Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Drew Poplin Preaches 56 minute Sermon Against Kinism — What a Spectacle (I)

It boggles my mind that some young torpid clergy member would take 56 minutes to preach a sermon against Kinism and yet that is exactly what one Drew Poplin did in a RPCNA church in Durham, NC.

Below are from his posted notes.

“Defining the Term: Kinism is a heinous and heretical philosophy rooted in four general principles: (1) Race is narrowly defined and focused upon skin color and ancestral heritage rather than recognizing the reality of present societies; (2) Kinism holds to the permanence of race, following false evolutionary premises; (3) The belief that the intermarrying of races and peoples is immoral; (4) At the root of this is the abominable belief of white supremacy.”

Rev. Drew Poplin

1.) Kinists do not reduce race to the idea of skin color as if skin color is the only factor in race. Kinists do recognize Ancestral heritage believing as they do in the simple reality of real live biological genetics. God has made peoples to differ and part of that difference is encoded in particular gene patterns that end up making up different races.

Now, as Poplin continues he says that Kinists don’t understand the differences between ethnicity and race but it is really Poplin who is playing the thick one here. Kinist’s understand that ethnicity exists and that different ethnic peoples exist as belonging to distinct races. We get it Drew, that there are Germanic, Anglos, Saxons who are distinctly ethnic peoples but we go on to say that a broader category exists wherein each of these fall and the broader category is called “race.” Germans, Anglos, and Saxons are ethnic groups who belong each to the broader category of White people just as Hutus, Ndebele, Shonas, and Zulus are particular ethnic peoples who belong to a shared race. And all of them Drew belong to the largest category of the human race.

2.) Poplin makes a false assertion when he insists that Kinists follow evolutionary philosophy. Sigh. Poplin seems not to realize that long before the rise of Darwin or Evolution people examined the issue of races. Shakespeare examined the theme in some of his plays. Shakespeare’s dates predate Darwins. The Early Church Fathers wrote about race. Here is just one example;

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:

Hey Drew … not everyone who believes in the reality of race is sniffing around the remains of the really dumb evolutionary theory. What other really dumb assertions do you want to toss from the Holy Desk Drew?

Indeed, Drew, Kinists don’t even hold that race is permanent understanding that over enough generations one line can go from one race to another race. However, this also proves that race is real as that breeding has moved a line from one very real distinct race to another very real distinct race.

Are you following me Drew?

3.) Kinists agree with all the Church fathers prior to 1950 or so that interracial marriage is at the very least normatively unwise and can often be sinful and immoral. I could give you a gazillion quotes but here is one from Machen’s friend, defender and colleague Dr. Clarence MacCartney;

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
1879-1957

Does it give you any pause Drew that you are peaching from a pulpit a doctrine that no Church fathers, save possibly the heretical Anabaptists, taught or believed in? Any pause at all?

4.) Poplin again makes a dumb assertion when he ties Kinism with White supremacy. I know many non white people who are Kinists. Muhammed Ali (he was a famous black Boxer Drew) held Kinist principles, insisting that blacks should only marry blacks.

But, I will say it is true that Whites are supreme in some areas while clearly inferior in other areas. For example, I have concluded that modern day whites named Drew are vastly inferior at being Presbyterian clergy.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III; Antioch Declaration (Part V)

Continuing the fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration). We start with a quote by John Calvin;

“I have had much conversation with many Jews—I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew.”

— John Calvin (1509-1564)

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter AD)

“We deny that scapegoating is a legitimate practice for Christians to participate in because God has already provided the final and perfect scapegoat in Christ Jesus who alone is the true sin-bearer.”

Paleocon

Agreed.

However, where is the proof that anybody is scapegoating… well, unless it is the scapegoating the Boomer-Cons are doing in making all these wild and veiled accusations.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that our rejection of antisemitism requires us to ignore or minimize the destructive impact that various God-hating individual Jews have had in human history, just as our rejection of the hatred of Europeans and Anglo-Saxons does not require us to ignore the cultural devastation that many God-hating individual Gentiles have produced. Every ethnic people have members to be ashamed of, and every ethnic people have members to be grateful for.”

