Category: Ethnic considerations

The Cultural Marxist Contradiction That Gives Away The Game

The Cultural Marxist left has a glaring contradiction at the center of their warfare against blood and soil nationhood. On one hand the WOKE crowd wants to say that nations are not blood and soil but only voluntary to anybody who would affirm certain propositions. This conviction is so central to the Cultural Marxist crowd that they will insist that an third world immigrant who has been here for 10 minutes can be just as American as a White man whose family has been here for 10 generations. At this point the Cultural Marxist vehemently denies ethnicity, heritage, and identity in favor of nations as a social construct.

However, the Left is in contradiction here when it pivots, for example, to indict the White man with colonialism or his alleged mistreatment of minorities. Now, the Cultural Marxist has shifted feet, and is now saying that ethnicity, heritage, and identity does exist. Now, it is the case for the Cultural Marxist, that a nation is not a social construct, as he insisted in the first paragraph, but rather now the Cultural Marxists are arguing that a nation is indeed a blood and soil reality filled with villains belonging to that blood and soil people.

We see thus that when it is convenient for nations to be social constructs for the Cultural Marxist they are but when it is not convenient for nations to be social constructs they are not. If guilt can be inherited then so can belonging. If the white man is uniquely guilty for his putative crimes against humanity then clearly the white man exists as a ontological reality and not as a social construct. If the past can be uniquely measured against white people then it must be the case that heritage and race does matter. But if heritage and race matter than propositional nationhood doesn’t work.

One can not consistently argue that national identity is purely voluntary as answering the question “Who is a European,” while simultaneously treating history as a moral ledger in which only one ethnic people incur guilt … indeed cannot avoid guilt due to their genetic identity.

The Cultural Marxist have a contradiction at the center of their thinking. So, either race/ethnicity is a thing so that racial guilt can be assigned with the consequence that it is not possible to arbitrarily claim that a Hottentot can just claim to be a European just because of magic dirt, or, race/ethnicity is not a thing so that racial guilt can not be assigned with the consequence that our Hottentot can claim to be a European five minutes after being here.

So, to be consistent, the Cultural Marxist has to either give up their rejection of blood and soil, the rejection which produces the whole propositional nationhood bit or they have to give up their insistence that there exists a white people who are uniquely guilty for anything. White people can’t exist to be guilty of anything if being White is just a social construct.

The blood and soil crowd, on the other hand are perfectly fine with saying that belonging to nations has a blood and soil component while being willing to accept the possibility, where it can be proven to their satisfaction, that somehow they are uniquely guilty, as a people, for this or that historical action.

Just so you know though … epistemologically self-conscious Christian Whites will argue that colonialism was a net positive good for non-White people. White people are proud of their colonial ways in which we bore the white man’s burden.

Marchin’ Lootin’ King Day … A Truly Unique American Holiday

Soon after its 1994 release, I read, “The Martin Luther King, Jr., Plagiarism Story,” by Theodore Pappas.Pappas’ manuscript was rejected 40 times from 40 publishers in 40 months before it was finally published. When it was finally published it was sell well received that it had a first edition sell out.

Nobody wanted to hear the truth about Marchin’ Lootin’ King and that explains why Pappas’ manuscript was consistently rejected. The Left so owned the publishing world that Pappas was rejected over and over again for the simple crime of telling the truth.

And what was the scandalous truth?

The truth was that King was a Doctor the way that a guy named Seuss was a Doctor. Pappas demonstrably proved that King was a liar and a cheat as seen in his repeated plagiarism on his thesis papers. King lifted whole paragraphs from books of previous writers. This was later admitted by the University granting the degree but the University refused to revoke the degree. King had become everybody’s token and once one is a token one can’t be touched.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Below the tip was the fact that King was a known whoremonger. One of his chief lieutenants (Ralph Abernathy) wrote of King’s extramarital affairs, including the reporting of King having sex with two women the night before he was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn., as well as having a fight with a third hooker that left her the loser of the fight. King was faithful to his wife, Coretta Scott King the way that Bill Clinton was faithful to Hillary.

