Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Everybody Knows

With apologies to Leonard Cohen

Everybody knows the clergy are lacking

Everybody still attends the local Kirk

Everybody knows the culture’s cracking

Everybody knows the “collared shirts” are jerks

Everybody knows who bears the guilt

The lost stay lost, in this worldview tilt

That’s how it goes

Everybody knows

Everybody knows that we’re being lied to

Everybody knows that it’s all a show

Everybody got this broken feeling

Like they’ve been taken to a bordello

Everybody praying to God sincere

Everybody asking for no Nuclear

That it doesn’t come to blows

Everybody knows

Everybody knows we’re fiscally solvent

Everybody knows we pay our bills

Everybody knows that our credit’s good

That’s why the checks’ now in the mail

Everybody knows this as we speak

If you can just wait a couple of weeks

We are just a little slow

As everybody knows

Everybody knows

That’s how it goes

Everybody knows

That’s how it goes

Everybody knows

And everybody knows the border’s closed

Everybody knows that we’re safe now

Everybody knows we’re no longer exposed

We’ve let in all we’re going to allow

Everybody knows the white man’s dying

There’s no need to keep on lying

We see we are hosed

Everybody knows

Everybody knows that our elites are perverts

Everybody knows they like little tykes

Everybody knows that the ruling class and family

Are composed of sodomites and dykes

Everybody knows DEI is their bread

And they won’t be happy till we’re dead

Then it’ll be disclosed

What everybody knows

And everybody knows there’s an end to darkness

Everybody knows what we must do

We must return to a place called Golgotha

And finally, be done with Talmudic Jews

Everybody knows Reformation’s the answer

To this vile cultural cancer

Otherwise, it’ll blow

As everybody knows

Everybody knows

That’s how it goes

Everybody knows

That’s how it goes

Oh, everybody knows

Everybody knows

That’s how it goes

Everybody knows

DKQ – Lancelot Andrews

How to order our loves among varying “neighbors.”

“In the ordering of our Love … we are to respect the conjunction by nature or grace in the duties of Love which we freely preform… We owe not so much to those persons with whom we have no Conjunction. Thus, we should prefer a faithful man before an infidel, because in the one there is only the image of God by nature, in the other it is both by creation and by regeneration … And among the faithful, we should rather do good to those of our own country, than to Strangers, because besides the bond of Religion, there is also a second bond of proximity and among them to our acquaintances before those who are unknown to us, because we have an easier entrance unto them and do them good by persuasion, etc. And among such, to our kindred and alliance before others… because we are joined and bound together as soon as we are born, and this bond cannot be dissolved as long as we live.”

Lancelot Andrews
1555 – 25 September 1626
English bishop & scholar, holding high positions in the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.

The Pattern of Cathechistical Doctrine at Large – pgs. 320-321

Recently there was a kerfuffle on the issue of whether or not we are required to teach every man (including illegal immigrants) as our neighbors. The idea that was being championed by a few clergy was that as Christians we owe the same amount of charity to all people equally. Andrews makes it clear here that idea is just not true. Andrews (like so many throughout Church history) understood that there is a need to prioritize our love (Ordo Amoris). This means, by necessity, that we rank some people lower than other people when it comes to the responsibility, we have towards them and that translates into the truth that we treat some people with a less degree of neighborliness than we treat other people. This, in turn means, that we don’t treat all people the same and were we to embrace the egalitarianism that is required to try and treat all people the same that would mean that we would be disobeying God and His Word. It would be sin to treat an illegal immigrant the same way I treat my children or my kinsmen or my countrymen given what Andrews says above.

Now this is no argument to treat people who are further removed from our immediate concentric circles of obligation badly. It is merely to argue, as Andrews does and as all Christians did before they were bitten by the neo-Marxist egalitarian bug, that there are limits on each person’s time, wealth, and affection and because that is so not everyone is treated with the same degree of neighborliness.

Lizard People … Then & Now

I have written here before about “Lizard People.” It is just my shorthand way of referencing people who are not like most humans. They are people who seemingly have no soul, experience no guilt, shame, or remorse, and who view other people the way they might view insects or slugs. Certainly, the Lizard People are driven by narcissism but there is more than just narcissism here. They are also psychopaths and the very worse of them are this way because of their religious beliefs.

In my reading I came across one of the Lizard People from the 18th century. Meet the Duc d’Or leans. Phillippe d’Or leans was one of the wealthiest men in France and was the cousin of King Louis XVI. d’Or leans was one of the guiding actors behind the dethronement and beheading of his cousin and his cousin’s wife, the Queen.

d’Or leans also had a sister-in-law whom he hated named the Princesse d’ Lambelle, who was one of Queen Marie Antoinette’s ladies. d’Or leans hated d’Lambelle because she had rebuked him for his role in the “March of Versailles” — an earlier attempt to murder the crown family. Rumors also swirled that d’Or leans would financially gain the d’Lambelle’s dowry if she would die.

d’Or leans thus paid assassins in the mob to murder d’Lambelle and then gave it the color of law by having her condemned to death for not taking an oath to hate the recently seized King and Queen.

