Reformed Reasoning On Immigration

Find the comedy in the below. The comedy is found in “how can anybody be so stupid?”

1.) Many Reformed ministers are at the leading edge insisting that illegal and legal immigrants are a good thing because it means that God is bringing the world to us to win them for Jesus.

2.) Yet the lion’s share of these same Reformed ministers have lost their own children to the Christian faith by the time those children graduate high school.

3.) So… these Reformed ministers who can’t even pass on their Christian covenantal faith to their own seed are telling us that the Church is going to convert the anti-Christ world invading America?

4.) Now add to the mix the alarming evidence that they are obviously full of horse hockey as one considers the contrary evidence that it is what very little remains of our Christian social order that is being converted to the idols that the immigrants are bringing with them as they invade this country. This truth is evidenced by the swelling number of Mosques, Synagogues, and Hindu Temples, not to mention taking over the civic apparatus of whole cities. Hamtramck, Mich. anybody? Hamtramck has elected an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor, becoming the first in the US to have a Muslim-American government. When I was an adolescent everyone in Michigan knew that Hamtamck was a Polish enclave. Now it is Muslim.

Well done on converting the newcomers.

The “conservative” Reformed church is insane.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part IV

Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.

Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.

Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;

1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.

So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”

2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.

3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.

4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order  than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.

5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ.  I have dissected that critique here;

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett

Robertson on the Relation Between Kin and Faith

“If you will not preserve your ancestral heritage, ultimately, you will not preserve your doctrinal heritage either. Honoring the former teaches us how to honor the latter. The two are inextricably intertwined. Thus, alienism ultimately destroys not only families but also all of Christianity.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority


The unipolar world that the NWO is going for by necessity not only means a coffee colored world where all colors bleed into one but it requires a hyper blended faith world where all faiths are put into a blender which is then hit at high speed. In a unipolar world distinction is the enemy. This is the ultimate explanation for the attempt at the erasure of genders. Uniformity must be achieved. And yet, even this is a proxy war for an even grander project and that is the millennium hold Luciferian project to erase the distinction between the Creator and the Creature. This is the ultimate strategy of the Uniformitarians.

And every time someone attacks a Kinist, at that moment they have entered into league with the Christ haters who are seeking to destroy distinctions. This is why Kinism is so important. This doctrine alone is standing against the raging Luciferian Alienists of our day. All clergy who resist Kinism are in principle advancing the agenda of Lucifer.

Mike Horton … From Pink to Red

“Social Justice is not a conversation that anyone can opt out of; every day we are engaged in secular rituals that either support of threaten the good of our neighbor. Good theology creates a horizon for reimagining of our relationships to one another as well as to God. Toxic theology, or even good theology perverted in the service of empire and ideology, has had disastrous cultural effects.

Some culture warriors on the right have claimed recently that ‘social justice’ is code for secular humanism; its very mention should raise ‘Red’ flags. Part of that is due to the tendency sometimes to separate the Great Commission from the Great Commandment. The gospel does not relieve us of the duty to love God and neighbor…

Ultimately, I am called to [justice] because my neighbor is created in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, especially those whose voices are ignored or marginalized, these neighbors are God’s own claim upon me and my life. Through the cries of the ignored and marginalized, I hear God’s call ‘Adam where art thou?’ And I dare not generalize or deflect this summons, replying with Cain, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?'”

Mike Horton 
R2K Wokey Fanboy
Modern Reformation Article
Justification and Justice

1.) Social Justice is a Marxist trope. The only Justice that exists is biblical Justice as measured against God’s explicit Law-Word. The very use of the language without strongly delineating it from it’s Marxist home is suggestive that Horton is wearing a uniform colored red.

2.) There is no such thing as “secular rituals,” if by “secular rituals” Horton means rituals that are not driven by religious and theological a-priories. There is no such thing as a “ritual” that is secular. The whole notion is oxymoronic.

3.) The whole sentence about reimagining horizons is mere sentimental gobbledygook. There is no need to reimagine relationships with God and Man. We have been told directly what that relationship is and that is to Love God and Man. The only standard to measure love to God and man and is to act towards each consistent with God’s Law. The honoring of God’s Law is the definition of love to God and Man and not Horton’s precious Social Justice and reimaginative horiozons.

4.) Bad theology always has a disastrous cultural effect. No Duh. We are seeing daily the disastrous cultural effects that Horton’s Radical Two Kingdom theology is having.

5.) It is precisely because the Gospel does not relieve us of our duty to love God and neighbor that we are required to spit every time we hear “Social Justice.” “Social Justice” is hatred for God and neighbor since “Social Justice” presupposes a cultural Marxist world and life view. Horton is a functional Marxist.

