Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
“and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.””
Acts 17:7 ESV
Can you imagine any pagan crowd today complaining; “Those R2K Christians… I hate them because they are always saying there is another King, Jesus?”
This one passage by itself should eliminate R2K from serious consideration as a legitimate Christian theology.
Only the most high Rev. Wilson observes; whereas “Revoice” was about side-b sodomy, those of us who agree with our Fathers on the issue of the Bagels are side-b Nazis. According to Pope Doug we who agree with our Fathers on the Bagel issue are trying to be “sin-adjacent.” True, per Pope Doug, we don’t want to be out right Nazis but we do want to be kind of like that. Why some of us even have the temerity to agree with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, David Irving, and many others that the genocide numbers may well have been inflated. Indeed, per Doug it seems that it may well be a sin to not only inquire too closely about the actual number total of deaths but it is even the case that it is beyond the pale to even contemplate the possibility that International Jewry had an agenda that was decidedly against the German people. One wonders if Doug has ever read about the boycott against German goods called for by International Jewry in March of 1933?
So, in Doug’s brain any honest attempt at historical revision automatically falls under the category of a Nazi version of revoice where Christians see how close they can get to Nazism without actually becoming Nazis. Of course, by this standard, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther and Calvin and many Church councils were the original version of Revoice that folks like Sam Alberry, Nate Collins and Misty Irons copied in 2018.
Of course, Doug, as he typically does, leaves himself an out by saying, after he rips people who question the WW II narrative, that he has been questioning the WW II narrative for decades. Yeah, it sure shows Doug.
Doug wants to accuse these young chaps of being a Nazi version of “Side-B Sodomy.” Very well then, I accuse Doug of being the embodiment of C. S. Lewis’ “Green Witch” in the Narnia book “The Silver Chair.” If you will remember in that novel, Prince Rilian, has been seduced and enchanted to serve the ends of the Green Witch. However, the spell is never complete and daily the Prince is required to sit in the Silver Chair in order to get his daily fix of enchantment that will keep him beholden to the Green Witch. One day, in the presence of Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum, Prince Rilian incrementally awakens from the spell and begins to rail and rage against The Green Witch and her spell upon him. At this point the Green Witch enters into the room they are all in and begins to sing again her spell of enchantment in order to put the Prince back to sleep and so under her spell.
Doug is playing the Green Witch. Young men are waking up to how much and how often they’ve been lied to by the Governmental-Corporate-Ecclesiastical-Media complex. In this awakening everything is being questioned from the post-Enlightenment/ WW II consensus forward. People are discovering that for centuries, if not millennium Jewish and Biblical Christian interests have been at severe cross purposes. Yet, in this awakening there we find guys like Doug Wilson seeking to reinvigorate the spell that has had us all sleeping for decades and has had us serving as lackeys for the purposes of an Institutional Green Witch that is contrary to our own Christian and National interests.
Now, to be sure, there are voices out there that are excessive on this subject. For example, some of the work, that the Lutherans, Mahler and Woe, are doing is positively unhinged. Keep in mind though that the swing back of this pendulum may be particularly vicious given the resentment and rage over being lied to for decades. If the snap back is extreme guys like Wilson (Andrew Sandlin, Karl Trueman to name a couple more) have to share the blame. Forcing the lid down on a boiling pot only guarantees that the whole pot is sure top explode.
Doug Wilson on this subject (and more than a few others) is the Green Witch seeking to put the young Princes of the realm back to sleep.
And myself?
I’m just trying to play the role of faithful Puddleglum by casting myself on the fire that is aiding in the Green Witch’s enchantment. I can only hope that burnt McAtee smells as head clearing as burnt Marshwiggle.
Addendum
I would strongly recommend that Doug read the following books. It is only a start.
E. Michael Jones — The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
E. Michael Jones — The Holocaust Narrative
Maurice Pinay — The Plot Against The Church
Hillarie Belloc — The Jews
Martin Luther — The Jews and Their Lies
John Calvin — Response to Question and Objections of a Certain Jew
Against the Jews — Chrysostom
“How do anti=natural law folks contend w/ the story of Abimelech and Abraham (Gen. 20) in God says that King Abimelech had ‘integrity of heart’ (v. 6), and he appears to have a sort of fear of God ( v. 14-15), a degree of civil righteousness (v.4), and clearly had knowledge of justice (v.9)?
