Author: jetbrane

A blurb from an article at the Sovereign Nations website.

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/06/06/black-identity-theories-secular-or-sacred/?utm_campaign=meetedgar&utm_medium=social&utm_source=meetedgar.com&fbclid=IwAR2G3I59mG8UJvJudfS9FjSe_IihdbeIGT6XhSZvcuyB74I_Br9ODu8m1Sw

As you read this keep in mind that “Sovereign Nations” is supposed to be the good guys opposing the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention into Critical Race theory and Intersectionality. With friends like this we might as well just let the enemies have their way.

The article is insightful in terms of its analysis of the origins of Critical Race theory but once she (Ariel Gonzalez Bovat) moves away from analysis to solutions she goes completely off the tracks. In point of fact I agreed with what I was reading until this statement,

“Cross’s model of black identity was an attempt to merge black culture with the unbiblical label of being black as a “race”.”

Black as a race is unbiblical? I’d love to see her prove that.

The fact that race exists is seen in,

1.) Pharmaceuticals that are developed as designed particularly for people of particular races.

2.) The reality of matters like this,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/30/family-3-year-old-leukemia-plead-bone-marrow-transplant-donor/1293400001/?fbclid=IwAR2l7g2lMSpMekovIaqEGm0pY9E9-RXPgRD5Et9dXaHGIYQG_V951GSZEoU

3.) Forensic Science routinely can identify people from bones found. If Race was merely a social construct forensic science could not identify the races of the deceased by merely looking at bones long in the ground.

4.) The fact that some races are uniquely given to certain diseases while other races are not. For example the black race is given to sickle cell anemia. If race were only a social construct why would this be the case?

Ariel Gonzalez Bovat goes on to write,

“We can reject secular reasoning that asserts our skin color or culture should be our primary identity marker. Skin color is not tied to culture, race does not exist. Prayerfully, this article has proven that Cross and other secular theorists have succeeded in merging race, skin color and culture, creating that firmly held “social construct” that continues to reinforce the necessity of keeping the word “race” in our language, which ultimately informs how we view each other. We are not the totality of our skin color or ethnic culture.Our skin color does not define us, nor does it inform our identity.”

Bret responds,

“Fine we are Christians first, but the fact that we are Christians first does not mean that our skin color or race doesn’t contribute to the informing of our identity.

Second, this assertion is nothing but Gnosticism. Who God has created us to be in terms of race, culture and ethnicity, maleness or femaleness, all contribute mightily to our identity.

Third, she has embraced the postmodern idea that creaturely realities assigned by God are only social constructs that are malleable. This is the opposition to CRT in the Southern Baptists.

Fourth, this smack of hyper individualism… atomistic individualism which treats the corporate categories we are created with nominalistically. Our race, ethnicity, tribe, and family, are assigned to us by God. This view quoted above would make man a single integer which provides for himself his own creaturely identity.

Ariel Gonzalez Bovat is drinking from the well of postmodernism when she starts insisting that race / ethnicity is a social construct. This idea of social construct was barely heard of until the last 20 years or so and now it has been pushed into our social consciousness as an article of faith and those who advocate this are providing either a prime example of gas-lighting or else are themselves suffering from unspeakable insanity.

Race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, citizenship, etc. are all good and creational, God-ordanied categories.When people like James White and some of the authors at Sovereign Nations ignore these realities they are the enemy and we need to fight them perhaps even more then those who they are opposing since the James White crowd are putatively our friends. The statement on social justice that MacArthur spearheaded also said explicitly that race is a social construct, thus demonstrating that MacArthur has his head up his southern most orifice on this subject. All of this is, quite frankly, not merely unwise but completely dishonest. Dear reader, if you haven’t listened to Al Mohler’s exposition of the Table of Nations that he did in chapel you need to do so to learn just how bad it is because slippery Al also reduces ethnicity to language and “worldview” (i.e., religion).

IS THERE ANYBODY WEARING A WHITE HAT OUT THERE OR IS IT THE CASE THAT NOT ONLY THE BAD GUYS ARE WEARING BLACK HATS BUT THE OPPOSITION WHO IS TRYING TO STOP THE BAD GUYS ARE ALSO WEARING BLACK HATS?

“Zephaniah disputes the idea that Yahweh is ‘as irrelevant to life as the other gods, as though Yahweh were not a serious player in the life of the world.'”

Walter Brueggeman
Theology of the OT — p. 137

“Israel was called upon to ‘acknowledge God’s sovereignty in economic as well as the religious sphere.'”