Paleocon

Y’all haven’t rejected antisemitism. You’ve redefined antisemitism to mean “somebody who commits the sin of noticing regarding the history of the Jews.” Also, what you have done is embraced philosemitism. Your refusal to talk in generalities proves that. If you can find one exception you suggest that proves folks who notice trends are anti semitic. For example if I say, “it is a problem that Jews, generally speaking, as a group, vote consistently for Democrats and that therefore means we have a problem,” you consider that observation anti semitic by trotting out the exceptions to that observation.

I will be glad to admit that the WASP is the one finally responsible for where we are. If we had not rebelled against Christ we would have never listened to the Bagels. So, the bad is on us before it is on the Bagels. But repentance means that we begin once again to be willing to commit the sin of noticing exactly what our Fathers noticed in all of Church history. This is something you are not willing to do and in not willing to do that you are pulling down the house of Christian civilization down around our ears.

Thanks ever so much.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that Jews are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful, that Judaism in its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false religions, or that it represents an exceptional threat to Christianity and Christian peoples. By nature, the Jews are objects of wrath just like the rest of us, which is condemnation enough (Ps. 14:2-3), and are equally recipients of God’s grace (Rom.11:11-32).”

Paleocon

1.) Of course not everyone agrees with your interpretation of Romans 11. There is always the partial Preterist view of Romans 11.

2.)

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews…”

— Jesus Christ

“…the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”

— Paul the Apostle

“For they [the Jews] being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

— Paul the Apostle

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”

— Paul the Apostle

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.”

— John the Apostle

Finally you may not think the Bagels are any kind of extra existential threat to the Church or Christian civilization but please realize that is not the report of the Church throughout Church history.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that world affairs are governed by conspiring Jews or that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western society.”

Palecon;

Have you ever considered the extraordinarily large percentage of Bagels who comprised the top echelons of the Soviet Union during the Bolshevik Revolution? This is especially interesting when we consider that Russia was 2-3% Bagel at the time. I suppose that was just a coincidence.

And what about this quote from Winston Churchill?

“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

Clearly at the time of his writing in the London newspaper, Old Winnie did not agree with you. Neither did Nesta Webster. Neither did Chrysostom, Calvin, Luther, Ambrose and countless others. I’ll stick with these guys and go right on thinking y’all are mentally unstable on this subject.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that the Jews are as all other men—alienated from God and in need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. As a people they have nevertheless remained an object of God’s providential care. With the Puritans of old, We affirm that in God’s good time, multitudes of Jews will come to faith in Christ and be added to the true commonwealth of Israel, inheriting the same blessings as Gentile believers. Hence, the cancerous and counterproductive sin of antisemitism has no place among God’s people.”

Paleocon

1.) Christ made it abundantly clear in the NT that he was done with the Bagels as a people.nation in connection to the matter of redemption. He cursed the fig tree, which was representative of Israel, and said, “May you never produce fruit again.” In the parable of the barren fig tree Jesus spoke of cutting down the tree if it refused to produce fruit. It didn’t produce fruit and it was cut down.

Now, it may be the case that in God’s economy in the future individual Jews may well own Christ but the idea of a great rush of Jews coming into the Church was bad exegesis from the beginning and remains so. In AD 70 God gave Israel its divorce papers. Individual Jews may come to Christ. We pray that many do. But as a people/nation God is done with them. The Puritans were just in error here.

Now, that doesn’t mean that therefore we should take up anti-semitism. It merely means that we quit with this preoccupation with Israel. It and they are irrelevant to eschatology that has yet to unfold.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that there is more than one message or way of salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone, by faith alone, and by grace alone for both Jew and Gentile, out of whom God has made one new people, removing the dividing wall of hostility (Eph 2.11-21).”

