agree 100%. If we do not embrace what Francis offers above we will at best experience replacement and at worse we will experience genocide. Only the insane use arguments putatively drawn from Scripture to support their replacement or genocide.

SS writes,

But we’re not called to repay evil for evil, racism for racism, Kinism for critical race theory.

Bret responds,

The evil is NOT found in racial/ethnic unity as that is shaped and influenced by Biblical Christianity. That kind of racial/ethnic unity will understand that there is a need to do good to the whole household of faith regardless of race/ethnicity.

The evil found in racial/ethnic unity is found when it is shaped and influenced by  CRT, Cultural Marxist categories. So, the unity that Christian whites have to find, per Francis, is a unity that is founded upon Christ having as its primary purpose to thoroughly crush the WOKE agenda that the minority community has been, unfortunately, sucked into supporting. The very same agenda that Sey is supporting, with some kind of “Christian” patina covering the same agenda.

Let me say it plainly… Sey, is doing the devil’s work, perhaps with the best of intentions, by being an advocate of the WOKE agenda.

SS says,

Sin is sin, on the right or the left. Kinism is just as evil as critical race theory. So Kinists are not our allies. They’re just as opposed to Biblical views on race as critical race theorists.

Bret responds,

As we have seen, “I don’t think so.”

SS writes,

Brothers and sisters, our primary goal as Christians isn’t to destroy woke ideology. No, our primary goal is to destroy every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God—from conservatives or leftists (2 Corinthians 3-6). 

 Therefore our primary goal isn’t to win elections, our primary goal is to win souls. We can’t be faithful to God by embracing or tolerating any form of racism.

Bret responds,

1.) Yet, another really dumb statement. Our primary goal as Christians is glorifying God by destroying every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God, which both CRT, and Samuel Sey’s opinions are.

2.) Since Kinists are racists in the way that God requires, then we can not be both Christian and tolerate the utter torpidity of one Samuel Sey.

3.) Our primary goal is not to win souls. Our primary goal is to speak the truth and let God worry about what souls are or are not saved in that context.

An Open Letter to the Boomers

Dear Boomers;

I have noticed that at least some of you (hard to say what percentage) have taken to tongue lecturing those a young white males a couple generations younger than you. It seems that you’re convinced, in light of their complaints over how difficult it is to make their way in the current culture, that they are just not working hard enough. I have seen you say things like, “if you just worked as hard as I did when I was your age,” and, “we Boomers had it harder than you did and we made it,” and, “you’re a whiner.”

Well, while I’m not really a Boomer, I am close. I am one of those chaps who is a tweener who falls right in between the Boomers and Gen. X paradigm. Now before I address this, let me tell you, that, generally speaking, I am not a big fan of creating general characteristics of the respective generations. It is my conviction that there are far too many factors that account for why people are the way they are. However, I am willing to concede that in a stable culture there are events that occur in each generation that could end up molding each generation in a similar fashion so that general truths might be taken as a given for each generation. Still, I think we need to be careful about over-applying this.

Having provided that caveat, I turn now to address the Boomers who have been tongue lashing the younger generations. Y’all are want to say that y’all had it more difficult than those who have come behind you in age. To that I can only say, in the strongest terms possible, that is total crapola.

The Boomers were the generation that had it all. Born of the generation that trudged through the Great Depression, and WW II, the Boomers lived in the best of times, prospering from the great largesse arising from victory in War. The Boomers are the ones who lived in excess. They were the first generation where the FEDS practically gave them free University education. The Boomers could dodge the draft by taking a school deferment. The Boomers had the luxury of protesting Vietnam in the streets, while the Boomer women burned their bras in protests as feminist. This could never have happened if they had had to work for a living. The Boomers rode the crest of the communications wave being the generation that could fritter their time away viewing television. It was with the Boomers that the phrase “teen-ager” was introduce with the purpose of marketing to you in order to sell you  all kinds of junk you didn’t need. Later Boomers also had the advantage of seeing the military draft disappear and some of them didn’t even have to register for a draft. The Boomers, thinking that they were having it all, derived the “benefits” of the sexual revolution. The Boomers channeled all that free sex then into Woodstock, Altamount, Haigt-Ashbury, Dead-Head concerts and every Rock -n- Roll concert that came to town. It was the Boomers who brought in the drug craze, who gave us the Hippie movement, and who were the ones cheering the androgynous lead singers found in nearly every Rock -n- Roll band.