Christopher Wright
OT Ethics — p. 97

On Wright’s quote I wouldn’t only tighten it up by acknowledging that the “economic sphere” he refers to is also a “religious sphere.” In point of fact there is not sphere that is not driven by religion and so a “religious sphere.”

When we consider these two quotes we remember that R2K is a ‘theology’ in violation of these very principles. R2K does insist that God is irrelevant to life by insisting that there cannot be uniquely Christian Culture, Law, Education, family, etc. Further R2K does not acknowledge God’s sovereignty in the economic Sphere. I dare you … try to get an R2K preacher boy to preach on the sins of Marxism, Unjust weights and measures as applied to fiat money, or the necessity for hard currency. R2K refuses that the God of Christianity has a “thus saith the Lord” in relation to the economic sphere.This is why R2K is anti-Christ.

So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. Luke 16:8

Riddle me this.

Why is it that President Trump realizes the dangers of Critical Race theory prompting him to ban all the teaching of it in Federal agencies, but the Southern Baptist convention has embraced Critical Race theory as a legitimate tool by which to interpret culture.

So, who is more sanctified; Donald Trump or Al Mohler?

Who would you be more likely to entrust your child to be trained; Donald Trump or someone taught by SBC hack professors Jarvis Williams or Matt Hall?

It is a ruddy outrage that the worldview of the Southern Baptist Convention is so twisted that it would embrace Critical Race Theory.

Everyone understands that Marxism (in whatever particular social order incarnation it comes in) is a leveling work that pursues the equality found in the least common denominator among those being leveled. Since that is true, what is so hard to accept the observation that Marxism likewise desires to level all races, ethnic groups, and families to a least common denominator racial blend?

If we understand that Economic Marxism desires to level the classes so that there is only one impoverished class among all men, then why is it hard to embrace that we are living in a time where the cultural Marxists are trying to do the same thing only in terms of race and ethnicity? The Cultural Marxists desires mankind to be one undifferentiated homogeneous coffee latte race of men just as the Economic Marxists desire us to be one undifferentiated homogeneous economic class of men. Why is it controversial in the Church to observe that the plan of Satan and his Marxist minions is destroy our various distinct racial and ethnic heritages in favor of the New Marxist Man where everything is undistinguished and indistinguishable? If it is right and Christ honoring to fight Economic Marxism why is it not right and proper to fight Racial Marxism? Is the work of leveling wrong as it pertains to class but perfectly fine as it pertains to race and ethnicity? If it is proper to say that the result of economic Marxism is a leveling that hurts everybody why is it not proper to say that the result of Racial Marxism where miscegenation is glorified is a leveling that hurts everybody? Why is one Marxism sin but the other Marxism is holiness?

The Marxists themselves have told us expressly that they intended to destroy Christian civilization by pursuing racial leveling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination 

5.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”

 K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: AStudy of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

Christians who are advocating the goodness of racial leveling are sharing ideological fluids with the Marxist agenda. Doesn’t that give any of these “Christians” a reason to pause? Can they be so stubborn in their insistence that Kinists are hell bound sinners that they are willing to have ideological intercourse with the Marxists?

This is not a insignificant issue. Paul rhetorically asks us in II Corinthians
¹⁴ Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? ¹⁵ What harmony is there between Christ and Belial^?  Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? ¹⁶ What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?

Christians who continue to embrace this Marxist racial leveling agenda are in fellowship with the most foul anti-Christs walking the planet. They have found harmony with Belial. They have found common ground with wickedness.

The warnings they have been given from people like me will be something they remember on judgment day. Repent before it is too late.

There have only been 3 times in US History when it was not known within 24 hours of the Election who had been elected President (1824, 1876, and 2000) and a fourth time (1888) where ballot box stuffing was so bad that no honest vote total was ever known.

1834 — John Quincy Adams
1876 — Rutherford B. Hayes
1888 — Benjamin Harrison
2000 — George Bush

In all four of those elections there were charges and counter-charges of wide spread vote cheating, vote suppression, and stuffing of the ballot box. There is no reason to think that these accusations were not true.

In 1824 the Election was thrown into the house since there had been no Candidate among the four top candidates to win a majority of Electoral Votes. Andrew Jackson had received the most Electoral votes but not enough to achieve victory. As such the election was thrown into the House of Representatives, where only the top three Electoral Vote-getters wold be considered. This threw Henry Clay out of the running. Interestingly enough though Clay, as the Speaker of the House. was the chap running the House of Representatives where the decision would be made as to who would be declared winner. Clay, finally threw all his Electoral votes to John Quincy Adams giving him the victory in the House. Whereupon John Quincy Adams made Clay, Secretary of State. Jackson was rightly outraged but had to wait four years to be elected as President.