Paleocon

The dividing wall is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a). When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God.

Further, Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division was God’s will, not the by-product of human sin. “Racism,” on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is the result of what God commands. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today you effectively turn God into a “racist.”

Third, did Christ remove by his death the various differences between cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one culture may prefer beer. Another culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first culture still likes beer and the second culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation and nature.

More fundamentally, the church and nation are two different entities governed by Christ in different ways–with different laws and rules of citizenship. Perhaps you should read Stephen Wolfe’s book and get these distinctions in your head rather than collapsing every institution into the church.

We affirm that God has ordained the existence of peoples and nations (Acts 17:26-28) and as such our cultural heritage is something to be grateful for so that, in view of God’s good gifts to our people, national pride, along with a healthy patriotism, are appropriate for Christians. At the same time, it is important to reject every form of identity politics, whether of the left or right—or whether the form it takes is malicious or vainglorious.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III; Antioch Declaration (Part IV)

We continue fisking Humanist Manifesto III. We start with a quote by Martin Luther;

“But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine. If they give a prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they extort twenty thousand from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against them.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter AD)

“We deny that it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them.”

Paleocon

Are these Boomer-con blokes talking about themselves with this one?

Humanist Manifesto III — AD

“We affirm that as the secular liberal edifice crumbles, many will refuse to turn to Christ. As the “strong gods” inevitably return, godless influential figures will arise the same way Theudas did (Acts 5:34-39).[i] The temptation for some Christian leaders will be to ape such methods for the sake of clicks, followers and the ephemeral notion of ‘influence.’”

Paleocon

1.) Agreed … many will refuse to turn to Christ.

2.) As the “strong gods” inevitably return, those who were thought to be godly will reveal themselves to be a Demas’ and/or a Alexander the Coppersmith. The temptation for some “Christian” “leaders” will be to insist that they are not really playing the part of Demas and Alexander the Coppersmith and this so they can keep their stranglehold on the Church.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that it is possible to be a faithful Christian shepherd without identifying, naming and fighting the wolves which prey on the flock. As such, pastors have a duty to confront and rebuke wickedness in all its forms within their congregations.”

Paleocon

Agreed. This is what I am trying to do with this series.

I will say this though … in all of this Humanist Manifesto III the Boomer-Cons have failed to identify and/or name the wolves that they think are preying on the flock. Oh … and their names are on this Manifesto.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD_

“We affirm that in deeply unsettled times there is a carnal desire in fallen man to seek out a scapegoat for sin and social corruption. This sadistic urge seeks to expiate guilt by laying the blame and punishment for all cultural ills on an identifiable group(s). The victimized group(s) is offered up to the masses as providing ostensible ‘explanatory power’ for cultural decay, which all conspiracy theories must provide if they are to gain any traction. The Jews have often been the easiest target for this kind of sinful and decrepit thinking.”

Paleocon

If you can read the books below and not conclude that the fact that the Jews provide explanatory power for our cultural decay then you are a hopeless case.

A few of the books that I have read on the subject of the Bagels and Western Civilization/Christianity that will help you understand our Bagel problem;

When you finish these ask me for more.

Maurice Pinay “The Plot Against The Church”

E. Michael Jones “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”

E. Michael Jones “The Holocaust Narrative”

Norman Finkelstein “The Holocaust Industry”

Stan Rittenhouse “For Fear of the Jews”

L. Fry “Waters flowing Eastward”

Henry Ford “The Int’l Jew” (4 vol)

A. K. Chesterton “The New Unhappy Lords”

Hilaire Belloc “The Bagels”

Michael Hoffman “Judaism’s Strange Gods”

Alison Weir “Against Our Better Judgment

Ivor Benson “The Zionist Factor”

Neil Gable “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood”

John Calvin “Response To Questions And Objections of a Certain Bagel”

Martin Luther “The Bagels and Their Lies”

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock “The Synagogue Of Satan”

Ernst Zundel “Setting the Record Straight – Letters from Cell #7”

Giles Corey “The Sword of Christ”

E. Michael Jones “The Bagels & Moral Subversion”

J. Landowski – Red Symphony

George Armstrong — Rothschild Money Trust

David Irving — Hitler’s War

David Irving “Churchill’s War (3 vol.)

