Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 20

“The More in Common” Argument Coming From the Evangelical Left

Back in August it all started with the Pope of Moscow;

“I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Woman than with my conservative white pagan neighbor”

Doug Wilson
Blog & MehBlog

Yesterday on Twitter Andy Sandlin took it up;

“The white American Christian billionaire male has more in common with the poorest Christian sub-Saharan female than he does any of his unconverted countrymen.”

Andrew Sandlin
Twitter

And R. C. Sproul Jr, the Doyen of “being famous for being famous” agrees;

“Hard to believe anyone could question this. I guess those who do have this in common with the woke- believing demographic identity is greater than identity in Christ. Stay strong brother. “

R. C. Sproul Jr.
Responding to Doc Sandlin
Twitter

Clearly we are seeing a Gnostic theme gaining steam here. As such let’s examine this for a moment.

In our examination we will go with the humorous sarcastic lampooning side first. This from my friend Thomas Achord;

“Christianity trumps any marriage. The Christian husband has more in common with his neighbor’s Christian wife than he does with his own unconverted wife. Christian men and women should transcend their individual marriages and embrace the universal marriage ideal.”

Similarly we could add;

“Christianity trumps any parental arrangement. The Christian child has more in common with the Christian parents next door than he does with his own unconverted parents. Christian children should transcend their individual parentage arrangements and embrace the universal Christian parenting ideal, since, after all, they have more in common.”

Pressing on we could note how these statements by Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 lack precision. Certainly we can all agree that as it pertains to eternal verities we have more in common with a Biblical Christian version of Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi than I have with my cousins who are outside of Christ. However, when it comes to every day matters like supporting a Burkean like social order, or longing for the good old days of Strom Thurmond’s “Dixiecrats,” or the preference for a good old country Fish Fry, or going Coon hunting or setting a trotline or attending a lecture on Great Southern Generals I suspect that I have more in common with the unbelieving good old boys of South Carolina who lived in the community I once Pastored then I do with Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their ilk.

Think about it. If I were to draw a 90 mile radius with my congregation in the center I would have within that radius many Reformed Churches. I can guarantee you that except for abstract statements that comprise Biblical, Historical, and Systematic theology I would have much more in common with at least some of those Christ hating in that radius than I would many of those in “Reformed Churches.” Truth be told, I don’t find too much in common with “Reformed” Christians anymore as Iron Ink constantly testifies to.

Also down this line in order for me to talk about all that I have in common with any other Christian we better be defining what we mean by Christian. For example, the presumption of charity requires that I believe that Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are all Christian but I clearly have a hard time finding common ground with these people. I mean, we would agree on any number of abstract theological statements but we are seeing that when it comes to the concrete — not so much. Or we could take the R2K “Reformed” church in Lansing Michigan. The presumption of charity requires I count the Pastor and staff there Christian but I guarantee you that I have even less in common with those people than I do Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. In point of fact, I think those people with their R2K are treasonous baseborn. But if I can make it into the gates of heaven by God’s grace alone so can they and so I count them Christians that I don’t have spit in common with. Similarly, we could talk about liberal Christian ministers who I used to gather with for confabs. Not much in common with those people either.

All this to say that to go around talking the way Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 talk demonstrates a lack of precision that is embarrassing for a minister and frankly, like it or not, in this environment it does come across as Gnostic and Cultural Marxist all at the same time.

To argue this way, is not to proclaim, contra Sproul 2.0, that I am claiming some common ground with the WOKE crowd over common ground with Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. The ironic fact of the matter is that it is Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 who are sharing the common ground with the WOKE crowd. Both the WOKE crowd and the Christianity of Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are screaming at people that nature either doesn’t exist or isn’t important. WOKE teaches that there is no such thing as nature. Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their legion ilk are saying instead that grace destroys nature. They are in essence saying that once Christians are converted then who they were prior to being Christians, as considered according to who they were as God created them, is extinguished.

Maleness or Femaleness — In Christ gone.
Italian or Irish — In Christ gone.
Age — In Christ gone.
White, Yellow, Brown — In Christ Gone.

