Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

From the Mailbag: John Holzmann Writes Telling Me I Am Being “Deeply Offensive”

Dear Pastor Bret,

 I don’t understand how and why you get so hot and bothered about some of the issues concerning which you seem to get hot and bothered.

Here you say (correctly, I think), that “Of course that message is ‘not white, black, green or blue.’” On the other hand, you then go on to say, “The question at hand is, ‘which kin group . . . has been . . . serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?’” And, for some reason, you seem intent on defining the “kin” in racial/racist terms: “[W]hether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.” Really? “‘[T]he‘ White Anglo Saxon Christian people”? This “people”?

No non-White Anglo Saxon Christians (in other words, only White Anglo Saxons) have been opposing moral insanity in America? And, somehow, it is the White Anglo Saxons’ “peoplehood”–you know, their being White and Anglo Saxon–that fitted and enabled them, somehow, uniquely, to stand up for their high standards? It is their kinship in racial and ethnic identity that leads to such moral righteousness? And we ought to recognize this kinship–and make sure to exclude righteous brothers and sisters in Christ–brothers and sisters of other racial or ethnic backgrounds–from honor for their courageous stands?

I am concerned that you are confusing certain realities to the detriment both of the morally confused White Anglo Saxons who may claim to know the Saviro but really don’t . . . as well as to the detriment of our Christian brothers and sisters of other racial and ethnic heritages who find your (seriously confused) declarations deeply offensive.

John Holzman

Pastor Bret responds,

Friend John Holzmann,

I don’t know how you or any Biblical Christian can not get hot and bothered by the things I get so hot and bothered about. So, I guess we are even on that score.

I don’t define  the current contest in solely racial terms because I clearly offer, in the piece you are complaining about, that it is White Anglo Saxon CHRISTIANS who are the bulwark and not merely White people. White non Christians (normies) are clearly contributing to the moral insanity.

I don’t define the current battle in solely racial terms because I’m not “defining” anything. I am merely noticing the facts. All one as to do to find those facts John is to look at the minority groups, group by group, to see  the percentages by which they vote for the party of moral insanity (DEMS). (Though just to be fair, I thoroughly despise Republicans as well, but at least they work at fooling the White Anglo Saxon Christian.)

I am defining the current battle primarily in racial-theological terms because that is the indisputable reality. Now, when something is defined primarily or generally it doesn’t mean “universally.” I never said that there weren’t minority people who weren’t in the fight with the White Anglo Saxon Christian (WASC), I merely agreed with Stephen Wolfe that WASCs are the serving as a defense or safeguard (bulwark) against moral insanity.

Here is Wolfe’s statement again in case you missed it.

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”   Stephen Wolfe

The point here John is that were one to take WASC’s out of our societal mix the culture would go belly up. This is indisputably true and it no insult to Christians who are not white unless one is dallying with being WOKE. Are you dallying with being WOKE John?

And I clearly said in my piece that WASCs were not made of better dirt. Did you skim the piece or read it John? I wrote in the piece:

The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White (and now John Holzmann) for committing the sin of noticing.

Nobody is excluding anybody here. Why some of my best friends are minority Christians. (That’s a throwback to the 60s joke though I’ll doubt you will get it).

You have completely misread my piece John and it has been my long experience that people who do that still are infected with cultural Marxist categories. I have said nothing (nor has Wolfe) that is pejorative to minority Christians. One can only come to that errant conclusion if one is reading what I am saying with colored glasses on (pun only slightly intended).

Wolfe’s OP and my agreement has not only been demonstrated statistically but also taken for granted by people who hate white evangelicals. It’s even in the front page of books their books!

See Kristen Kobes DuMez’s book, “Jesus & John Wayne.”

So, in the end I am confusing nothing John. If anybody finds anything I write offensive on this post than it is because they are taking offense, and not because I am giving offense. If I don’t say these things in this climate I will definitely be offending my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Just ask my minority friends who share a Christian worldview. 😉

John… give this a read. It might help

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural

And view this to see the danger WASCs are in

https://odysee.com/@Counterpoints:5/the-truth-about-the-great-replacement:d1

James White Attacks Stephen Wolfe …. McAtee can’t Resist

James White on Twitter;

There is absolutely, positively NO PLACE in Christ’s Church for “white,” or “Asian” or “Black” or “Latino” or anything else *used as a divisive label.* The unity of the body is in the singular, undivided, indispensable righteousness of Christ, NOT in skin color, kin, tribe or nation.