Now, obviously not all people who are Jewish belong to the seed of the serpent but throughout history there has been enough conflict between Christian civilization and Jewish tampering that we can say authoritatively that history teaches that this is a reality that all Christians need to be aware.

History here, as science, gives us certitude on this subject.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III — Antioch Declaration (Part III)

Continuing to fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration)

We start with a quote by John Calvin;

“The Jews, indeed, seize eagerly on such declarations, and already devour by covetousness the wealth of all the nations, as if they would one day possess it, and vaunt as if the glory of the whole world would become their own.”

John Calvin

Commentary on Isaiah Chap. LXI. 6, — pg. 310

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter AD)

“We deny that any particular view of the Allied leaders, their strategies, or tactics during World War II should be a test of Christian orthodoxy. We FURTHER deny that this civic adiaphora may be expanded to cover malice, vain glory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred. These issues are entirely distinct.”

Paleocon

Please note here that what the Boomer-cons have said here is that the strategies or tactics of Josef Stalin during WW II should not be a test of Christian orthodoxy. If anyone has read anything about Stalin and the way he pursued WW II as one of the Allied leaders they know that the man was a demon and that anyone who says that disagreeing with his mandated rape strategy visited upon women across Eastern Europe and Germany (as one just one comparatively minor example) shouldn’t be a test of Christian orthodoxy is just holding to a anti-Christ position. Oh, and what about the tactic that Stalin employed of shooting vast numbers of repatriated civilians in what was called on our side “Operation Keel-haul?”

As said earlier all these clown Boomer-Cons are doing in their “cover” statement is to poison the well. They are merely asserting without proving that anybody in the Church is full of malice, race-baiting, anti-semitism, treachery, bitterness or hatred. This technique of flinging accusations without substance was seen again most recently in the whole Webbon incident where they got caught in their slander and malfeasance.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that it is possible to harmonize the racial and antisemitic theories of Adolf Hitler and neo-pagan doctrines of the Nazi cult with the gospel of Christ and the teachings of scripture.”

Paleocon

No problem. We finally agree on something.

Would you mind giving names of who is doing this harmonizing in the Reformed church in the West? I mean certainly if you go this much out of your way to include this denial you must have someone concrete in mind. Names please.

Do you also deny that it is possible to harmonize the racial and anti-Christian theories of the Talmud and the neo-pagan doctrines of the Chabad-Lubavitch cult with the gospel of Christ and the teachings of Scripture?

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that if the superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence – detailed in diaries, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography all provided within living memory – for the deliberate mass destruction of millions of Jews by the Nazis does not amount to historical certitude for what specialists call the Holocaust, then the science of history itself is called into question.”

Paleocon

1.) History is NOT a science. Not even science is science. I would think presuppositionalists would understand that and not say such a stupid thing.

2.) Here we have an example of how the Boomer-Cons are indeed trying to make their interpretation of history the gold standard that everyone has to bow to. There are similarly tons of counter evidence to this. There is the fact that starting at the turn of the 20th century we find constantly repeated references of the danger of “six million Jews” being in danger. Then there is the fact that in the war memoirs of Eisenhower, de Gaulle, and Churchill there is no mention of this thing called the holocaust. Perhaps these chaps ought to consider reading “The Holocaust Industry” by the Jewish author Norman Finkelstein. Then they could read next E. Michael Jones’ “The Holocaust Narrative.” Maybe they could also watch the documentary, “1/3 of the Holocaust, by Dean Irebodd.” Maybe after consuming this material these Boomer-con clowns would be less confident of their handle on history.