However, we are still not in Lizard People territory yet. Where d’Or leans is seen as a Lizard came in an incident following the murder and decapitation of d’Lambelle. Upon the deed being done and after the mob had taken the decapitated and piked head of d’Lambelle to a salon to get her hair right again the mob marched the piked head before the veranda of the Duc d’Or leans.

Here we allow Nesta Webster to describe the Lizard Person quality of Phillippe d’Or leans.

“The Duc d’Or leans was just sitting down to dinner with his mistress, Madame Buffon, and several Englishmen, when the savage howls of triumph that heralded this arrival (of the piked head of d’Lambelle) attracted his attention. Walking to the window he looked out calmly on scene, contemplated with a perfectly unmoved countenance the dead, white face, the fair curls fluttering round the pike-head. The Duke of Orléans reportedly commented ‘Oh, it is Lamballe’s head: I know it by the long hair. Let us sit down to supper’,”

This is Lizard People status. No conscience. No remorse. No guilt. No shame.

It is just these same kind of elites that we are dealing with today. Like the Duc d’Or leans they have no souls. They perpetuate the basest of cruelties upon others and without blinking they sit down to enjoy their meals. You must realize that these are the kinds of people we are dealing with when we deal with the Corporatists, the Politicians at high levels, the Silicon Valley Billionaires, and the K-Street and Wall Street movers and shakers. You can not expect these people to be like you. They are not. They are Lizard People. They don’t have your manners, your morals, or your reservations. They are not like you. That is who we are dealing with as those behind the on the street Revolutionaries.

Do you really think people like Occasio-Cortez, Bill and Melinda Gates, Peter Thiel, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Ben Sasse, Larry Ellison, etc. are any different than the duc d’Or leans? These people have always existed, and our challenge is to realize that there exists a whole class of soul-less people at war with “legacy Americans,” and in realizing that give them no quarter when the time comes.

Trump’s Call for “Unconditional Surrender” in Order to End the War

Before FDR blurted out in the Casablanca press conference that nothing but “Unconditional Surrender” would be accepted as an end to WW2 nobody in the entourage including Churchill had acquiesced to that idea. Indeed, it had not even been discussed.

The Military men knew that such a proposal meant that the War would now be extended as the Germans were now prompted to fight with the despairing ferocity like cornered rats.

One British Government advisor (Lord Maurice Hankey) took the time to look at the history back to 1600 (covering 15 British wars) of Unconditional Surrender as a condition for a war’s end. He found only one example and that was the Boer War and it didn’t work then and was given up when the Brits learned from the Boers that they would fight till Kingdom Come as opposed to Unconditionally surrender.

The only noteworthy example that Hankey found of Unconditional Surrender being invoked and accomplished was the Third Punic War. The Romans demanded the Carthaginians Unconditional Surrender and the Carthaginians told them to pound sand resulting in Carthage being razed to the ground once Rome finally conquered.

But Rome had planned to raze Carthage Unconditional Surrender or not.

Where did FDR come up with this idea and why blurt it out for the first time in a press conference at the end of a meeting with Churchill on the tactical and strategic priorities of WW II? Was FDR speaking for Stalin here? FDR was too much of a politician for anyone to believe he just unconsciously just blurted it out.

However, I have no problem believing that Trump is clueless about what he has put into motion by demanding Unconditional Surrender.

Rev. McAtee Takes Alienist Rev. James Norris to the Woodshed

Over at the E-zine Reformation 21, one Rev. James Norris inks the typical bilge that tends to flow from Alienist ink pens. I haven’t repudiated everything Norris writes there but I have refuted enough here to demonstrate that his putative reasoning is of the Swiss cheese variety, which is to say Norris’ reasoning is full of holes.

Rev. Norris writes,

“It cannot be denied that that there has been a small, yet growing trend in the church in recent years for some young men to embrace racist views. They go by various names: Kinists, Racialists, Race Realists, Familyism and use terms like “Natural Community.” These views may be summarized as a belief that different races have not only different physical characteristics, but moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities which are immutable and that the white race or races have superior qualities and therefore they oppose interracial marriage and insist that society and the church ought to be governed by those whom they claim have superior intellectual, moral, and spiritual qualities. In short: white supremacy.”

James Norris

Ref21 Webzine

Bret Responds,

1.) Small but growing? Probably not so small but definitely growing, and frankly we are scaring the pants off the James Norris types in their denominations. Here is what is going to happen. Eventually, given the irrational behavior of the putative conservative clergy against what the Church Fathers have taught throughout Church/Christian history, there are going to be new denominations arise that leave the NAPARC churches to gnaw on the bitter roots of their alienism, egalitarianism, and proto-Marxism.

2.) The fact that exhaustive research has been done (see the book “The Bell Curve”) confirms that different intellectual qualities are normative among different races. To refuse to concede that is just a matter of making noticing differences a sin.

