Alienism – Iron Ink

Jeff Durbin & His Charge Of “Racism”

“There are a handful of things that do cause me to question a person’s profession of faith. One of the things that tops the list: racism. I believe that a person (of whatever color) who is a racist or glories in the color of their skin, knows nothing of the Gospel and very probably has never met the Savior. A person (of whatever color) who creates divides in the Body of Christ around skin-color demonstrates a great deal about just how intimately acquainted they are with God and His Word.

Racism is a sin (it’s hatred) that will be judged by God and will send people to hell. Any professing believer who creates an environment for it to grow will have much to answer for in my estimation.”

Jeff Durbin

November 14, 2016

Someone sent me this quote yesterday and I couldn’t resist playing with it.

1.) Of course the chief problem here is that the Baptist Durbin does not give a thorough definition of racism, so one can’t be completely sure of what Jeffy is talking about here. Personally, I don’t know anybody who glories in the color of their skin though I know lots of people who think that race is real and being real should be taken into consideration when talking about social order issues.

2.) Jeffy would seem to be suggesting here that the matter of race is only about skin color as if only all the races had the same skin color then the issue of race would no longer exist. But as has been said countless times skin color is only the eponymous name given to a far larger reality. If one could make white people have black skin they would still be white people in every other way. For example, Forensic Pathologist can tell you if somebody who died in a fire who no longer has skin what race the deceased was. For example, bone marrow transplants don’t care what color one’s skin is but they do care what race one is. The idea that race is only about skin color, or the amount of pigment one has is ludicrous beyond naming.

3.) I can’t help but wonder if Jeffy here would consider “creates divides” as meaning something like churches that are specifically “Korean” for example. I know of churches that are specifically Hmong for example. When I lived in the South it was common to speak of “black churches,” and the black folks would speak of “white churches.” Are these kinds of churches examples for Rev. Jeff of “creating divides.” Are the Korean Presbyteries that exist in some denominations guilty of creating divides here according to Jeff? And if if is acceptable for Koreans, or Hmong, or Black to worship in their own churches where is the problem in whites doing so and why is that racist?

I mean, Dr. John Frame doesn’t agree with Rev. Jeff here;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

I wonder if Jeffy thinks Dr. Frame to be racist?

4.) We have to quit being scared of the word “racist,” or of being accused of “racism,” because the word today, meaning everything, means nothing. I suppose that there does exist people out there who, for example, hate white people merely because they are white and so are “racist” but that doesn’t mean that all people who want to remain distinct in cultural habits, grandchildren, or dispositions or habits are racist against white people. Mohammed Ali was not a racist because he said this;

I take absolutely no offense at what Ali said above. I don’t accuse him of being “racist.” I don’t fault him if he wants to worship with his own people. Because of that I think Rev. Jeff Durbin is intellectually dishevelled.

5.) Jeffy says that “racism is hatred” but as he hasn’t defined clearly what racism is and has not given examples of what he considers “racism” then it is hard to know if hatred is really that which is animating people who do create some divides. I wonder if Jeff would accuse Muhammed Ali of hatred?

I picked on this quote because “racism” is the accusation dujour today. It is what is flung at anybody who won’t conform to the civil rights racial narrative bequeathed to us from the 1960s. It is some of that which lies beneath the whole divide percolating right now between the Moscow Mood and the “Moscow is full of skubala” mood. And Durbin is in the thick of all that.

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?

Doug Wilson as “Chief I Speak With Forked Tongue” Strikes Again

“As some of you are aware, Refuge Church in Ogden, Utah has a growing voice in our cultural melee (especially on X), and they are aligned with us in many ways. However, much like Revoice attempted to keep the door of flamer sympathy cracked open in the PCA, the leadership in Ogden continues to conduct a sympathetic bromance with the cancers of racial spite, malice, vainglory, and pagan, tribal hate. They are doing exactly what the Feds want men on the right to do in this regard, standing politely on the dots painted for them by the left, sharing and platforming folly, sin, and self-owns whenever Federal Agent Trainee Samuel Holden drops another white boy vid laced with poo. (All to the great acclaim of Feds, spite bots, and anons.)”

