Once upon a time on a Narnian like planet there were three breeds of dogs. There were the Beagle breed, the Yorkie breed and the Pitbull breed. Now, everyone agreed that these were all dogs but at the same time everyone agreed that they were not all the same kinds of dogs. Only a very few people insisted that the idea of Yorkie, Pitbull and Beagle were social constructs, though those people did exist and lobbied very diligently to force the rest of the world to agree with them that breed really made very little difference since all dogs were the same. These folks were do-gooders and very often Christians who couldn’t imagine that God would create dog breeds to be different. They couldn’t imagine that God would delight in dog breed diversity. They refused to countenance that the Yorkie, the Beagle, and the Pitbull were very different kinds of dogs even if they were all dogs.
Now, the Pitbull over the course of their existence was understood by countless numbers of people to be a mean, aggressive and vicious animal. That was its nature. It is the way God created it. There were even studies done that statistically demonstrated that the Pitbull breed was demonstrably different in its nature than the Yorkie or the Beagle. Despite what was evident to the eye and what was objectively proven via measuring Pitbull crime stats and IQ ability, there were people who insisted that the Pitbull was the same as the Yorke and the Beagle. They insisted that a dog is a dog is a dog is a dog.
These folks also insist when it comes to sanctification for dogs that the sanctifier has an affirmative action program for Pitbulls since they start out further behind in acceptable behavior than the Yorkie or the Beagle before conversion. The sanctifier thus gooses the factor level of sanctification for the Pitbulls knowing that they need a little bit more sanctification juice in order to become equal (the same) with the Yorkie and the Pitbull.
Now, a strange thing happened to some of the individual Pitbulls in the Pitbull breed in this alternate Narnian like universe in which all this took place. In this Narnian like universe all dog breeds could possibly experience ongoing progressive sanctification. For those people who insisted that all dog breeds are the same they concluded that because Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles could be sanctified that therefore the effect of sanctification on Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles would have the same even impact across all breeds so that sanctified Christian Pitbulls, sanctified Christian Yorkies and sanctified Christian Beagles would become indecipherable in terms of disposition and behavior. Many people started taking their sanctified Christian Pitbulls out to hunt rabbits along with the Beagles while at the same time insisting that Pitbulls were just as cute as Yorkies.
For these people the grace in sanctification destroyed the nature of all three Breeds so that they no longer were distinguishable. These believers in egalitarian sanctification thought that the Holy Spirit could sanctify a Pitbull so as to result in a Pitbull being sanctified so as to be the same as a sanctified Beagle or sanctified Yorkie. As it turned out in our Narnian like Universe many of the clergy recited loudly as a chorus of Rev. Dufflepods, “Nature goes away with Grace,” and “sanctification takes away innate dispositions,” and “A Beagle is a Yorkie is a Pitbull not only before sanctification but especially after sanctification.” Rev. Wilson Dufflepod and Rev. White Dufflepod were the most excitable of all the clergy dufflepods in singing;
Imagine there’s no breeds
It’s easy if you try
No innate dispositions in us
Genetics can be liquified
Imagine all the dog breeds bein’ all the same
Ah, ah, ah-ah
Imagine a sanctification
That makes a Pitbull coo
A Beagel’s now a bird-dog
And Yokies, hunt them too
Imagine all the doggies being all the same
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun
Imagine no innate behavior
I wonder if you can
Everything is malleable
Nothing fixed upon to stand
Imagine all the species becoming now all one
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun
There were a handful of people who stood up and insisted that there was a boatload of “The Emperor Has No Clothes” reasoning going on as among the egalitarian “all dogs breeds are the same after sanctification” crowd. These folks understood that while Pitbulls could be sanctified they would never be sanctified so as to become the same breed with the same disposition as the Yorkie or Beagle. Sanctification might well make a Pitbull the best Pitbull he could be but it would never make a Pitbull to be a Yorkie or a Beagle. The Pitbull breed, the Beagle breed, and the Yorkie breed would all have to be satisfied that God in His infinite wisdom causes breeds to differ and causes some breeds to have ten talents, while other breeds only have five talents or one talent.