All of this passing as Christianity is not a great deal different from what we did in High School at a party when we emptied every kind of alcohol we could find into one container in order to chug it down.

As I recall, we called that drink, “A suicide.”

The Left’s Invoking of Morality & Examining the Left’s Distinguishing of Patriotism & Nationalism

In the last 24 hours I have seen people on the Left make arguments built upon an appeal to “moral values.” I always enjoy the Left invoking the “moral values” argument because they never tell us where they are getting their moral values from. They invoke moral values and at the same time do everything they can to undermine traditional Christian Western moral values. Were I a cynical person I’d believe that they are cynically invoking a morality that they don’t themselves believe but know that hoi polloi believe and on the basis they expect the hoi polloi to get their minds right.

What is interesting in the two examples I am using for this article is that “moral values” are being invoked to support immorality. Our first examples comes from the French President (Macron) who married someone old enough to be his mother. Bridgette Macron had children her future husband’s own age. Be leery of the moral values of any world leader who marries someone old enough to be his mum.

Anyway, here is the French President’s quote;

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism…nationalism is the betrayal of patriotism. By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.”

Wouldn’t it be helpful here to know where Macron is getting the idea of moral values from? Was is the standard for Macron wherein he derives his moral values? Macron is a strong supporter of Abortion. Macron is a strong supporter of euthanasia. Where do these moral values come from upon which Macron makes such broad sweeping statements? If a nation holds dearest its moral values … if a nation is given life by its moral values … if a nation is made great by its moral values where is Macron finding these moral values. What is the source of Macron’s moral values that allows him to declaim that nationalism is evil?

Of course in asking about this question of where does Macron’s moral values come from – moralism that allows for killing babies and old people but does not allow for nationalism – we do not consider the absolute idiocy of opposing Patriotism to Nationalism.

First we consider the meaning of “Patriotism.”

From French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

Now we consider the meaning of “Nation” from which Nationalism comes from;

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Clearly Macron has his head up his southern most aperture if he thinks he can make the word “Patriotism” oppose the word “Nationalism” in their essence of meaning. In other words, Macron is gaslighting people here.

It might be handy to keep this knowledge in your back pocket because it is not only French Presidents who try to pull of this linguistic charlatanism but American “Evangelicals” as well are constantly trying to play Patriotism off against Nationalism. There is even a book out by one Adam Wyatt titled, “Biblical Patriotism: An Evangelical Alternative To Nationalism,” as if Nationalism can’t be Biblical also.

This attempt to play Patriotism (Angels sing) off against Nationalism (Devil’s poke with pitchfork) is just the kind of thing that Doug Wilson or one of his CREC lapdogs (insert Crosspolitic podcast guys here) would try to sell. When one takes off the veneer what one sees is the ongoing attempt to introduce the idea that we love our own kin and family best when we allow the foreigner, stranger, and alien (Macron’s “others”) to eliminate us (White Western Christians) as a people. In Macron’s world and in the world of Evangelical leaders today Patriotism is the word used to describe what it means for White Western Christians to embrace the suicide cult that is now the new definition of Christianity and Nationalism is the word used about the evil vile people who resist the New World Order with its required ethno-masochism, xenophilia, and oikophobia.

To be a good Patriot today means one gets on the trains taking you to the death camps without murmuring. To be a good Nationalist today means taking your children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance and giving it to Pablo, Mohamed, and Sanjay.

Our second example wherein we find one of the NWO elites invoking the importance of moral comes from Jen Psaki.

“This is not normal, moral, human behavior.”
Jen “Circle Back” Psaki
Former White House Press Secretary
Complaining about Conservatives refusal to believe the Paul Pelosi story

Now, what standard do you suppose Jen uses to determine “normal, moral human behavior?”

I love it when the left appeals to normal, moral human behavior.

Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in abortion up to birth, sodomy, transgenderism and who knows what else. This is a woman who worked for perhaps the most in your face immoral administration that has ever existed and she wants to lecture Americans on “normal, moral, human behavior.”

The hubris is skull breaking outrageous.

