The Noble Savage?

Behold the peaceful culture of the American Indian;
___________________________

“Given that human sacrificing and scalping were part of American Indian culture, but not mentioned in Government school textbooks, it is not surprising that the cannibalism that was also present in many tribes likewise is not mentioned. A little known fact is that the Mohawk tribe derived its name from its habit of eating human flesh. Alpheus Hyatt Verill writes: ‘ The Mohawks were notorious eaters of human flesh, and were called Mohowauock or man-eaters by the Narragansets. William Warren, a native of the Chippewas, noted in his History of the Ojibways (1852) that his people occasionally ate human flesh. In 1853 John Palliser wrote that the Sioux and Minitares had their women cut pieces of human flesh from slain enemy warriors. These pieces were then broiled and eaten. Eskimos, especially during times of stress, also consumed human flesh. The Pawnees would roast their prisoners for food. The French explorer, La Sale, reported that the encountered an instance in which the slaves of Indians were forced to eat their own.

In the 1670’s Father Chrestien Le Clercq described some Iroquois cruelties that often including forcing prisoners to eat their own flesh. The Roman Emperors, Diocletian and Nero, the two savage persecutors of the early Christians, ‘would hold in horror the vengeance, the tortures, and the cruelty of the Indians of New France [Quebec], and above all the Iroquois, towards their prisoners. Le Clercq noted that the Iroquois cut off the prisoners’ fingers, burned them with firebrands, tore away their nails, and made ‘them eat their own flesh.’

The Menace of Multiculturalism
Alvin J. Schmidt — pg. 48
_______________

The point of the quote and the book from which it is taken is to bring some perspective to the whole “the evil White Christian European” and all the damage that Western Culture has done. Doubtless we, like all cultures have our sin, but to suggest that other peoples have been more noble is just ridiculous. Western Culture is the greatest Culture that mankind has ever produced and that is so because Western Culture was shaped by Christianity.

When you talk about Western Culture you’re talking about the culture produced by a people who were intoxicated with the Lord Christ.
Next time someone wants to tell you about the evil culture of the white man you might want to recite the above. Our Forbears called them “savages” for a reason.

Reading the Fall of Western Civilization in 500 words

One of the consequences of the War of Northern Aggression was the destruction of the USA as a constitutional Confederated Republic as replaced by the consolidated National Union. One impact of that was the death of regionalism which had characterized America for its first 80 years.

Regionalism was to be replaced with Unitarian Nationalism. People would be known post War Against the Constitution not as Virginians or Pennsylvanians but as vanilla “Americans.” In that way the Jacobin war of 1861-1877 was a war against distinctions.

Here we are now 160 years later and the war on distinctions that was began in the garden of Eden, and could be traced through the French Revolution, the European Revolutions of 1815 and 1848, the Jacobin war in America beginning in 1861, and on and on that same long Revolution continues to be waged today. The Kinists understand this history and are doing all they can to stop the West from sliding further down a slippery slope that began centuries ago. The Kinists alone understand where this all ends if we don’t start returning to distinctions that the Jacobin left has been fighting to eliminate since the fall of the Bastille.

The Kinists see the big picture and the big picture is survival of man as man. There is no hatred for the other in the Kinist but a love for a civilization that  never ceases its mad frenzy to eliminate distinctions.

But we have slid so far into the egalitarian maw that now even the conservative Church is in league with the enemy and screams Hari Kari that the Kinists are heretics. When they do so all I hear is the Revolutionaries in Paris demanding “off with their head,” or the abolitionists in New York breathing fire against the South or the Bolsheviks screaming “Workers of the World Unite,” or the denunciations in Mao’s re-education centers during the cultural Revolution. It’s all a piece as littered across the last 240 years.

The Alienists today are just the most recent incarnation of that Jacobin spirit. When I hear a Dreher or a Roberts or a Littlejohn or a Brito, or a McDurman or a Marinov or a Wilson speak if I close my eyes I can hear a Beast Butler, or a Sherman, or a Thaddeus Stevens, or a Sheridan or a Stanton or a Robespierre or a St. Just, or a Danton speaking in just the same way, with the twist that the former sprinkles their speech with Jesus talk.