3.) Moral qualities being immutable are likewise testified to by observation. Not only by observation but Holy writ itself testifies that moral differences exist as Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaches that, “all Cretans are liars.”

4.) As to spiritual qualities differing and being immutable… Mr. Norris would have to explain exactly what he means by “spiritual qualities.” If by “spiritual qualities” Norris means that Kinists think that people from other races can’t be spiritual… well, that’s just a lie that Norris is spinning.

5.) This Kinist believes churches ought to be governed by the people group that they are comprised of. If it is a Korean church it should be ruled by Koreans. If it is a Hmong church that church should be ruled by Hmong. If it is a white Church that church should be ruled by whites.

6.) Speaking for myself, as a Kinist, I have always said that superiority and inferiority, in terms of differing abilities, will exist concurrently in different areas in different races. Although, I do believe that Christian whites have historically demonstrated that they are superior at building civilization than Christian non-whites. (Have there been any non-White explicitly Christian civilizations?)

7.) So, whites are supreme in the areas they are supreme in and other races are supreme in the areas they are supreme it. For example, white are NOT supreme in the NBA.

8.) As to interracial marriage … along with my Reformed Fathers prior to 1950 or so, I do agree that interracial marriage should be opposed by all wise Christians, though I have often consistently said that once a inter-racial marriage covenant is struck between two people who claim Christ the Church should do all it can to support that marriage short of allowing their children to inter-marry with the miscegenated children resulting from a inter-racial marriage.

____

“One matter that Ketcham and other Kinists repeatedly reference is something orthodox Christians need to face: There have been many Christians over the centuries who either held to racist views or who at some point said and/or wrote prejudicial remarks. We need to come to terms with this.

Reading Kinist literature, it quickly becomes apparent that appealing to authority is one of the primary arguments used to support their views.”

James Norris

Reformation 21 Webzine Article

Bret Responds,

1.) Not merely many Christians, but rather nearly all Christians before 1950 or so save for the Anabaptists and a handful of Covenanter nutcases. Nearly all of Church history is against people like Norris and the Alienists. Have any doubt? Just purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor,” and “A Survey of Racialism in the Sacred Christian Tradition.”

2.) I would LOVE for Norris, or one of his Alienist compatriots to publish a book full of quotes from Church history that supports his egalitarianism and crypto-Marxism. Go ahead James … publish an anthology and show us your appeal to authority.

3.) Note what Norris has done here. He has accused Machen, Dabney, Thornwell, Luther, Calvin, Viret, Althusius, Turretin, etc. etc. etc. of being racist. The man has the cajones to indict pretty much all of church history. Only maniacs or madmen insist they alone are correct over all their Fathers.

____

“This highlights a fundamental error found that runs through the writings of many Kinists: they replace God’s covenants with race. For Kinists, many Old Testament prohibitions against marrying outside Israel are read not as prohibiting marrying outside the faith, but along racial lines, or some will simply claim that it’s both/and. Even if a token nod is given to covenant theology, it is done so in a way so that covenant texts can still also be applied racially, which they do in their opposition to interracial marriage.”

James Norris

Reformation21 Webzine

Norris’ reasoning fails here by not taking into account the books of Ezra and Nehemiah where the covenant is clearly also racial. There in Ezra and Nehemiah it is not only the foreign wives that are to be dismissed but it is also the covenant mixed raced children that are to be dismissed along with the foreign wives. If, as Norris errantly presumes, the problem with the marriages/children had only been about covenant God would not have required the covenant children to be dismissed along with the wives. Clearly, there was an ethnic/racial component to what is going on in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Perhaps, the most straightforward question that Norris’ silly argument needs to answer is, “How is it if in the Old Testament prohibitions were merely against marrying outside the faith, why were the Levitical priests forbidden from marrying outside the tribe of Levi?”

Alienists, such as Norris, argue that Kinists err by advocating for ethnicity/race over Covenant, but juxtaposing and contrasting covenant and ethnicity/race the way that Norris does, as if the Covenant stands naked apart from heritage, only eisegetically imputes to the Covenant the Jacobin/Marxist concepts of Egalitarianism and Propositional/Civic Nationalism. If Norris and his Alienist ilk were consistent with Norris’ line of “reasoning” and critique against Kinism as stated in the Norris quote above they would have to denounce infant baptism since infant baptism marries covenant with lineal descent. Infant Baptism is consistent with Kinism which doesn’t abstract covenant from lineal descent as if the two or not intimately related, yet because Kinists are consistent here the Reformed Gnostic/Alienists like Norris find the consistent Reformed to be an offense to their neo-Marxist “Reformed” “covenant” theology.

Alienists have been warned repeatedly regarding their error. They have been reasoned with till the cows come home. Kinists have answered their same objections over and over again. We are at the point now where these vicious Alienists need to be recognized as anti-Christs. Mark them out and avoid them. They are egalitarians and crypto-Marxist.