Dr. Stephen Wolfe
1.) Dr. Adi Schlebusch answers,
Groen van Prinsterer on the traditional nature of General Revelation:
“Natural law is not known from reason. But, people say, look at much wisdom the ancients had! For sure. But they derived it from tradition. I mean not to say that they had actually seen the Books of Moses, but rather that their wisdom came from that same divine revelation that was written down in Scripture, albeit mediated by tradition.”
2.) Bret continues;
Anti-natural law types do not say that all pagans have zero notions of civil righteousness. Indeed, we would say that any pagan who has zero notions of civil righteousness will need to be locked up. (And given the recent P. Diddy revelations and before that in 2016 the Pizzagate revelations we are now at the point where we desperately need to start locking people up.) Similarly, anti-natural law types do not deny that the pagan will, buffet style, pick and choose that from natural law that can be used to get their Christ denying worldview off the ground and operating. The Christ-hater will use natural law to climb up into God’s lap in order to slap him in the face. So, anti-natural law types note that the Christ-hater is very selective as to what he will “learn” and not “learn” from natural law. For example, the natural law advocate at a early stage of departure from God’s reality may well say “adultery is wrong,” yet, 40 years later, because they have no anchor in special revelation (God’s Law Word) will now have no problem with sodomite marriage. Natural law hasn’t changed over that course of time but the Christ hater, being blown about by cultural relativism have given up that particular notion of natural law formerly embraced. This is because the carnal mind is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7). Luther offered long ago that anything noble that the Christ-hater did should be counted as “splendid vices.”
So, what anti-natural law types deny is that the pagan will be consistent in what he says he learns from natural law. Remember, at every turn the pagan will disallow natural law to instruct him in complete righteousness and so the anti-Christ types natural law like a wax nose that he can accept or not accept according to his liking as that liking is influenced by the cultural around him. The greater the culture becomes unhinged from God’s revealed law word the more likely the garden variety Christ-hater will choose to drop natural law options that he might have previously accepted.
The denigration of our own culture bears this out. In previous generations in the West, influenced as it was by God’s special revelation, those who were not Christians borrowed capital from Christianity to inform their reception of certain natural law categories — yet without embracing enough of them to be genuinely walk in righteousness as God counts righteousness — while dismissing other natural law categories at their whim.
All of this to say that, as I’ve noted before that what is called Natural Law can be seen as working in a culture highly influenced by Christianity but this is only due to the fact that the larger culture is shaped by special revelation. Natural law in these cases is “seen as working,” but it is not really what is working. What is working is that the Christ-hater is borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. Later, then we turn around and point back and call that “borrowing” natural law.
“Lies that sound true are always more dangerous. Jesus doesn’t call us to follow the Greek conception of the true, good, and beautiful — he requires obedience to the law of God which includes loving one’s enemies. My people are God’s covenant people from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Mt. 12:48-50). There is a difference between acknowledging the particular familial and civic responsibility I have toward my own immediate family and nation & ‘preferring’ some people over others. The overtones of this are obvious. And frankly it wasn’t Hispanics, who brought abortion to America or Blacks who brought Cultural Marxism, or Asians who brought LGBTQ ideology, or N. American Indians who brought euthanasia, or Arabs who brought the Climate Cult — I’m pretty sure it was ‘our people’ on all counts. Let’s put our house in order.”
Joe Boot
1.) Just for clarification’s sake, it should be understood that “the good, the true, and the beautiful,” are not independent categories that exist outside the reality of the God of the Bible being the precondition for being able to identify “the good, the true, and the beautiful.” In other words, apart from the God of the Bible the adjectives “good,” “true,” and “beautiful” could (and have) just as easily mean “bad,” “false,” and “ugly.” We know what the “good, the true, and the beautiful” are because of who God is. It is not the case that the “good, the true, and the beautiful” are descriptors of God apart from presupposing God.
2.) God’s law does require us to “Love our enemies,” but I would bet the farm that Boot doesn’t understand that one way to love our enemies is by resisting them with all our might. Scripture teaches that we are to “Let love be genuine. Hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good. (Rom. 12:9). We are indeed to love our enemies and sometimes the best way to do that is by giving them justice. The simplest example of this is spanking children. We spank our children because we love our children. Similarly, loving our enemies is sometimes not going to look like love as our enemies might want to define love.
Honestly, I can’t believe that Boot, of all people, is trotting the old “love our enemies” trope in order to prove that we should not have a greater love for our own people than for those who are the enemies of our people and who wish to destroy them.