Doug Wilson

Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands. Proverbs 14:1

1.) Of course a good deal of what I see here above is a classic example of malice, vainglory, and pagan tribal hate radiating from Doug. Doug belongs to the tribe of Oswald Spengler who once said that “Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” DW is lighting out here, as the head of his tribe after a tribe that is four square against Spenglerian Christianity … and boy howdy is there ever malice, vainglory and pagan tribal hate oozing out of Doug and the members of his tribe.

2.) If Oswald Spengler was correct (and he is not) that Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism then the contest going on right now between the Ogden / Wolfe chaps and Doug Wilson / James White is a contest between an older Christianity vs. a Spenglerian Christianity. Wilson/White/Boot/Sandlin and company, intentionally or not, desire a Christianity that is rootless, and cosmopolitan in its social order theory while being Capitalistic in its worse sense economically. The Moscow tribe are practitioners of Enlightenment “Christianity” and they are doing their utmost to halt the return of a pre-Enlightenment Christianity where rootedness, family, and belonging are the signposts pointed at by the few who retain ecclesial sanity.

3.) The nub of the matter in all this is the issue of Christian Nationalism and the nub of the matter of Christian Nationalism that finds the Moscow Tribal warriors so on the war path is Kinism. Now, the Ogden Tribe themselves are not yet fully consistent on this matter of Kinism – a consistency that avoids both the Stone Choir tribe and the Moscow tribe. Ogden continues to dance around a full throated embrace of ethno-nationalism but I suspect Doug may eventually force their hand to come out and admit that, “why, yes, as a general rule, nations should be comprised, in their majority, of the descendents of a common ancestor.” I mean, after all that is what the word “nation” means in its etymological origin.

4.) Of course as the chieftain of his tribe DW seeks to inflame his painted up Braves with all kinds of war talk about “cancers of racial spite,” and “tribal hate,” but the problem here is that Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” Wilson never gives us any receipts. I mean, I know that in Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongues’ ” mind he sees racial spite covering the whole city of Ogden but these accusations are as vacuous as Churchill’s claim that war was forced upon him.

5.) I can’t help but delight in the irony that while R2K and Doug Wilson have the affections for one another the same as Carthage and Rome had for one another during the Punic wars, still they are on the same page in opposition to a return to a Christianity that is anti-Enlightenment liberal. Politics make for strange bedfellows, I reckon.

6.) Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” accuses the Ogden chaps of standing on the of the left as pointed out by the FEDS, or something like that. My question for Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” is “what is leftist about where the Ogden chaps are standing?” This strikes me as a case where for Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue,” being the hammer that he is, all the world now looks like a nail, which is to say that since he believes himself the very definition of what it means to be on the right it must be the case that if someone isn’t standing with him then by necessity that means that person not standing with Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” is standing on dots outlined by the left. It’s either that or Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” is so full of vainglory that he hates someone stealing his market share.

7.) I don’t know Samuel Holden from Adam but Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” has some receipts proving Holden is a FED I’d sure like to see them. Until I see them it’s just another case that Holden is a nail for a man who is a hammer.

8.) Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” must use the word “poo” because being a nice Evangelical he dare not say “shit.” I suppose if that word is used it would prove the user of said word would be “on the left.”

9.) Touching the Bagel issue (which is a HUGE driver for Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue,” it might be asked if the Chief, being the reader that he is, has ever read the book of Acts, the writings of Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, or Calvin on the subject of the Bagels. Are we to believe that our Church Fathers and our Church history is all wrong on the Bagels but only Chief “I Speak With Forked Tongue” is correct? Is there no room for discussion here or is it the case that to agree with Bagels Finkelstein, Freedman, and Cole puts one on the left?

Doug sees himself as the ancient Narnians resisting the resurrection of the White Witch. I see Doug as a “Johhny come lately” Calormen who has successfully taken over Narnia and now refuses to give it back while claiming squatter rights.

Andy Sandlin on Racial Identity …. McAtee on Andy Sandlin

“Racial identity is incompatible w/ the Christian Gospel. The Gospel was created partly to overcome racial identity. The Gospel was created to forge religious identity.”