McAtee Contra Mattson on Nationalism

“For my part, I will start by repudiating all of these tired old forms of “post-liberalism.” Because it will not end any differently than it did the last time.”

Dr. Brian Mattson

Substack Article

One of the “tired old forms of ‘post-liberalism’ that Mattson is rejecting is Nationalism. Indeed, the whole article is given over to why Nationalism is evil and how it alone is the reason for two world wars in the 20th century. Of course, in order to conclude that one has to ignore the Internationalism that was seeking to conquer the world in the 20th century. One has to ignore as well that a particular and unique kind of Nationalism arose in the 20th century precisely as a defensive mechanism against the Internationalism being floated by the Bolsheviks. Perhaps Mattson is right that Nationalism has killed its millions but he fails to remember that Internationalism killed its scores of millions. Mattson further fails to remember that all because a wicked Nationalism existed in the 20th century that doesn’t mean that a Biblical Nationalism can’t exist or that those who are now advocating for Nationalism in the Church community are not all members of the Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler fan club. In short Mattson’s “lessons from history” and from Bertrand Russel (of all people) are hardly balanced or well informed.

Mattson sems also to forget in his article that in Genesis 11 the agenda wasn’t Nationalism but it was International Empire and that God’s solution to Babel was on one hand to scatter the effort at Nimrod-ian Internationalism while at the same time to raise up a confederation of Tribes, through the lineage of one man (Abraham) to be a Nation that would be a light to the Gentiles. Mattson likewise seems to forget that Jesus himself sanctions nations — and by extension nationalism — when, in giving the Great Commission, He commands His Lieutenants to “Disciple the Nations.” Mattson again forgets that in the book of Revelation we find it is the Nations in their identity as Nations that are found entering into the new Jerusalem. One can easily imagine Brian saying, as he scans the Nations coming in to the New Jerusalem, “is that wicked or what?”

All this anti-Nationalism, issuing forth from Reformed-dom and Evangelicalism is a testimony to a profound misinterpretation of history as combined with a profound misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Sometimes it really seems to be the case that we are being led by the dumbest smart people the Church has ever produced.

Just exactly what is it about Liberalism that Mattson is holding on to that a theonomic Christian Nationalist order wouldn’t provide? Does he prefer the vision of the Great Reset as embraced by Klaus Schwab, Pope Francis, Yuval Noah Harari, and the Davos crowd? Does he eschew the Christian vision of Victor Orban’s Hungary because it smacks of wicked Nationalism to him? Or, as I suspect, is Mattson, like so many other of our Churchmen cognoscenti, holding on to Tolkien’s vison of Saruman? — “We’ll be a kinder and gentler Christian version of Sauron.” “Give us that Christian Orc-ian social order.”

This is what kills me. We may be living in a time that has never seen a bigger push towards one World Internationalism and these clowns wearing their Ph.D. degrees like extra large clown shoes are out there hanging on the cord of the clown tocsin shouting;

BEWARE NATIONALISM.

Recommending Dow, While Firing Back at the CrossPolitics Utes

Over here Darrell Dow gives a rousing defense of Christian Nationalism.

Christian Defense of Nationalism

It is a defense that nearly all Kinists would be proud to salute. If a Kinist wouldn’t salute it, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.

And yet, at the very end of the article we get this from the boys who drive the crosspolitics.com bus.

From the Editor: We happily affirm the principles outlined in this essay, however, with the rise of kinism in some circles, we want to be clear that we reject that ideology entirely. We understand the principles outlined here to be in harmony with other biblical principles that utterly contradict every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.

Now, it should be made very clear here. Darrell Dow had nothing to do with this editorial codicil. Darrell and I, as far as I can tell, are nearly on the same exact page when it comes to Christian ethno-nationalism — that which some people call, by way of shorthand, “Kinism.”

So, what gives with this editorial codicil? Do these boys even know what it is that they are rejecting? Do they know the meaning of Kinism? On the flip side of that do they know the meaning of Kinism’s polar opposite, “Alienism.” If I can’t seem to get through to these blatherskites as to what the Kinism is I support maybe I can get through to them what it is I oppose by opposing Alienism?

https://www.thornwalker.com/recoveries/sobran/pensees.html

One one hand they run an article that I as a Kinist applaud while on the other hand they completely reject Kinism. I figured these guys were at least past the age of smoking weed?