King was a wretch of a man… both in his behavior and in his convictions. His Christianity was all smoke. He read the supernatural out of the Scripture. Did not believe in the virgin Birth, the resurrection, or any other miracle explaining them as happening outside history though impacting history.

King was in favor of the destruction of his own people. The last person that Blacks should esteem is Marchin’ Lootin’ King given his support for the legalizing of abortion — a legalizing which has disproportionately ravaged the Black community. King was given, by Margaret Sanger the “Margaret Sanger Award” in 1966 and wrote the words that King’s wife uttered in accepting the prize in Marchin’ Lootin’ King’s name;

“Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions.”

Yet, despite all this known by the powers that be, still those that hate Christ and the White race were able to shove him into the American pantheon, where, by his presence, King contradicts everything that it had previously meant to be a virtuous American. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) did his best to stop this monstrosity but the “great” “Conservative” Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law making the third Monday of every January a anti-Christ holiday known as “Marchin’ Lootin’ King day.” In this act alone Ronnie Reagan should be abominated along with King.

The lifting of the King to the American pantheon was the confirmation of the most recent revamping of the US Constitution. The first revamping was under the Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. The second revamping was a collected effort of the Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt administrations. With Marchin’ Lootin’ King the US constitution is remade again and King becomes the Saint of the Civil Rights movement that accounts for the third revamping of the US Constitution. The US constitution with King and the civil rights movement makes the white man the enemy of the Federal State. What was established in principle with the civil rights movement has evolved into its inevitable outcome of set asides, quotas, which itself has evolved into DEI and WOKEISM. Without Marchin’ Lootin’ King as supported by the Bagel apparatus of the Leftist media as well as all the might of the Federal Government (beginning with Eisenhower) the Marxist Civil Rights revolution never revamps the American Constitution.

King’s pantheon status introduced contradiction into the American mythos. King could not be numbered among the heroes without there being a necessity to push other previous heroes out of the pantheon of America’s hero greats. Since the apotheosis of Marchin’ Lootin’ King, the contradiction has forced others to be demoted. All of them white men. From George Washington to the Spanish conquistador Don Juan de Oñate to Robert E. Lee to Christopher Columbus to Juan Ponce de Leon, etc. the previous monuments to America’s heroes have either been extensively vandalized or have been torn down. People don’t realize this, but all this has been done to make room for Marchin’ Lootin’ King and his Marxist grifters and rabble. Once King was apotheosized all other heroes must be seen as shameful.

King’s holiday is a day of mourning for base Americans. It is a day of mourning for epistemologically self-conscious Blacks. It is a day of mourning for all Biblical Christians because the Marxism that drove the Civil Rights movement has been in the saddle since the success of King. Marxism is the avowed enemy of Biblical Christianity. One of the really sad things is that since the success of the Civil Rights Movement and Marchin’ Lootin’ King the conservative Reformed/Evangelical Church has reinterpreted the Christian faith through the lens of Marxism. This was most clearly seen when conservative Evangelical and Reformed types came together to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Marchin’ Lootin’ King’s 50th anniversary marking his death. In that conference Reformed leaders reiterated over and over again how this vile man was a Saint of God.

This holiday is especially heinous because it is the one holiday of the year where we are especially lectured by the elite in the fields of journalism, Government, and corporate America about the glories of its founder and his mission/vision. We are harangued and lectured how we need to “complete the vision of King.” We are told endlessly about how racist America remains. We are chided for not advancing far enough fast enough. You can bet today you will read article and columns connecting the sainted King with the poor persecuted immigrants being arrested by wicked evil white ICE agents. On holidays like Columbus day we get all kinds of gobbledygook language about it really being “indigenous people day.” On Independence Day we get columns and articles about how wicked our white founders were. On Christmas we get columns and articles about how Jesus isn’t really who the Scriptures say He is. However on Marchin’ Lootin’ King day we get “all hail the power of Martin’s name, let angels prostrate fall.”

In all seriousness, the King celebration is, in reality, a humiliation ritual for white Americans who know their history and who haven’t become mind numbed normies.

With the success of King, the halo of sanctity unto the end of special rights/privilege now finds not only the Black man ensconced in a safety zone of untouchable status but also now all minorities, all women, and all sexual perverts. This is the constituency of the Democratic party that the Republican party will not touch.