Andy Sandlin
Really Bad “Theologian”

1.) The Gospel was created to partly overcome racial identity? So, as creator God created races and racial identity but in a move wherein grace destroys nature the Gospel is created to partly overcome racial identity? I mean, does this mean that the Gospel was not intended to completely overcome racial identity and if it means that how much of racial identity was the Gospel not supposed to overcome?

2.) Clearly Abraham, whom Scripture teaches was justified by faith alone, had no concept of the gospel when he sent his servant to find a wife of his own kindred for Isaac. Apparently good ole Doc Sandlin would have just recruited a local Canaanite girl who had recently attended a Billy Graham revival in order to get Isaac married off.

3.) Certainly that first sentence in Andy’s quote above explains why Jesus had to be descended from David. (Sarcasm off)

4.) Is Jesus, who is now at the Right hand of the Father, no longer to be referred to as “The Lion of the Tribe of JUDAH?,” or would that be a non Gospel sentiment Andy?

5.) The Gospel was created in order that the Ethiopian could no longer be used hypothetically as one who could not change his skin?

6.) How can it possibly be the case that given this view that Christianity is not pure on Gnosticism? Seems the Manicheans were correct after all.

7.) More of the modern Gospel that teaches that grace destroys nature. Once you love yourself some Jeebus you no longer are “Red or Yellow, Black or White, because after all you’re all the same in God’s sight.”

8.) Since the Gospel was forged to create religious identity clearly we can also do away with biological gender identity since it must be the case that if the Gospel was created to partly overcome racial identity it must also be the case whereupon the Gospel was created to partly over come gender identity.

Honestly, I am left absolutely gob-smacked that this man could have his own wife listening to him, never mind having scads of people hang on his every word.

And he, as well as his opinion, are not that uncommon among those reputed to be pillars in the Church.

Ehud & Bret Tag Team On Kinism

“Even if imperfectly conceived under the various schools of paganism, race consciousness, nationalism, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws were normative in the ancient world. And the exceptions wherein integration was promoted were invariably in terms of the most aggressive anti-Christ imperial orders such as Babylon, Assyria, Babel, the Soviet Union, and the UN.”

Ehud Would

Faith and Heritage — pg. 327

I think we have to add the US, Europe, Australia, and South Africa to that list now.

God’s revelation teaches us that Nationalism is the Biblical social order and Nationalism by definition means a people descending from a common ancestor. Now, certainly Kinists understand that the pursuit of “one drop” rules is nonsense and so intuit that nations can exist while having within their borders those who do not belong to the core people group, but the fact that exceptions might exist doesn’t change the rule.

Also, it should be said here that Kinists pursue these truths out of love for God and love for others. It is not love to kith and kin to allow the social order to become mamzer. Indeed to be party to such is to hate God, our children, and our neighbor.

However, now we must realize that we have lived 60 years in the mad pursuit of a social order that is essentially a disintegration into the void. Our identity is increasingly become one of non-identity — a nihilistic approach if one ever existed.

Such a program, unless arrested, will end in blood and chaos. Empires always eventually fly apart. We have seen this in our lifetimes with the evaporation of the former USSR.

And whose purpose does this mass integration serve? It serves the goals and designs of Marxism, which is itself the theology of Hell. The end goal is the elimination of peoples, places, and family. If all are kin then nobody is kin.

Of course all this is driven by the desire to destroy the Creator-Creature distinction. If no horizontal distinctions exist as between peoples than the final assault on destroying the distinction between God and man is more easily achieved. Or, if one prefers, the destruction of horizontal distinctions is birthed by the present reality that the distinction between God and man has been blotted out. However, one argues this, the loss of peoples, places, and families is intended to pull Christ off His throne and destroy the faith once forever delivered to the Saints.

If we lose here we lose everything.

And that is why we will not lose. God will no more be mocked in 2024 in His world than He would not be mocked at the tower of Babel.

Those who fight against Christian Nationalism/Kinism/Ethno-Nationalism war against heaven. In this warfare against God Christians are especially going to be sorrowful and sorry for ever calling righteousness wickedness.

In my world, such people if upon being instructed in the Christian faith on this matter continue to insist on “cosmopolitanism,” “Liberalism” and “Alienism,” are outside the faith.