Note that these crosspolitics boys are Doug Wilson CREC fanboys. We know this by their denominational associations and by the fact that they end their editorial codicil with “every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.” This is the same language that Wilson used to errantly define Kinism. It seems that Doug’s ignorance is yielding a Walking Dead Zombie infection in the CREC.

Read Dow’s article and tell me that Dow is not advocating for enough of racial/ethnic identity in order to rabidly support the idea that a nation is defined as having a significantly majoritarian racial/ethnic core. Dow clearly loves his people. In the CREC world that rejects kinism that is clearly a form of racial/ethnic pride.

And what does this CREC clown brigade do with Romans 9? How is the Apostle Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, not practicing racial/ethnic pride as defined by these Bozo’s standard when he writes?

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen, those of my own race, ⁴the people of Israel.

What do the little boys at Cross Politic with their sanctimonious whining about Kinism being a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory,” do with the malice found in Titus 2?

¹²One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” ¹³This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

Are they going to condemn the Holy Spirit who inspired these words?

People like Wilson and his lickspittles act like “Kinism” is a uniform movement with a centralized headquarters where one can mail fan-mail. They act like Kinism is so organized that it has a secret handshake with an anthem everyone must memorize before they get their secret cool Kinist rings. As such they say “Kinism is this,” or “Kinism is that,” as if they are reading off of a dictionary definition. Together in a cult like manner they keep saying in Zombie moaning tones, “Kinism is a ‘form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.'”

Kinism is a decentralized movement and as decentralized as it is it hardly has one set definition. Think about this for a second folks. Wilson was forever trying to disambiguate himself from the more rabid Federal Visionists. (I still have a problem with his still embraced pale ale.) If Kinists have a more rabid element the main body of Kinists which me and my mates belong to would like to disambiguate ourselves from whatever fevered imagination comes up with the idea that Kinism, generally speaking equals a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.”

A Long Forgotten Leader of the Royalist Party During the French Revolution Speaks

“Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our land, our faith, our King… But their country (Those of the French Revolution) — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? … they have it in their brains; we have it under our feet… Theirs is as old as the Devil, this world that they call new and that they wish to found in the absence of God…. They say we are slaves of the ancient superstitions; it makes us laugh! But in the face of these demons who rise up again century after century, we are youth, gentlemen. We are the youth of God, the youth of fidelity! And this youth will preserve, for its own and its children, true humanity and liberty of soul.”

Francois-Athanase Charette

Royalist during French Revolution

Leader of the Peasants of the French district of Machecoul

Charette would later forfeit his own life opposing the Revolution.

Notice here that what Charette is giving us is the difference between those who hate Nationalism, opting instead for some kind of vision of a “propositional nation” — a nation as Charette puts it; “that is only in their brains.” This is how Charette analyzed the French Revolution. It was a matter of those who hated God and who embraced the idea of France as an idea vis-a-vis those who loved their faith, their home, their fathers, and their land.

Charette understood that his enemy wanted to re-make the world, and further that they wanted to remake it absent any notion of God and absent any respect for past Christian traditions, past bonds of faith and family, and any past sense of belonging to a place.

Charette said this enemy rises century after century and so they do. Charette faced them in Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Fouquier-Tinville and Desmoulins. After the French Revolution they arose again in the European Revolutions of 1848, in the US Yankee Armies of 1861-1877, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1918, the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, and elsewhere since 1789. We face them today in the NWO/Great Reset/Deep State. We face them in Michigan in Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel. We face them in the Washington in just about every elected and appointed office.

We can never defeat this enemy of Christ and His people if we do not understand where the lines are drawn. We have to understand that those who would embrace propositional nationhood are doing the devil’s work even if they shout constantly; “Lord, Lord, have we not done great things in your name?”

The hour is late. We need to understand the foundational issues. The haters of Christ go after Christ via the backdoor of attacking place, home, faith, and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past.

Charette was right.