2.) When Boot insists that his people are Christians from every tribe, tongue, and nation, as opposed to his kin, Boot has confused categories at best and at worst he is involved in a view where grace destroys nature. The fact that I have a very real spiritual attachment to all who rightly call on the name of Christ regardless of their race or nationality does not negate the fact that because of God’s work of creation wherein he has set people in clans, tribes, and nations so that those clans, tribes, and nations can properly be referred to as “my people.”
Why is it that this is so hard to understand? Normatively, I have a greater obligation to my own unbelieving parents than I do two Han Chinese Christians old enough to be my parents who live 1000 miles away. Is this not why we have the fifth commandment?
Look, it is not as if we Kinists do not understand that we have obligations to Christians who are not from our people group. When are the Alienists going to understand that it is fitting and proper to talk about a unique allegiance that we have to our kin?
3.) So, Boot, understands that we have a peculiar responsibility to our kith and kin and yet desires to insist that it would be improper for us to prefer our own kith and kin? This coming from the guy who named his organization “The Ezra Institute?” Man, the irony can’t get much thicker. Hey, Joe, you do realize don’t you that Ezra of all the OT Fathers perhaps more than anyone demanded, under penalty of law, for the Hebrews to put away wives and children who were not kith and kin to the Hebrew people. Joe… Booty man … it sure looks like Father Ezra understood it was proper to prefer one’s own people.
4.) Boot then cryptically drops .. “The overtones of this are obvious.” Now, I can be corrected here but methinks old Joe is dropping the Nazi card here. As if the fact that preferring one’s own people automatically makes one a Nazi. But you know what Joe? I don’t care anymore. You and your Boomer ilk can call me Nazi till the cows come home and I now longer give a tinker’s damn. Of course you won’t mind if I in turn, refer to you and your ilk as Cultural Marxists.
5.) Now this last bit is precious beyond speaking. We have the likes of Doug Wilson forever insisting how sinful it is to notice the sins of his Jewish ancestors because, well, because, they’ve done lots of good things to that balance the scales. Now, we find Boot putting white people in the dock quite without saying the scales are more then balanced. I’m sure Doug will soon be writing an article lecturing Boot on how inappropriate he was here.
6.) Next, on this same point can we notice that Maggie Sanger, who was the apostle for abortion was aided by Jewish immigrant named Fania Mindell in providing abortions to the public. On October 16, 1919, Mindell, Sanger and her Sister opened the country’s first birth control clinic, located in a tenement in Brownsville, New York. Jewish publications crow crow about this Jewish influence.
https://forward.com/culture/359288/meet-the-jewish-woman-who-helped-lay-the-groundwork-for-planned-parenthood/
Dr. Bernard Nathanson who preformed countless abortions before seeing the light was Jewish. Indeed, the Talmud teaches that abortion is perfectly acceptable since the fetus, in their twisted thinking, is a pursuer seeking to do harm. Now, I don’t deny that more than a few white people (Shabazz Goy) have been involved in the Abortion industry but the idea that somehow abortion arose and developed apart from Jewish influence is untrue.
Next we move to Boot’s bit on cultural Marxism … again, Cultural Marxism while having plenty of Shabazz Goy white disciples was a movement first originating with Jewish people. Jewish Names like Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, György Lukács, and Wilhelm Reich litter the Cultural Marxist beginnings. Surely, Boot knows this, yet Boot decides to lay all this uniquely at the feet of white people.
Sure, white people, have sins plenty to repent of but the idea that Boot so quickly wants to prove that we are all equal because we are all sinners is just a sacrifice offered up to the God of egalitarianism.
I spent two posts dismissing Rev. Chris Gordon’s dismissal of Christian Nationalism/Post-millennialism, only to read today a “Mother Jones” article that is seeking to warn everybody about the rise of what Gordon says is a dying movement. As odd as it may sound it seems both “Mother Jones” and I agree on something vis-a-vis Chris Gordon.
The “Mother Jones” article is worth a read in my opinion. What is most interesting about the “Mother Jones” piece is that this traditionally liberal rag gives the movement that Gordon so eschews a more objective take than most people like Gordon and the ilk from the Reformed-Evangelical world give the movement. Now, to be sure, “Mother Jones” is opposed to the movement and it’s article is seeking to “expose” the movement as something dangerous, but even despite that obvious slant there is in the piece a more even handed approach to what is being reported on then can be found from the likes of Chris Gordon and his R2K/Pietistic Baptist fellow travelers.