Don’t get me wrong. I could see celebrating a day set aside for a Black man like Booker T. Washington who emphasized the need for the Black man to pursue vocational education as an opportunity for economic security which would be more valuable to the Black man than social advantages, higher education, or political office. Washington’s speech was highlighted by his statement;

 “In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.”

Washington was loudly applauded by his audience in Atlanta and yet he was seen as a Uncle Tom by his own people who had determined that they would rather follow a man like W. E. Dubois, and later King who marketed grievance like the ADL markets Jewish oppression.

So, mark yet another Marchin’ Lootin’ King day. The deity lives on in America and the posterity of those that built America continue to serve those who would replace that posterity.

Rev. Joe Spurgeon On Whites Being Replaced; Right Message – Wrong Messenger

Stick with me here. The irony comes at the end.

Rev. Joe Spurgeon (RJS) writes;

“Everyone wants to talk about demographics change but very few are willing to tell the truth about where much of the blame lies.”

Bret responds,

The issue here that Joe is bringing to our attention is the problem the West is having with demographic change. When you peel this back, that problem is that the West (and the US) is becoming less white. That Joe is focusing on White people not replacing themselves is seen in the multiple times he uses the word “White.”

RJS writes;

White Americans do not have a replacement level birth rate. The total fertility rate for white women in the United States sits well below 2.1 children per woman. That means the population is shrinking on its own, before immigration is even part of the equation.

Bret responds,

Here Joe brings out the failure of white people to replace themselves. Clearly Joe thinks this is a bad thing. I agree with Joe that it is a bad thing.

RJS writes,

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of white babies are aborted every year. Roughly a quarter of all abortions in the United States are performed on white women. That is an entire generation being erased before it ever sees daylight.

Bret responds,

Joe once again focuses on the white babies aborted. Joe is clearly zeroing in the collapse of White America. I agree with Joe that this is horrid.

As an aside… it is interesting that though America, demographically, remains 61% white, only 25% of abortions in these united States are done by white people. That means the abortion industry thrives off of the minority community.

RSJ writes,

Add to this the widespread use of birth control (which is itself abortifacient). Millions of white women are on the pill alone, intentionally preventing conception for years at a time. Children are delayed, downsized, or avoided altogether in the name of convenience, autonomy, or lifestyle preservation.

Bret responds,

Again, I completely agree with Joe here.

Joe writes,

A people that kills its children in the womb and refuses to have enough children to replace itself will not survive.

Bret responds,

Keep in mind that the “people” that Joe has been talking about is white people. It is white people who will not survive because they are not replacing themselves. This is the demographic change that Joe wrote of in his opening salvo.

Joe writes,

This is not primarily something being done to white Americans. It is something white Americans are doing to themselves.

Bret responds,

Note again… it is white Americans that Joe’s whole piece is about. Again, I agree with what Joe says here.

RJS writes,

A civilization cannot be sustained on abortion, sterility, and self hatred. If a people wants to endure, it must choose life, marriage, and fruitfulness again.

Bret responds,

Joe talks about (white) people wanting to endure. Joe talks about the need for white people to choose life, marriage, and fruitfulness. I agree.

The kicker here is that Joe writes all this as a white man who has not replaced himself. Joe hasn’t aborted his children. Joe did choose life and Joe did choose fruitfulness. However, what Joe did not choose was the very thing he is lecturing white people on … Joe did not choose replacement. Joe as a white man has not replaced himself. Joe married a non-caucasian woman and had many children who can not be considered replacements for Joe.

So, Joe complains (rightfully) that white people have sinned in not replacing themselves… Joe complains (rightfully) about demographic change, and yet Joe has four fingers pointing back at him as Rev. Joe points at white people for the sin of not replacing themselves.

So, I am to understand that a man who married a non-White woman is now lecturing other white people on their sin of not replacing themselves because of inadequate birthrates?

I want to make something clear here. I get why some people might marry outside their race. I get that there are going to be situations where that happens. I am glad for Joe that he has a radiant wife and many children. Further, I’m confident that all those children are Christian children.