And that’s a good thing since God loves diversity… even after sanctification.
Always remember that “equality” is, at the end of the day, just a pretty euphemism for “interchangeability.” And understood in that sense, equality is a truly nihilistic ideal. Like a man who thinks all women are “equal” in the sense of being interchangeable, can drop the mother of his children and take up a new woman who better suits his taste. Or like a nasty employer who insults his workers, shouting at them, “I could hire the first bums off the street to replace you!” Because the workers are interchangeable to him. Et cetera, et cetera.
And of course, the ultimate theological import of egalitarianism is materialistic pantheism where EVERYTHING is just the same interchangeable sordid stuff, God and man, spirit and matter being mixed up together:
https://x.com/augureust/status/1736601240216240232
“Monism is metaphysical Communism. In it there is no real or essential difference between entities, and thus all hierarchy, distance and distinction is illusory. You are one with all sewerage and all sewerage is one with you.”
The funny thing here is that if a man takes up a new woman or an Employer take up a new group of employees they still will not get satisfaction since it is the case that the new woman or the new batch of employees are going to the same as the previous woman and the previous batch of employees since all are the same.
“They are ALL THE SAME!” (women, men, politicians, pastors, etc.) is the cynical, misanthropic mantra our fallen hearts are easily tempted to believe in the moments of blackpilling despair. But this notion is an “egalitarian” mental reflex, when you think about it – thinking things are all interchangeable in the end.
“I said in my haste, “All men are liars.”” (Ps. 116:11)
This concept of interchangeability also explains why soulless capitalism is ready to support globalism, as Noam Chomsky explained:
https://books.google.fi/books?id=huNjDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&hl=fi&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false
“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist – it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
Viisaus,
I usually loathe Chomsky but this quote is quite good.
My Mahler/White debate recap over whether or not God has an “affirmative action” policy for Black sanctification. (Is it just me, or is this a bizarre debate topic?)
White took the positive position—yes, God has an “affirmative action” policy for Black sanctification. Mahler took the negative—God treats all believers equally, he doesn’t have any “affirmative action” policy that would sanctify Black believers, on average, more than White believers (so that equal average outcomes here on Earth are achieved).
Mahler’s position seems more likely to me. James White seems to be advocating for blatant, post-WW2 consensus “Christianity.”
Anyway, here’s the recap:
—-
Neither Mahler nor White presented any Scriptural evidence about sanctification here on Earth, and both agreed immediately that justification and “final” sanctification—after you die—were available to all Christians on an equal basis.
So the debate was about a single question: does the Spirit sanctify Blacks, on average, more than Whites here on Earth? White says “yes,” Mahler says “no, God is constrained by creation.” Neither presented any verses about this—there are none. Mahler pointed to nature to determine what the Spirit has done over the last 6,000 years; White basically claimed that God intended to make all Christians equal, and that included here on Earth, not just in eternity—again, no Scripture was provided.
Mahler’s position is that God sanctifies all Christians, on average, equally (in the sense of “% improvement from where you start”). So if we group Christians by populations (Cretins, Jews, Blacks, Whites, etc.) we can measure their current, pre-conversion average level of sanctification. The argument for different, average “ending sanctification” here on Earth is trivial: Mahler believes every Christian has “the same” sanctifying work of the Spirit here on Earth (i.e. the same “% improvement”), and thus different pre-conversion sanctification results in different post-conversion sanctification as well. This is just math.
White believes that God sanctifies some Christian populations more than others–he shows favoritism, if you will, towards Blacks. Specifically, he gives Blacks a larger “% increase” than Whites—because they are less sanctified than Whites pre-conversion, God gives Blacks additional sanctification that he does not provide to White people. The result is that, on average, the two populations have identical levels of sanctification here on Earth, post-conversion. God is doing a form of sanctification “affirmative action” for Black believers.