Bret responds,

1.) What counts as a divisive label? When Stephen Wolfe speaks something that is objectively and indisputably true on a Twitter thread that;

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”

Is that being “divisive” per James White? I think it must mean that in White’s World because he posted these comments in response to Wolfe’s observation.

So, I wonder if Rev. Dr. White might explain just exactly how such an observation is creating divisiveness in Christ’s church?

The inspired St. Paul could say that “All Cretans are liars.” Per Rev. Dr. White should St. Paul be sanctioned for that allegedly  divisive comment?  What about when Jesus called the Samaritan woman a “dog.” Should Jesus be sanctioned for that allegedly divisive comment?

2.) The Rev. Dr. White has a false dichotomy above. It is true that the unity of the body is found in the righteousness of Jesus Christ but that does not in turn mean that Christian people can’t also find a unity in “skin color, kin, tribe or nation.” Listen to Dr. John Frame on the matter;

“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 inthe 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”

White makes the popular mistake in that opening comment of thinking that somehow grace destroys nature. A Yellow man becomes a Christian and suddenly his Yellowness disappears, with all the implied cultural and racial heritage, into the Christian regenerating ether. Why can’t these people like the Rev. Dr. White realize that we can have both a unity with our Christian Kin that is unique but doesn’t violate a confederated unity with our fellow Christians who are not of our people and place?

Again, keep in mind, that the church has only begun to think this way with the rise of the Civil rights movement. Never, in the Church’s history has anyone ever thought like James White and his ideological clan on this subject except perhaps the Anabaptist levelers.

Rev. Dr. James White going all declarative writes;

“I will NOT stand with anyone who seeks to undermine that unity with the use of such labels. I stood up in 2018 after MLK 50 and said the EXACT same thing. One man called for an “ecumenical council” to condemn me as a heretic for daring to say the Lord’s Table is a place not for ethnicities or labels but solely as a place for focus upon Christ.”

Bret responds,

1.) Really, very few care who James White will or will not stand with. I think they call this “attention seeking behavior.”

2.) White is not angling for unity here. White is thumping for uniformity. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

3.) I’m not going to comment on the last sentence above because I suspect I need more context to know what really went on there. Still, if the Lord’s Table is not a place for labels, I think that means the Rev. Dr. James White is all good with paedo-communion since the work of disallowing toddlers to the table requires the work of “labeling” them.

Rev. Dr. White writes;

The only bulwark against the moral insanity of the West is found in *fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.* That message is not white, black, green or blue. I have far, far, FAR more in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of CCP torture than I do a white evangelical whose commitment to Scripture is weaker than his commitment to a political party or cause.

Bret responds,

1.) Here White snipes at Stephen Wolfe’s comment above. I don’t want to put words in Wolfe’s mouth but I suspect that Wolfe would say (and I know I would say) that the reason that  “White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America” is precisely because of their, in White’s words, “fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.*”

As such the Rev. Dr. White has given us the fallacy of a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are all the rage these days among those reputed to be pillars in the Church today.

2.) Of course that message is “not white, black, green or blue.” However, that is not the question at hand, though we are certainly thankful that the Rev. Dr. White has cleared that up for everyone. The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White for committing the sin of noticing.

3.) But the question is does White have more in common with a WASP pastor who is his cousin standing firm in the face of the American Unipolar Party than he has in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of the CCP? I doubt if the Rev. Dr. White would get anywhere near to answering that question.

The Rev. Dr. White writes,

It is time we all took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again, slowly, carefully, without the influence of undo emotion, and let us in grace and love toward fellow believers think this through.” As soon as it comes to our using ethnic groups as meaningful cohorts rather than the unity of the body in the gospel, we will know we have lost our way!