But make no mistake about it. The Revolutionary spirit lives on and its ugly face has been seen quite without its usual mask in the recent desire to destroy the life of a mousey academic living in the Louisiana backwaters.

Rod Dreher’s Magnificent Hypocrisy

Rod Dreher decided to be the messenger of many of the worst aspects of the whole Achord affair. (Is “the Achord Affair,” our version of the “Dreyfuss Affair?”) As such he is fair game in this whole matter. Let us consider the hypocrisy of Rod in his excoriating of Achord.

1.) Dreher now lives in Hungary. Hungary is about the whitest of white Nations in existence which is doing all its can to pursue its Christianity and its ethnic roots. If ever there was a nation that was interested in White Christian Nationalism it is Hungary. Yet, here is Dreher living in the center of a nation that is the very epitome of what he is criticizing Achord for in his championing Christian Nationalism.

2.) Dreher talks about the putative moral failings of another man. These are failings that are only moral failings as existing in a New World Order social-order. There is no moral failings by Achord when you compare him to the Christian men he quotes in his book “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.” The irony here is that Dreher is accusing Achord of moral failings while being the embodiment of failing morally as seen in his recent divorce. Apparently its acceptable for a immoral man, when measured by God’s standards, to accuse a moral man of immorality.

3.) Consistent with #2 is Dreher talking about how is “wife” resigned her position with the school in question because of her horror at Achord’s beliefs. When he talks about his “wife” having to resign we are supposed to feel sympathy. Yet, Dreher is no longer married to this woman he is calling “his wife.” If Dreher has not sympathy for her as seen by his divorcing her why is he insinuating that the reader of his drivel is supposed to have sympathy for a woman he just cast aside? Note that Achord has not cast his wife aside.

4.) Dreher writes his Benedict Option advocating the necessity to “embrace exile from the mainstream culture and construct a resilient counterculture.” Well, if Dreher is going to embrace exile then let him shut the Hades up concerning those who are attempting to push pack against the current darkness. If Dreher is in exile let him stay in exile and not involve himself in the culture wars he has decided to exile himself from.

5.) Dreher advocates exile and yet when he decides to get back in the cultural ring, if only for a moment, it is to the end of punching to the right.

6.) Dreher, by his complaint, seems to communicate the thought that if he sacrifices his fellow Christian who are to the right of Dreher then somehow the left will admire him and play nice with him. I have news for Rod. If the Revolutionary left is ever successful the first people they are going to consume is useful idiots like Dreher. Dreher, ultimately, is cutting his own throat by going after people like Achord.

7.) Dreher complains about Achord’s book, “Who is my Neighbor,” yet to date nobody from the Christian community has engaged the material in that book. If Dreher was consistent he would have to say the Church father’s quoted in that volume are every bit the “racist” that he accuses Achord of being. If Achord is saying things consistent with the Church fathers how can he be accused of those things that Dreher is accusing him of?

8.) In the end the screeching at Achord by Dreher et. al. is a screeching at the Church Fathers and at Church history. They can be enraged at what the Church fathers have said all they like but in doing so they are communicating that they are sons of another Father (John 8:44-45)  besides the Fathers throughout Church history. Indeed, they are the sons of the Fathers of the Cultural Marxist and Achord’s chief sin is that he is not a cultural Marxist.

9.) Dreher wrote a book titled; “Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents.” I’m laughing so hard at the irony that my belly laugh is having a belly laugh. Dreher pens the aforementioned book and now we find the hypocrite living by lies as well as attacking a Christian Dissident. Rod, thy name is IRONY.

Fie upon the opinion of these Anti-Christs who are going after a man who merely is guilty of standing in concert with the Church Fathers who have gone before.

I would love to see Dreher, or Roberts, or Littlejohn, or any of these harpies actually tell us why the Church Fathers in the book, “Who is my Neighbor”  are wicked men and then why the book is a wicked book.

Doc Sandlin’s Whine and Moan about Kinism

“That kinism and kinists have wormed their way into the mainstream postmodern Calvinian movement exhibits its deep defects. The Leftist accusation that conservative Christians are racist is a vicious slander. But tragically, not always.”

Doc Sandlin

When you think of Doc Sandlin think of Doc Brown in the “Back to the Future” series. You remember… the white haired guy whose hair was seeking desperately to escape his scalp, with the bug-eyed demeanor, and the irrational high pitched speech. That’s the way I think of “Doc Sandlin.”