Since neither has any scripture to back any of this up, I guess a Christian could believe whatever they want–Mahler’s “God sanctifies all Christians equally” or White’s “God sanctifies Black Christians much more than White Christians.” The evidence since Christ walked the Earth seems to support Mahler in practice—something White conceded during the debate—but on the question of “CAN God treat Christians unequally”, White’s claim that God can show favoritism to Blacks is just as possible as Mahler’s claim that God cannot (and does not) show favoritism, because he follows the rules of his creation and treats all believers—White and Black—equally with respect to sanctification.
Ultimately, Scripture does not say if God has instituted a sanctification “affirmative action” policy for Black believers, as White teaches. Maybe God has, maybe he hasn’t. Scripture does not say, but history appears to indicate that He has not.
Maybe all governance systems and philosophies are the same too. At least that would be a reasonable explanation for why my pastor never has anything to say about communism or freedom. I don’t think he’d care if Whitmer got elected President and we became a commie country like England or Canada. He’d be upset about the life issue, but tell us that it’s all small potatoes and we should focus on love and gratitude and unity. That would be true if he believes a pit bull is a beagle is a commie is a patriot and to think otherwise is a lack of understanding of how big God is.
I think your Pastor is part of the problem in the Reformed church. Like so many other clergy he just is not a wise man.
This essay was a superb brief explanation of racial distinctions withing Christianity. The only problem is that few will read it other than people who are already Kinists. How to get the message to the masses? I wish I knew.
Joe,
I am with you. I wish I knew.
Brilliant!
Many thanks.
Super! I took it in sips, couldn’t gulp that truth-shot down.
I didn’t watch the debate, and based on comments, I’m glad I haven’t. Your post is more edifying than what I imagine the debate would be.
I couldn’t follow Wilson Dufflepod’s subsequent blog post – he said CM wasn’t saved but that conclusion didn’t follow obviously enough for me, from what he wrote. Is he saying CM says CM falsely think he’s being saved because he’s German and CM thinks that’s what is a saving power, similar to stiff-necked Jews thinking they were saved because of their heritage?
Kurt,
I want to be careful not aligning myself too close to Mahler since I prefer phrasing these matters according to my uniqueness. Mahler often times says things I would never say. For example, I think it was a major stupid thing to say that Germans would have never built a golden-calf like the Jews did. That kind of statement just invites misunderstanding. Maybe he should have immediately added after saying that Germans would never make a golden calf to worship “but they would have put Moses in a concentration camp,” it would have still made his point without coming across the way he did. Also Mahler is a deep in the Bone Lutheran and I am a deep in the bone Calvinists and historically deep in the bone Lutherans and Calvinists have not been fans of one another.
However, where CM is right he is right and all men ought to support him when he is right just as all Calvinists ought to oppose him when he starts spouting nonsense Lutheran theology.
“For example, I think it was a major stupid thing to say that Germans would have never built a golden-calf like the Jews did.”
Careless statement indeed. The partnership between Marx, the member of a “Marrano” family that received Lutheran baptism due to the decision of his father, for blatantly worldly reasons, and Engels, the rebellious scion of a devout German Calvinist industrialist family, is like a symbol of how Christ-rejecting Jews and gentiles can find each other in the mutual business of mischief-making.
And significantly, young Marx and Engels originally found their common radical-humanist identity in the blatantly self-deifying Hegelian philosophy that was all the rage in the 1830s and 1840s – it was not the literal Golden Calf, but otherwise German infidel philosophy of that era was producing very blatant idolatry, as this contemporary conservative Christian observer noted:
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9PViAAAAcAAJ&hl=fi&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Kant is wholly out of date: Hegel, the perfecter of Spinoza, is in the ascendent. His doctrine is a mighty stride of devilry in advance. It is the first German system that promises to work; for it is a philosophy which tallies with principles in the breasts of all classes. But its work will be one of ruin; for the principles which it evokes are those of Antichrist. Its advocates are of various shades—half, whole, and ultra; and there are many who, in spite of its infection, preserve or have recovered a measure of faith and truth, although a far smaller one than they imagine. But in itself, it is unmixed Anthropotheism, not the exaltation of a creature to the place of God, but the assertion that a creature is the sole and essential God. It is the nearest approach yet made to the preparation of Christendom for receiving the Man of Sin.”