Boomers, you were the ones who began the hash of marriage and family that we continue to live with now. You were the that generation who treated us to no fault divorce. How many of your children ended up raising themselves or being “latch-key kids?” How many of your children were visiting Dad on the weekends while living with Mom during the week? How many of your children grew up with step-siblings, half-siblings or in foster homes? How many times did your little children have to sit in listen to clueless social workers, friends of the court, or deranged judges?

Now, of course we are talking generalities here. We are saying that this was generally true of Boomers, though not universally true. I know. I was there. Having participated in some of this I think it is pretty schlocky of current Boomers to now turn and wag their fingers at those young white males who find getting a start in life difficult, and who are then turning and blaming that the Boomers didn’t do more to protect their generation. The generations behind us, I think rightfully, point a finger at us and rail about all our conspicuous consumption that ended up meaning the way was harder for them.

None of the above absolves the younger generation from the necessity to work hard or excuses them if they think they automatically get a pass for not being responsible because the Boomers were not responsible. It is just to agree with the younger generations that Boomers, generally speaking, failed at being good parents, failed at even considering what they were leaving behind for future generations and failed at being lights for future generations.

To the Boomers who still don’t get it, lets spend some time comparing and contrasting what we were not facing at 25 years of age (appx. 1980) with what those who are 25, who are doing the complaining, are facing today.

Were we dealing with Trannies and Sods like this when we were 25 in 1980? The US Military wasn’t even allowing sodomites into the military when we were 25.

Consider Boomers that all the stats are screaming that the middle class is being destroyed. The attack may have been ongoing when we were 25 but it isn’t what it is today.

And what of the paucity of suitable spouses for both Christian white men and women? Did we have the problem finding Christian spouses at 25 the way our sons and daughters are having that problem?

When you and I were 25 were we dealing with the deep state engineering a depopulation event like the scamdemic? Was biological warfare via quackzines going on?

Was cancel culture is full force when you and I were 25? Were the Universities — Including the Christian ones in full attack mode against the Christian faith? Was WOKEism saturating the landscape when we were 25 as it is today?

Was the PCA refusing to discipline sods? Was the OPC being run by feminists? Was the CRC allowing women Pastors when we were 25? When we were 25, though the landscape was changing the conservative denominations were still largely “conservative.” Now they are nearly all festooned with Leftism of one form or another.

When we were 25 was CRT in the secondary education curriculum? When you and I were 25 were parents being threatened by the FBI for protesting at school board meetings?

When I was 25 the Chinese communists were not on the verge of

economically taking over Michigan. Today that is a reality.

When we were 25 were we facing social credit systems? The crash of the US dollar? Were we facing “smart cities,” and the rise of the surveillance state?

When we were 25 were they trying to outlaw fossil fuels? Were they trying to put you and I in “electric cars?”

When we were 25 were the greenies on the verge of successfully changing everything because of “Climate change?” They are for today’s 25 year olds.

When you and I were 25 the family infrastructure in the West was declining but it was nowhere near the wreck it is today. When you and I were 25 we were not having to deal with imaginary borders and 30 million illegal immigrants in our homeland … not to mention all the legal ones.

When you and I were 25 miscegenation was not yet being crammed down our throat during ever media commercial, advertisement, and billboard.

When you and I were 25 we could still work in a factory and earn a middle class wage or we could manage to get through 8 years of post-high school education without being 100K plus in debt.

I could go on and on. Boomers, you just are being stubborn in this matter in refusing to listen with a sympathetic ear to the hardships of our children and grandchildren.

Face it, you and I did not do enough to deliver them from the sewage they are having to navigate.

Perhaps they will do better for their children than we did for them.