It’s helpful to remember that back around 2003 or so, “Doc Sandlin” called the leftist singer Bono a “prophet.” This is the same Bono who crooned,

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

You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it

[Chorus]
But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for
No, I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for

Yessiree Bob… now there is a Christian Prophet we can all get behind.

Sandlin also said New York Times columnist David Brooks is “a national treasure.” This was after Brooks had written that he opposed any limits on abortion, even partial birth abortions, and called for gay marriage to be legalized, a dozen years before Obergefell.

Then there was that time when Andy got on the “Reformed Catholicism” train. Yep, Doc Sandlin was going to find a way, after 5 centuries, of melding Reformed thought with Roman Catholic thought. He envisioned the world– Protestant and Roman Catholic — being covered with his Reformed Catholicism.

Oh … and did I mention the time with Andy told everybody that Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor was the clear Postmillennial vote?

 The point here is that Sandlin is not a particularly wise men. Neither is he particularly good at reading the cultural tea leaves. Neither is he a prophet or a son of a prophet. Only restraint and a sense of propriety keeps us from listing those things that Doc Sandlin is good at.

As it relates to the quote above, just keep in mind;

1.) Kinists and kinism didn’t worm into anything. I don’t know how much reading Doc Sandlin does these days but if the man would just pick up the book “Who is My Neighbor,” by Achord and Dow, Sandlin would realize that the Reformed (indeed Christianity itself) have always been kinist. Kinism, or some variant thereof, has been the expressed belief of our Theologians, Pastors, and laymen through the centuries until the last 60 years or so when real He-Men like Doc Sandlin came along to “fix our theology.”

2.) So, if there are any worms in the “Calvinian Movement” it is the slithering, slimy, backbone-less worms that are represented by Doc Sandlin, Alistair Roberts, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Steve Hemmeke, Uri Brito, and the rest of the Wormy Worms and the Worms movement. Some of these people are such worms that instead of debating ideas they would instead go all worm like and doxx a good man and chortle and dance over his experiencing cancel culture. Others of them seem to purposely misrepresent what Kinists believe or resolve to misunderstand and misinterpret Kinists at every turn.

3.) Deep defects?

You can see that Doc Sandlin, when he is not supporting Reformed Catholicism and female law enforcement officers, moonlights as a stand up comic. Maybe the man is right though. Any Kinist who would associate with a movement that has Doc Sandlin as a mouthpiece is definitely teetering on having deep defects.

4.) Postmodern Calvinian?

Only a pseudo intellectual could come up with a phrase like that.

5.) The fact that any Christian (never mind a Christian of the “Postmodern Calvinian stripe) would take the charge of “racist” or “racism” seriously is itself a laugh riot. The word means nothing today. It is just a word the left hurls at someone when they are losing the debate. The fact that Doc Sandlin even worries about being called a “racist” by the left indicates just how far left the man is himself. Calling Calvinian’s “racist” today would be like calling Reformation Calvinists in the 16th century, “disrupters of the Church.”  I mean… the only way to respond to that charge is to say, “You say that like its a bad thing.” Really folks, except for the pink poodle owner types who gives a tinker’s damn what the left thinks of us?

6.) The problem Doc Sandlin (Andy) is that it is you and your types who are fouling up our movement. GET THE HADES OUT. Start your own damn movement called the effeminate, the limp wristed, and the pansy tush Calvinette’s movement. Our movement is for the remaining sons of the West.

The Point of Linkage Between the R2K Dispute & The Kinism Dispute

“The R2K crowd is willing to cede the point that Christ’s spiritual kingdom or mediatorial kingdom is synonymous with the church. This is the classic non roman position. But they are unwilling to admit that Christ’s kingdom of power exists at all. The Kuyperians are unwilling to admit that there is a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of power at all. Thus they are unable to draw a distinction between grace and the natural order. Or if they do nature is bad and so must be eliminated. Grace eats up nature and your church membership becomes more fundamental to your being than your father’s blood.

Both are errors. Neither comport with magisterial Protestantism or confessional Christianity.”