Greetings Bret,
A small introduction – I am a Liberal Christian who occasionally reads your blog – primarily because you tend to distill the Christian Nationalist or Kinism movement down to its fundamentals in a very clear manner. Speaking of – this dog breed analogy was very insightful into how you construct your worldview.
First – my agreements. I also think that genetic, national, cultural, and regional divisions are natural and something to be celebrated. I love visiting a new country or region and observing all the minute differences in how they operate, how they build things, how they cook, how they live. While I also hold these differences should never cause us to consider one another as sub human – I do think each of these cultures should take pride in their unique traditions and strengths.
Another point of agreement is that sin can be communal and generational. Certain groups will struggle with certain sins more than other groups and certain sins are passed down from father to son. I also think we are beings with both spiritual and physical components and there are consequences to believing that.
Onto some of my disagreements.
First of which is the black and white nature of what constitutes any societal division. In your dog analogy there are clear lines between breeds. However – as far as I can tell there are no universal divisions in the real world. You might claim that your country should be the dividing line- but there are plenty of international borders in the world that cut right through culturally similar people. All similar singular attempts have similar problems – groupings by language, by genetics, by religion, by climate, etc. all have some major exceptions.
So you might claim that the real dividing lines are often a combination of multiple factors put together. Which I might start to agree with. Can groups merge or can they split? Are labradoodles – if there are enough of them – eligible for a new division all together? I guess I see the real world with real societies throughout history as messy – changing affairs and I don’t see the Kinist often acknowledging this. They tend to want to clean things up with nice clean current borders.
This brings me to my second disagreement – that of America. America did not start and certainly did not grow by being a monolithic cultural group. America has always been a messy conglomeration of cultures. We are the proverbial mutts in your analogy. Which is actually another point in itself – your analogy did not account for mutts or the fact that genetic mixing can arguably produce the healthiest dogs even if they start to lose some of their specific strengths.
I grew up in Texas on the Mexican border. I grew up as a white kid eating tacos and hearing a lot of Spanish spoken. And this wasn’t because of some DEI initiative –since European arrival Texas has been a mix of Indigenous, Latin, and European cultures. How do I draw a line around my self and someone from New Jersey that is stronger than a line around me and someone who I grew up but is of Mexican heritage? How do you reduce the culture of America to a white Englishman?
My last point of disagreement is your application of the talents parable to national divisions. The tendency to want to rank cultures speaks far more of the parable of the splinter in the eye. If you want everyone to embrace national sins and don’t reflect on how your particular group sinned but instead constantly point out how other groups fall short in their sanctification – then I feel like you are doing it wrong. If you tell me a pretty good analogy of a world of dog breeds but didn’t see yourself or your group as the Pitbull – again, I feel like you are missing the point. (Please correct me if I wrongly assumed that white American Christians were not supposed to be the Pitbulls)
Thanks for your time.
Jacob
Jacob,
Thank you for the civil interaction. So often people are breathing fire right out of the gate, thus demonstrating their inability to think through matters.
I will interact w/ your comment by fisking;
Jacob wrote,
Greetings Bret,
A small introduction – I am a Liberal Christian who occasionally reads your blog – primarily because you tend to distill the Christian Nationalist or Kinism movement down to its fundamentals in a very clear manner. Speaking of – this dog breed analogy was very insightful into how you construct your worldview.