What I call into question in light of this Humanist Manifesto III is the reasoning ability of these clergy doofuses.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that there is a vital biblical difference between the self-loathing of men in the grip of disillusionment over a failed idol, and the true repentance of the Christian man.”

Paleocon; This really makes one ask; “Who are the ones in the grip of disillusionment over their failed idol?” I think a case could be made that it is the Boomer-Cons who are in the grip of disillusionment that their failed post-Enlightenment idol has failed them.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) Part II

Continuing to Fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) We start with a quote from Chrysostom;

“Let both Jews and Hellenes know that Christians are the guardians, protectors, rulers and teachers of the city; and let the reprobates and libertines learn the same thing, that they should be afraid of God’s servants, and that if they want to say anything blasphemous or mocking, they look around and fear even the shadows, fearing that a Christian might overhear.”

St. John Chrysostom

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — Hereafter AD)

“We deny that disillusionment and resentment over the lies one has been told is adequate preparation for standing in the truth and resisting a new set of lies.”

Palecon responds,

This is generally true and would be fine except for the fact that the Boomer-Cons have not proven that those they are excoriating are not standing for the truth and are not resisting a new set of lies. The above denial may be true but if the Boomer-Cons have not proven their case (and they have not) then it is merely an assertion.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that disillusionment and resentment make a person vulnerable to deception and frequently prepare the ground for accepting new falsehoods, setting the stage for further disillusionment.”

Palecon responds,

I affirm that envy and jealousy make a person vulnerable to tearing others down without substantial reason and that apart from repentance this envy and jealousy is preparing the ground for new future rounds of attacks, thus setting the stage for further division.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that neo-pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II. Rather, it manifests itself as the political outworking of the so-called Enlightenment during the French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.:”

Paleocon responds,

So your point here is that you’d rather refer to it as the post-Enlightenment consensus then “the post-war consensus?” Fine … if it will make you happy we will refer to it as the post-Endarkenment consensu.” However, that re-titling doesn’t help you in being right on these matters.

Can we at least get you to admit that with the 20th century WW I & II what was planted as a seed in 1789 came to full flower and has gone from blooming unto ever fuller blooming since those wars?

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that the aftermath of World War II served as a cultural tipping point for the secular narrative and its myth of religious neutrality which has functioned as a centerpiece for these lies. It has promoted this deception with triumphal hubris throughout all Western institutions, insisting on both an idolatrous religious pluralism and a mandatory globalist cosmopolitanism.”

Paleocon,

Hmmm … globalist cosmopolitanism?

Who in history has been known as being characterized by a “wandering” that is characteristic of “cosmopolitanism?”

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that a contradictory and pervasive thread of self-doubt and self-loathing has also formed an essential part of this secular narrative following the horrors of World War II. Thus, when the reactionary right challenges the “post-war narrative” they are not necessarily breaking free of it—this is a reflex that the post-war narrative itself has nurtured. The narrative thrives on an unstable mix of white imperiousness and white guilt.”

Paleocon,

So, what you’re saying is that self-doubt and self-loathing of bullied Western man is wrong and that self-confidence and self-assertion of Christian Western man is also wrong? Well, jeepers, is there any position that can be taken without being condemned by you Boomer-Con clowns? If we bow to the post-war narrative we are wrong. If we challenge the post-war narrative we are being reactionary and so wrong.

Why, you even seem to suggest here that any vigorous manly challenge of the false post-war narrative is likewise unhealthy and the result of woe begotten reactionary challenging. Why one might begin to think that only if we bow the knee to you ecclesiastical clowns can we discover just the right response to all this skubala narrative.

If we are imperious we have surrendered to the post-war narrative. If we are full of guilt we have surrendered to the post war-narrative. What is this? A version of Goldilocks where we are looking for the response that is neither too hard or too soft but is just right per the Boomer-cons writing Humanist Manifesto III?