6.) No… ultimately I am called to Justice because God calls me to Justice. I am not ultimately called to justice because my neighbor has the Imago Dei. To say the former vis-a-vis the latter is the difference between being a humanist and being a Christian.

7.) Voices that are ignored or marginalized (i.e. — trannies, sodomites, Lesbians, minorities who form the Marxist neo-proletariat vanguard to overturn Christian social order, along with Pedophiliacs, Necrophiliacs, etc.) are ignored and marginalized because they hate Christ. I pray God that such voices are always ignored and marginalized.

8.) My neighbors are not God’s claim on my life. God’s claim on my life is by virtue of His being the Creator and my Redeemer. I don’t even know what it means when someone says “My neighbors are God’s claim on my life.” It is abstracted gobbledygook and means nothing. Sure sounds good though.

9.) Through the “ignored and marginalized: I don’t hear Cain’s “Am I my Brother’s Keeper” instead I hear God’s “Well done thou good and faithful servant.”

10.) Horton is a faithless shepherd. Stay away from this Cultural Marxist wanna-be.


Alienism … Moving Towards A Definition

The goal in this piece is to begin to explain to people what “Alienism is,” both in theory and in practice. Most Alienists don’t think about their Alienism just as in 1830 America most Americans didn’t think about their Kinism. In both cases, there is no need to think about it anymore than a fish is required to think about the water he swims in. It is just the natural environment of the fish. Why should he even have to think about it? It would only be if the fish became challenged on the morality of his environment that he might have to think about it for the first time – if fish were concerned about morality.

So, both Alienism and Kinism posit the normalcy of unstated but assumed environment. Throughout history most have been especially attached to their homes, their place, their traditions and habits, and their kith and kin. However, there likewise has always been a percentage of people who never managed to fit in. And so there have always been crusaders who have not been able to look beyond the excesses that normal affections can sometimes bring – barriers that, with harshness and malice, block entry for the outcast. As a result the Alienist begins to look at the normal affections for home and kith and kin as well as this affection sometime gone awry and makes no distinctions between natural godly affections as proper and natural affections that are absent. The Alienist has no understanding for the properly outcast violator of taboos properly placed. The Alienist sees the hardship of the outcast without considering the reason why the outcast is cast out. And perhaps quite without realizing it resolves to bring the outcast back in even at the cost of tearing down the taboos that protect traditions, habits, kith and kin, and home and place.

The Alienist has the best of intentions here. He wants to relieve the heartache of the outcast but he does not consider the heartache he will create by eliminating the taboo that is eliminated when the outcast is normalized absent the surrender of that which made him outcast to begin with. Good intentions make people feel better but they really are quite irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what is being done. However, the Alienist seldom is concerned with the morality of their actions as long as the effect is that it makes them feel better about themselves, or stated alternately, the Alienist measures morality by the pursuit of their good intentions as arrived at by their feelings.  Ivan Ilyin’s book, “On resistance to evil by force,” deals with what I am trying to get at here . In chapters 11 and 12 he touches on the same subject. He states, speaking of the sentimental (or hedonistic) moralist;

“The moral brotherhood embraces all people without distinction of race and nationality, and all the more so regardless of their nationality: everyone deserves fraternal compassion, and nobody deserves violence; it is necessary to feel sorry for him that he does not have his own, and invite him to relocate and live among us in love and brotherhood. For man has nothing on earth that is worth defending with his life or death, nothing for which it is worth killing or dying.”

A few pages later Ilyin gets to the heart of the matter. He states, again speaking of the sentimental moralist;

“His religious doctrine is the product of a self-satisfied mind trying to exact Divine revelation from pointlessly affectionate compassion……..this means that he does not perceive man through God, but instead comprehends God through man.”

As such with a deep prejudice bordering on contempt of their own people they seek to be the soldiers doing the long march through the institutions to the end of eradicating the taboos established by Kinists so that kinism might be overthrown in favor of Alienism. Purposefully or not the Alienist sees the barriers taboos bring and the consequences of taboos broken and concludes not that people need to quit violating taboos but rather that taboos must be eliminated because they lead to people being ostracized.

Examples abound for what I am talking about. The crusader/do-gooder sees the heartache of those who have embraced the sodomite lifestyle. They ingest the propaganda put out by the sodomite community. They find examples where sodomites were excessively dealt with as outside God’s law parameters. They absorb the “studies” done by “experts” that show that sodomy is normal (Kinsey Report, Magnus Hirschfeld studies) and eventually even the conservative Church, which has for centuries heretofore denounced sodomy, begins to talk about how it can be “normal to be gay,” or how they have many members who are Gay, or how “side-B sodomy is legitimate.” At this point they have become Alienists. Now, their Alienism may not be to the same degree as other Alienism that can be found but it is Alienism all the same.