Bret responds,
I wonder what you mean by “Liberal Christian?” That could be taken in numerous manners. Did you mean “neo-orthodox (Barthian)”, “Schleiermacher type Liberal,” “Libertarian Liberal” or something else? Maybe a way to cut to the quick on this is just to ask if you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Do you believe in the Supernatural — snakes talk, axeheads float, Jesus walks on water, virgins conceive, etc? My knowing where you are at on these matters will help me know who I am interacting with.
Jacob wrote,
First – my agreements. I also think that genetic, national, cultural, and regional divisions are natural and something to be celebrated. I love visiting a new country or region and observing all the minute differences in how they operate, how they build things, how they cook, how they live. While I also hold these differences should never cause us to consider one another as sub human – I do think each of these cultures should take pride in their unique traditions and strengths.
Bret responds,
Fantastic… we are agreed here. All races/cultures have strengths to be celebrated and weaknesses to be repented of while praying for increased sanctification in those areas.
Jacob wrote,
Another point of agreement is that sin can be communal and generational. Certain groups will struggle with certain sins more than other groups and certain sins are passed down from father to son. I also think we are beings with both spiritual and physical components and there are consequences to believing that.
Bret responds,
Again… fantastic. These points should be rather obvious realities (consider Paul’s observation about Cretans) but somehow in a weird combination of mixing those worldviews that shouldn’t be mixable we in the West have combined Gnosticism with cultural Marxism in order to repeatedly deny your observation above.
Jacob writes,
Onto some of my disagreements.
First of which is the black and white nature of what constitutes any societal division. In your dog analogy there are clear lines between breeds. However – as far as I can tell there are no universal divisions in the real world. You might claim that your country should be the dividing line- but there are plenty of international borders in the world that cut right through culturally similar people. All similar singular attempts have similar problems – groupings by language, by genetics, by religion, by climate, etc. all have some major exceptions.
Bret responds,
I agree here. For example there has always been “Bordermen” — that is those men who lived as having a foot in two worlds. However, the existence of such people does not disprove the general rule. I mean, if we don’t have an idea of a particular set race, culture, language, or religion then how could we ever identify that which is shaded, jumbled, or a mish-mash? One can only identify syncretism when one knows the different particulars that are being syncretized.
No universal divisions? I can’t agree there. Clearly there is a universal division between the Japanese and the Ndebele. Many other examples could be given but perhaps I am missing your point.
In terms of nations there was a time when the etymology of the word was taken seriously;
“Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Yes, all have exceptions but you wouldn’t know what the exceptions were if you did not know first what the non-exception was.
Jacob wrote,
So you might claim that the real dividing lines are often a combination of multiple factors put together. Which I might start to agree with. Can groups merge or can they split? Are labradoodles – if there are enough of them – eligible for a new division all together? I guess I see the real world with real societies throughout history as messy – changing affairs and I don’t see the Kinist often acknowledging this. They tend to want to clean things up with nice clean current borders.
Bret responds,
As Kinism does not have a headquarters to send mail to, and as Kinism is a variegated movement it is not helpful, I think, to speak of Kinism as if it has a Universal agreed on position on all matters. So, I will just speak for myself as one Kinist.
I think what the Kinists I personally know want is fewer exceptions and more acknowledgement that exceptions can’t exist as exceptions unless there is a prior rule of thumb. The Christian Kinists look over the global landscape, as they are reading their history, their sociology, and their theology and they see a real live threat that there is an agenda being pushed by very powerful people and Institutions to put the whole globe (cultures, languages, faiths, races, etc.) into a giant blender with the purpose of going all U2 wherein “all colors will bleed into one.” Kinists, following Scripture, are foursquare and adamantly against this plan nicely articulated by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi back in the 1920s. This migration agenda was also written down in UN Documents in the 50s and 60s. This messiness, as you put it, is preplanned and some of us are resolved that going back to Babel is not a healthy decision.