What I don’t get is how such a guy can have the stones to complain that their race of origin is not replacing itself, when in point of fact, Joe has contributed to the demographic change that he is lamenting. If it is sin for white people to pursue death by not replacing themselves then that has to include not only abortion, and abortifacients as causes of white people not replacing themselves, but it must also include, as causative, large numbers of the population marrying outside their race and having non-white children.

The truth that has to be added to all the truth that Rev. Joe Spurgeon brought is that if Whites want to halt the demographic change in these united States they have to cease with interracial marriage because interracial marriage as well as abortion and abortifacients contributes to the demographic change here that Joe rightly laments.

Bottom line here … Joe has given us the right message, but he is the wrong messenger.

Addendum

1.) Someone has argued that white miscegenation compared to white abortion is akin to comparing the Himalayas to a molehill. I concur that abortion and abortifacients are a far larger problem however, consider that 17% of all new marriages in the US are interracial and by 2050, it is projected that 1 in 5 newlyweds in the US will have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, indicating a continued rise in interracial relationships.

So… the Himalayas to molehill analogy doesn’t really work.

2.) Also on this matter we have to consider that one abortion kills one white child, while marrying outside one’s race prohibits many potential white children being birthed.

3.) Dan Brannan notes on this subject;

Both miscegenation and abortion remove a member of the nation. But one (miscegenation) also adds a member of an outgroup in amongst us. One (abortion) is murder of an individual. The other (miscegenation) is essentially murder of the nation.

Ryan Louis Underwood Unearths A Kinist Quote From Prominent Anglican

“Around the Englishman are others, born of the same race, speaking the same language, living under the same laws, fed from the same soil; In fact, satisfying almost all of the conditions under which a family exists together in its home. Sprung from different parents, localized in different neighborhoods, there is yet one common parent of all these, and one unvarying home. Our country is our general Mother, and her bounds our natural home.

Within those limits, we are like brothers and sisters of a family, not strangers, but native: not guests but members.

Whatever is there, is, in place and degree, for us; for the body of which we are parts, and for us, inasmuch as we are bound up with the body …

As regards the rest of the world, the nation is as one: as regards one another, national greatness, national advantages, national success and failure are common to all its citizens. In all these particular does the mind, true to its original training, recognize and embrace as a great home, the common country of the whole race of which the individual forms a part.

A man finds himself bound to his fellow-countrymen by a common language, which has grown up amidst events, and bears trace of changes, whose effects are still acting on the great brotherhood of the nation.
The history of their country is the history of all.”

Henry Alford – 1810-1871
Anglican Dean Of Canterbury Cathedral
The Nation An Extension of Family
Lectures on the 5th Commandment

Bits of Conversation With Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

“Take the language of invasion as an example. I think it is legitimate to speak in political terms about an invasion when referring to mass immigration being brought into a country. That kind of language functions the same way politicians speak about fighting or war. But that is very different from an actual military invasion.

If China or Russia or some other foreign power started paratrooping troops into my home city, with soldiers dropping from the sky, it would be legitimate for me to grab the guns I own and shoot those invaders. That is a real invasion. That is not the same thing as political rhetoric about immigration.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Has this man never heard of guerilla warfare? Has he never read about the Vietcong guerilla tactics during the Vietnam war? Harmless civilians by day … terrorists by night.

Clearly, Spurgeon doesn’t know what time it is culturally speaking. We are being invaded unto the end of being replaced. This is not political rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric. God nowhere calls us to disappear as a people. That is the effect of Spurgeon’s inability to differentiate categorically between criminals/invaders and neighbors.

Here I quote one Elizabeth Makis (an attorney) who just eats Spurgeon’s lunch with her response;

“This post is a great example of classic, White naivete, where you project your own ethics onto foreign hostile groups. Russians and Chinese, etc., KNOW they could never accomplish a full frontal ground assault. It’s called asymmetrical warfare, and they intentionally use “immigration” as a weapon precisely because of attitudes like yours (Spurgeon’s). If the American communists are intentionally using 3rd world immigration as a weapon, would it matter if the people being imported knew the full extent of the intentions of those importing them? If the causal factor in their being here is the intended destruction of American culture and civilization, then it’s an invasion. They ARE the weapon. The whole reason why it works is BECAUSE we would not be justified in violently unaliving random people. That also doesn’t mean they’re legitimate neighbors anymore than the people still in Somalia are our neighbors.”