Another, less egregious example then that of sodomy is the issue of inter-racial marriage. The acceptance of this as being normative became the widespread gateway drug that allowed for the acceptance of sodomy, and now transgenderism. Despite the fact that people of all races were opposed to inter-racial marriage;

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”

Dr. John E. Richards
Founding Father Presbyterian Church in America

Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

The Alienist, having lost all sense of belonging to a people, is angered by any suggestion that marriage ought to have boundaries. Though this may be changing, to date, Alienists are opposed to marital relations that are too close (incest) but have no problem with marital relations that are too far away (excest) and so some of their most fervid contretemps are poured upon the Kinist who argues that opening the door to inter-racial marriage (excest) opened the door to same-sex marriage and who argues now that both inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage are the door opening wider and wider to Transgenerism, pedophilia, and other sexually perverse excesses.

Instead of opposing these societal innovations that had been opposed for millennium by Christian people, modernity, where we find the ascendancy of “open-mindedness,” as bequeathed by the Enlightenment, has, in a full-throated manner, overthrown the wisdom of our Christian Fathers. This era of Alienism, instead of opposing societal innovations has given us a plethora of terms that castigate and censor the convictions of their Christian fathers. What was once the standard Christianity of our Fathers just 2-3 generations ago is now labeled by well placed “Christian” Alienists “leaders” as “skinism,” “skincest,” “racism,” “bigotry,” “xenophobia,” “prejudice,” “homophobia,” and “sexism.” This is not your Father’s Christianity.

When is the last time you heard some kind of pejorative moving in the other direction? When was the last time a word was coined for the hostility of minorities for majorities, the hostility of Alienists for Kinists, the hostility of deviants for normal people, the hostility of the Cultural Marxist for Biblical Christians. This is probably accounted for by the reality that the only way that social change can come about is by the need to turn into villains what is normative. As such the Alienists has an interest in turning normalcy into the abnormal by a usage of language to abominate the normal. And so, married people who have more than two children are contemptuously referred to as “breeders,” and normal people who like the opposite sex are now “cis-gendered,” implying that such a disposition is just one of a variety of possibilities. This is what is to be expected for those (Alienists) who have an interest in overthrowing what is normative for what is Alien. Societal change in any direction can not come without abominating the opposition who was previously the long accepted norm. If Christians want to survive this onslaught seeking to overthrow what little remains of our Christian social order then they better begin to get creative in thinking of ways to abominate Cultural Marxism.

So, Alienism, is committed to expanding the boundaries for who can be contributing citizens to the social order. Whereas the Kinist would have insisted that the boundaries are drawn in such a way as to forbid the involvement of the sexually perverse as well as delimiting, in some ways, the role of the stranger and the alien with the purpose of protecting the health and well-being of the core community. However, because of the amazing success of the Alienist it is now the case that the core community has become defined by the Alienists and they are now the ones protecting that core community from Kinists. If one embraces the beliefs of the Christian Church for millennium one now is increasingly locked out from being qualified to be a contributing citizen to the current Alienist social order.

This brings us to the observation that in many respects Alienism is just a form of Kinism turned inside out. The Alienists is just as intent as protecting his people as any Kinist. It’s just that for the Alienist his people are the sexually perverted, the feminists, the Academician, and the Cultural Marxist minority member and like the Kinists with his people who are Christian, straight, Nationalist, patriarch, and usually white, the Alienists will, in a very Kinist fashion, go the extra mile to protect “his people” from the evil Kinists – who in the Alienist world are the Alienists.

So, in the end there are two alternatives for basic attitudes towards social reality. The first of these we call Kinism. It is the disposition that love of place, home, people, family, patriarchy, God’s law, and the Christian faith that births honorable traditions, customs, and habits that society is built upon. At its best it is clearly God’s intent for His people. At its worse, when it loses its biblical moorings, it can become an unseemly Fascism or Aryanism. The other alternative for social reality construction is Alienism which favors the person who, for whatever reason, is opposed to kinism. This Alienism esteems the alien and stranger, the sexual pervert, the feminist, the person who has marginalized or dispossessed themselves because of decisions touching personal behavior. This Alienism attempts to overthrow the kinist social order by overthrowing what is accepted as normative in a Kinist world and life view. As we shall see in another essay, Alienism reaches its apex in expression in the context of one form of Communism or another. At its best Alienism can remind us of the necessity to be compassionate, without being affirming, to those who have purposefully outcast themselves because of their desire for eccentricity of one form or another.