Bret responds,

It is time that those reputed to be pillars in the Church took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again once we read Dow and Achord’s book, ‘Who is My Neighbor.’ Let’s read it slowly, carefully, without the influence of the emotions of Cultural Marxism coursing through our veins. As soon as it comes to the inability to admit creational categories exist within the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ we will know we have lost our way and instead are following the way of old Slewfoot who has convinced us that Bono was inspired when he wrote;

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

 

The Unity of the Godhead As Embraced By Socialists

For the Socialist heaven on earth must present perfection and perfection requires unity among all mankind. This kind of unity is a “atheistic” pursuit born of the theological convictions of their atheism. It is theological because this drive for unity is connected to the socialist’s god concept. Theologically, we know that one attribute of godhood is unity in the deity and since there must be unity in all Godheads, and since man is now the “godhead man,” due to the atheism of the Socialist, man must be unified as a atheistic theological necessity. Unity, for the progressive (socialist), means universal submission to a single sovereignty, and unity in and of the world means universal submission to a single world government. In such a unity, required by both the theology and the teleology of Humanism, two or more distinct races living side by side as segregated, in distinct cultural communities is intolerable. It is intolerable because it defies both their theology and their eschatology.

Because the above is true, totalistic integration into a unified globalist order therefore becomes the Holy Grail for which all “noble” men must strive per the Marxist (socialist). In point of fact, total human integration resulting in total humanistic unity becomes a life and death issue for the Social Gospelers, and the Progressives. (Marxists all). Integration is the necessary step to be taken down the long road of the totalitarian perfection that is heaven on earth. Anyone who dares to question integration is obstructing the Humanist god and worse yet, the sure introduction of heaven on earth. Those who oppose unquestioned integration are thwarting the will of the collective man god and the progressive vision for the inevitable destiny of man. Such a person must be dealt with by elimination. He must be denounced. He must be destroyed.

All of  the above provides the backdrop for why biblical Christians who advocate for a Christian social order are so thoroughly hated both inside and outside the Church. We are the ones who are standing athwart this project, because of our Biblical convictions, and are saying that this kind of pursuit of a New World Order, whether expressed among families or nations is neither Biblical nor natural. Biblical Christians have no desire to be drawn into the ever consuming maw of the socialist beast which exists to gnaw away all distinctions among men so that a “New Socialist Man” can be created. The Biblical Christian realizes that man is not God either considered individually or collectively and because of that the Biblical Christian sees no necessity to live in a world where “all colors bleed into one.” In point of fact, the Biblical Christian is adamantly resolved that this thinking “shall not pass.”

Yet, Legion is the name of simpletons in “Christian” pulpits and behind lecterns in “Christian” Seminaries who have not thought this matter through and so are on the socialist “love train.”

“People all over the world (Everybody)
Join hands (Join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (All the world, now)
Join hands (Love ride)
Start a love train (Love ride), love train”

God save us from well intended simpletons.

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.

Devon Stack Video on Why the CREC Needs to Repent

It is true that the below is propaganda but as it seems to be the case that the only way we communicate anymore is by propaganda I have no problem with this and am gladdened by Stack’s publication of this 30 minute video.

https://www DOT bitchute DOT com/video/4H4En52dylrU/?fbclid=IwAR3jtS5wwVyATgQI814vb967-C7MayIl1BUz0qrYsxls_6y2DSzjJLBTUs4

The Christian white man has to wake up. It may already be too late but he still needs to wake up from his suicidal altruism. As you will learn from the below video, it is the case that there is operative such a thing as an ongoing attempt to replace the Christian white man from the West as exchanged out for the repopulating of the West with non-Caucasians.

Christianity is NOT a death cult and right now that is what the Church in America has become. There is nothing pious, righteous, or holy, about standing by and watching the destruction of the remnants of the once Christian West with the people who God raised up to make it. And yet the Church in the West, at worst is aiding and abetting this project and at best is standing mute watching as it continues.

Whether they can comprehend it or not this is what guys like Doug Wilson, Toby Sumpter, Michael Foster, and the whole CREC movement is facilitating as seen in their opposition to Kinism coupled with their desire to rid the Church of white Kinists.