Robert Hoyle

Over the years here at Iron Ink two of my main foils (though not my only adversaries) have been R2K and “Christian” Alienism. What Robert offers above shows the reason for that. There is linkage between these two errors. Now, Robert and I do not agree on Natural Law scholastic theology but all theologians talk about the relationship between nature and grace. It has been a Reformed motif over the centuries that “grace restores/renews nature.” 

The CREC wants grace at the expense of nature. This is seen in Doug Wilson’s silly diatribes against biblical Kinism…. well, except when it is his Kin who are at stake. When it is his kin at stake then suddenly we begin to smell ethnic puffery. Take for example these two paragraphs from Pope Douglas read back to back;

I.) Doug “I hate white Kinism” Wilson

“We of course reject all such ethnic pufferies, and we do so with just the right amount of loathing…By making absolutely everything about superficial ethnicity indicators, it turns out that some have learned this lesson in reactionary ways, and have embraced their superficial ethnicity indicators. Instead of being ASHAMED of this made-up reality, they became PROUD of this made-up reality. And that’s how we got a collection of Proud Boys going down to heckle folks at an Antifa rally, with the Boys in question made up of Scots, Norwegians, Germans, and a Ukrainian, arms locked, singing a Celtic war song. This is nothing more than playing tribal dress-ups, or ethnic cosplay, and all of it based on nothing more than a shared susceptibility to sunburn. ” –Doug Wilson

II.) Doug “I love me some Jewish Kinism” Wilson

“My affection for Israel is personal, in addition to being theological and political. My wife’s great-great-grandfather was Rabbi Cohn, one of my co-grandfathers is a Christian Jew, my kids and grandkids have cousins who are Israeli, and according to AncestryDNA, I myself am 2% European Jewish. Nancy is 11% European Jew, her mother 26%. What all this amounts to is that our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel than we would be if terrorists overran Vermont.” — Douglas Wilson

At least in the first paragraph nature is just so much “ethnic puffery” that is to be met with just the right loathing of all those ethnic pufferers who share the common trait of susceptibility to sunburn. However, in the second paragraph its all bagels and matzo ball soup serious.

The CREC would replace the ethnic puffery of the first paragraph with ecclesiocentrism and grace. White boy summer ethnic puffery is not important. What is important for the CREC (at least for white boy summer) is grace over nature unless, of course unless all your grandchildren are descendants of Rabbi Cohn. This may be accounted by the wide spread admission of ecclesiocentrism that is found in the CREC.  What is important per the Moscow boys is not the family (the ground zero for ethnic considerations). What is important is the Church. Apparently, for the CREC types it is in the Church we live and move and have our being.

However, not to be outdone, R2K comes along with their famous condescending “tut, tut, tutting,” to remind us that the CREC is wrong. It is not grace eclipsing nature. Rather, it is grace and nature set in dualistic compartmentalization from one another. This explains why the grand Pu-bah of R2K can say things like;

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world”…“Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

One readily sees here that grace and nature have been compartmentalized from one another. Grace is an upper story reality and nature is a lower story reality and never the twain shall meet institutionally speaking.

So to reduce to a Venn diagram

CREC = Grace Supplants Nature (No unapproved of ethnic puffery allowed)
Materialism = Nature is all there is (The Cosmos is all there is)
R2K = Grace and Nature exist in a dualistic ying & yang (Secularism forever)
Rome = Nature must come under Grace for Nature to count
(This explains why for Rome everything had to come into the Church to be Holy.)
Animism = Spiritual is all there is

To the contrary, for right-minded people it is the case that the Church is a central expression of the Kingdom but it is not the only expression of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God, being among us, or in our midst (Luke 17:21) is a Kingdom that is not only redemptive as it works in the Church with its means of Grace in the Word and Sacrament unto the end of opening and closing the Kingdom, but the Kingdom is also authoritarian as it works as under Christ’s Kingship through redeemed Kingdom men, who, by the means of taking every thought captive to Christ and doing all things to the glory of God unto, labor unto the end of the ongoing expansion of the already present Kingdom of God so that one day the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
The model is found in the Incarnation. Taking seriously the Council of Chalcedon’s definition of the incarnation is how one avoids going off the road into either the R2k ditch or the CREC ditch which in the end both lead to Gnosticism by either over materialization or over spiritualization.