I wonder, if Spurgeon read “The Camp of the Saints” if he would get it even then?

____

“The question then becomes how they treat the people they actually meet. That calls for a different kind of action. I am not blurring distinctions. The people critiquing me are the ones doing that.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Illegals are criminals and invaders and so, to honor God, we are to treat them as criminals. You don’t give casseroles and babysitting services to a criminal.

As REO Speedwagon once sang,

That ain’t love
Well, at least it doesn’t sound like love to me

You would aid them if you happened upon them unconscious and beaten up on the side of the road. In that case you would take them to a ICE hospital where they could be stitched back together and then extradited back home. However, if you wouldn’t invite Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson to have tea and crumpets with your house as with your wife and children the principle is established that one treats criminals different than they would the Stewarts who have lived across the street for 20 years as your neighbor.

_____

“In particular, in his commentary on the Good Samaritan, Calvin says that Jesus teaches our neighbor does not end with those who are like us in nationality or religion. All people are neighbors, including even our enemies, which is why Jesus says we can love our enemies. So Calvin upholds the fact that distinctions are real, while also upholding a general love that we owe to all people. He affirms that civil magistrates can and should do what is best for their people, while also calling individuals to do good to their neighbors.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

1.) Love for enemies here does not exclude doing that which they would consider “hate.” For example when one gives the Law to the sinner he considers that act of love to be an act of hate. In the same way love of civilian invaders can be an act that they would consider “hate.” Would Rev. Spurgeon insist that it would be a lack of love to enemy if I turned in my illegal invader neighbor to ICE? Would Rev. Spurgeon say it was an act of hate to my illegal invader neighbor if I asked them over for a meal and invited ICE agents as well in order to arrest them? I would say that these are acts of love. It is an act of love to not let the Criminal get away with their criminality and/or criminal behavior.”

2.) Rev. Spurgeon here also continues with his habit of forgetting about the necessity we have to love our White Anglo Saxon Christian neighbor. Is it neighbor love to them to welcome the stranger and alien thus allowing the stranger and alien to eat up resources that will not longer be available to the citizens of this nation? Rev. Spurgeon seems to be forgetting that these people we are to love are criminals as seen in their theft and fraud – not to mention being here illegally. Love does not allow the criminal to continue to be a criminal… does not reward the criminal for being a criminal. The illegals are criminals. God’s law does not say… “Treat the criminal as if he is not a criminal. Treat him as if he were the Stewart family who has lived next door to you for 30 years.” Love to God requires us to do all we an to make sure the criminal is arrested by ICE.

We see therefore that Rev. Spurgeon really does not understand what love is when dealing with criminals and invaders.

3.) Rev. Spurgeon makes the mistake of turning the criminal/invader into the victim as found in the parable of the Good Samaritan where the fact of the matter is, is that the criminal/invader are those who beat up the victim that the Good Samaritan finds beaten and bruised.

I close with a quote from a friend of mine, Dr. Jaime Castillo, a Filipino;

It looks like the example of the Good Samaritan has been used to defend (wrongly) the naïveté dealing with members of dangerous tribes. Helping a person with true needs does not mean being recklessly indiscriminate about groups that are physically proximal to us.

Clearly the Samaritan was being wise knowing that the person was indeed fully helpless and alone, and hence was not a threat. I will assist such a person too, regardless of their tribal affiliation. It is situational compassion however, not unity of tribes as happy neighbors in one multicultural Babylon and its many gods.

There are also scammers and criminals looking like they also direly need help after all. We know this. Mercy without discernment about them leads to one’s own destruction. If we are not screening people groups by number, faith, and culture, and we are neglecting that we still have priorities that obviously include safety and preservation of our own communities, we end up increasingly weakened and spread too thinly. We will soon be incapable of expressing true love because we are unable to help anyone who do need our assistance, especially those who belong to our own families and tribes.