The election of 1876 was stolen from Democrat Sam”Pitchfork” Tilden as the Republicans contested 20 electoral votes from three states, still under Reconstruction, which had clearly voted Tilden, finally giving them to Harrison who needed everyone of those Electoral vote to get to 185 — the amount needed to win. Tilden and the Democrats struck a deal to give Hayes the Presidency in exchange for Hayes pulling out all the Federal Troops from Southern Land. An interesting tidbit here is that Hayes because of this chicanery earned the nickname “Old 13-12” from the fact that the Federal Election Committee that decided who would win each on the three States disputed electoral votes voted each time in Hayes favor 13-12.

In 1888 Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland by widespread stuffing of ballot Boxes including in Cleveland’s home state of Indiana. Cleveland won the Popular vote but because of the ballot box stuffing and the “paying for votes” Harrison won the Electoral vote. Interesting enough it is reputed that Cleveland, just before departing the White House, told the White House staff not to change to much around in the White House decor because he would be living there again in 4 years. Four years later Cleveland was elected as President so as to serve two non-consecutive terms.

In 2000 George W. Bush was finally declared the winner 5 weeks after the completion of the 2000 election. Al Gore had won the popular vote but came up short in the Electoral vote. When Florida was finally required to stop counting votes, they were still finding votes for Gore in places like Dade county. If SCOTUS had not stop the voting (remember the “hanging chads?”) Al Gore would have been elected President having finally “won” Florida.

This brings us to 2020. We already know that this election is likely going to be stolen from Trump. All the mechanism are in place. All the leading Democrats are accusing Trump of intending to steal the election which is a sure clue that they intend to steal the election. A panoply of Democratic movers are already saying we won’t know who is elected US President until well after the election polls close, trying to make this oddity sound normal. It’s not normal. They are merely seeking to condition the American citizen to the idea that it will take some time to make sure Trump loses. They are going to keep counting the votes until they get a total they desire — a total which shows Biden as the winner.

This is why I have been contending recently that your vote in the 202o Presidential race is irrelevant. This is an election where we are already being told it is not going to be the votes that count but who counts the votes that will count. Stalin was credited with explaining this idea as from memoirs written after his retirement by Boris Bazhanov, Stalin’s former personal secretary. Bazhanov claimed that Stalin said:

“Я считаю, что совершенно неважно, кто и как будет в партии голосовать; но вот что чрезвычайно важно, это кто и как будет считать голоса.” It translates to:

“I regard it as completely unimportant who in the party will vote and how, but it is extremely important who will count the votes and how.”

We are being told all the time by Democratic luminaries ideas that communicate that Trump is not going to be allowed to win. Hillary has told Biden publicly to never concede the election no matter what. Biden has said on three different occasions that Trump is going to have to be frog-marched by the military to be removed from office? Now why would these things be said if we were not being conditioned for an election that finds Biden winning in the strangest of ways?

A leak from Democratic sources earlier this summer reported that at a Soros funded soiree attended by the usual “driven insane by Trump” Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans it was decided by this “political-intellectual class” that even in the event of a clear Trump victory that the plan would be to steal the election by having Alzheimer Joe refuse to concede while pressuring states that Trump won to send Democrats to the formal Electoral College to violate their constitutional duties and refuse to cast Electoral votes for Trump, trusting that the US Military would clean up the resulting mess.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf

I believe that Trump will not be allowed to win. I believe the Democrats intend on doing whatever is necessary to steal the election including a ratcheting up of the violence already being exercised in American cities now. Trump is playing with a weak hand on this matter because I do not believe that top brass in the US military, not SCOTUS will cast their lot with Trump in a situation where the election is contested in any way.

Keep in mind that Trump is playing against the NWO infrastructure and the NWO holds SCOTUS Judges and Generals in their pockets like so many nickels and dimes.

If a Biden victory is already in the can then what is the reason for the riots in the Streets? Originally it was thought that the riots would push people to vote Biden in order to cast the current occupant of the White House out knowing that Trump’s “racism” was the reason for the riots. If Biden’s victory is in the can why continue to riot?

I don’t think we should assume that

1.) Paid anarchists can be controlled by whoever is paying them.
2.) That the goal here is to necessarily win an election. If my offerings above are correct then the victory is already in the can.
3.) So… what might be the purpose for the ongoing riots one might ask? Well, the way to Dictatorial power is absolute anarchy. Create enough anarchy and people will beg for order from a strongman (The Dem in office … Biden/ Harris… whomever). So… if the long game is Dictatorial power to install a Revolutionary regime riots in the streets is the way that is played it seems to me.

One more note on Election 2020

I remain unconvinced that there will be debates between Trump and Biden.