You can read the article for yourself if you please. However, there is one point I want to draw attention to and that is the label “Mother Jones” gives the movement. The label “Mother Jones” gives is “The Theobros.” Now, the problem I have with this handle is that it subtly implies that “The Theobros” are brothers who are uniquely operating according to a common theology. The beef here is, is that those who are opposed “The Theobros,” like “Mother Jones” are themselves also Theobros, in the sense that their militant opposition to “The Theobros” is based on a shared theology. It is not as if “The Theobros” are unique in being bonded together by their shared theology. When bond are bonded together a key factor in their being bonded together for a particular cause is a theology that makes them Theobros.
I point this out because I am convinced that underneath this labeling is the idea that people can be scared of “The Theobros” movement for the precise reason that they are caricatured as religious extremists, when in point of fact it is the Marxist Theobros opposing “The Theobros” who are the religious extremists.
If I may, I will only give one critique of “The Theobros.” This critique is not based on the article, though the article, if read closely, I think lends credence to this critique. My critique of “The Theobros” movement is that it is not self-referentially consistent. Now, some are clearly better than others among “The Theobros” but there are many in this movement who are only interested in taking half-measures, half-taken. The remedy that many in this movement are offering will not cure the disease. So, even if they are successful, I do not think that we, as a Christian nation, will be much better off. Oh, we may be better off for a season but the basic trajectory this nation is on will not be altered. The one way I could be wrong on this is if “The Theobros” movement is muting their voices because they know that, politically speaking, they can not say the quiet parts out loud. In brief, I do think that many of them are trying to move the Overton Window but they are not moving it yet past what is still considered acceptable by those on the right side of the left. As I noted, this may be merely a tactic rather than a conviction.
This brings me to a tangent that while unrelated to the “Mother Jones” article remains related to the subject as a whole.
Recently, I was talking to someone I am fairly confident would be considered a “Theobros.” During the conversation he said that he did not like the methodology of Kinism. As someone who knows a little bit about Kinism I asked him if he could be precise as to what this methodology of Kinism is to which he objects.
He replied by noting two things that I would like to spill a few sentence examining.
First he said, “That I don’t like how Kinists say that inter-racial marriage is sin.”
I must admit that I find this flummoxing. It is true that there are some few Kinists who say that all inter-racial marriage is sin. However, there are also even more Kinists who do not say that all inter-racial marriages are sin always all the time. There are more than a few Kinists, like myself, who merely say that while inter-racial marriages can be sin, they are not necessarily always sin but are normatively, as the higher statistical averages on the divorce rate for inter-racial couples bear out, not wise, and so these Kinists strongly counsel against such marriages, stopping short of labeling it as “always sin.”
https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/interracial-divorce-rates-what-percentage-of-interracial-marriages-end-in-divorce/
My conversation partner’s protest then was not valid on this point.
His second reason for “not liking the methodology of Kinism,” was his being wedded to the theory of Natural Law. He doesn’t like the fact that Kinists, often (though not always) being theonomists, find Natural Law theory ridiculous. I sought to assure him that some Kinists might well embrace Natural Law while still being Kinists. This objection of his to “so called” Kinist methodology is even more non-weighty than his first objection. If one desires to embrace Natural Law while embracing Kinism nobody is going to tear up your Kinist membership card though you may be challenged on that particular point as a side-bar discussion.
What I see has happened is that the word “Kinism” has been turned into a “boogeyman.” Just as people are scared of being tagged with the word “racist,” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobic” so they have been convinced that being labeled with the opprobrium of “Kinist” is the worst thing in the world to happen. However, like the other words just mentioned, people do not realize that they are being manipulated to operate in the world view of those who are slinging the accusations. Since otherwise decent people are being stampeded into avoiding the left hurling these words at them, people begin to operate in such a way as to avoid these empty-minded pejoratives and in their mad rush to avoid these slurs these otherwise decent people operate in terms of their enemy’s world and life view.
Given the world and life view of God’s enemies and our enemies there is not necessarily or automatically any sin in being what they call “racist” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobe” or even “Kinist.” These are just words used to manipulate people into accepting their Cultural Marxist Weltanschauung (Worldview). If we are going to be successful in resisting the Cultural Marxists we need to get used to the way they hurl these words at us and reply with something like;
“Well, I’m sure to someone who is a Cultural Marxist like yourself your accusations make sense, and honestly, were I a Cultural Marxist like you I might say the same, but since I am not a Cultural Marxist, but instead am a Christian, I do not share the premise behind your accusations, and so find your accusations to be folly. I do not take your accusations seriously in the least.”