I quite agree that history and cultural sociology/anthropology can be quite a messy affair but it becomes even more messy when there is a mass top down push that intends to make the messy affair even more messy. You can’t really believe that all this third world mass migration into the former White Christendom is coincidental or an accident? Certainly, many of the elite are seeking to gaslight Westerners on this issue but some people are not “gasslight-able”
Finally, on this score, as to your “Labradoodle” question, I would say it is possible though historically I don’t see it as being that prevalent or sustainable.
Jacob writes,
This brings me to my second disagreement – that of America. America did not start and certainly did not grow by being a monolithic cultural group. America has always been a messy conglomeration of cultures. We are the proverbial mutts in your analogy.
Bret responds,
Yeah, I don’t agree with this. I believe this is an errant observation on your part. I would recommend reading “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fisher.
Here are a couple quotes that would suggest that you haven’t got this quite right;
Here is Founding Father John Jay’s opinion,
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
“Heaven hath provided this country, not indeed derelict, but only partially settled, and consequently open for reception of a new enlargement of Japheth. Europe was settled by Japheth; America is settling from Europe: and perhaps this second enlargement bids fair to surpass the first; for we are to consider all the European settlements of America collectively as springing from and transfused with the blood of Japheth … ”
(J.Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, as cited in Hall’s The Christian History of the American Constitution, p.382)
There are many more quotes like this from the founding fathers in the book “Who Is My Neighbor.” I don’t think your claims stands up to a close examination. We were never proverbial mutts until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality act.
Jacob wrote,
Which is actually another point in itself – your analogy did not account for mutts or the fact that genetic mixing can arguably produce the healthiest dogs even if they start to lose some of their specific strengths.
Bret responds,
I noticed your word “arguably,” and I would argue against your statement.
Jacob wrote,
I grew up in Texas on the Mexican border. I grew up as a white kid eating tacos and hearing a lot of Spanish spoken. And this wasn’t because of some DEI initiative –since European arrival Texas has been a mix of Indigenous, Latin, and European cultures. How do I draw a line around my self and someone from New Jersey that is stronger than a line around me and someone who I grew up but is of Mexican heritage? How do you reduce the culture of America to a white Englishman?
Bret responds,
So you take my “borderman” observation from earlier and say “I have lived that.” It still doesn’t make Texas the norm.
Keep in mind also, that I am of the persuasion that America ought to be split up into several different nations so that your observation would be less of a problem. Indeed, I think at some point this is going to have to happen since America has become such a ethnically/racially divided country. We really no longer are a “nation” in any meaningful sense.
Jacob wrote,
My last point of disagreement is your application of the talents parable to national divisions. The tendency to want to rank cultures speaks far more of the parable of the splinter in the eye. If you want everyone to embrace national sins and don’t reflect on how your particular group sinned but instead constantly point out how other groups fall short in their sanctification – then I feel like you are doing it wrong.
Bret responds,
I have constantly and repeatedly said that white people must be the dumbest people on two legs on the planet as seen in their rebellion against God…. As seen in their unwillingness to see what is obvious all because they have embraced this silly notion of white guilt – as if white people are somehow uniquely guilty of racial crimes against humanity. If I don’t say that with everything I write you must understand I have said it so much I don’t always see the need to say it again, ad-nauseum. This nation is in the situation it is in because of stupid white people for several generations now just turning over their inheritance.
But that is all proper and fit since it can also be seen as God’s judgment against our wickedness against Him.
So, not to worry Jacob. I see our and my splinter with great regularity. But thanks for the reminder.
Jacob wrote,
If you tell me a pretty good analogy of a world of dog breeds but didn’t see yourself or your group as the Pitbull – again, I feel like you are missing the point. (Please correct me if I wrongly assumed that white American Christians were not supposed to be the Pitbulls).
Bret responds,
Nah… white American Christians are the collected retards of every breed…. exceptions notwithstanding.
Jacob writes,
Thanks for your time.
Jacob
Bret responds,
Thanks for the conversation. I will try to remember and pray that you will see the problems with your “Liberal Christianity.”
And thanks again for being so civil.