Other Opposing Worldview

The Difference Between Andrew Fraser’s “Ethnoreligious” Vision & McAtee’s Ethno-Christian Vision

Over at the link provided at the bottom of this page Andrew Fraser published an article that spilled some ink mentioning myself and Iron Ink. Upon reading the article my first thought was, “Given Andrew’s concerns in this article, I’m not sure why my name and my article dealing with dismissing the accusation that the Dissident Right is really ‘WOKE Right,’ even got into Mr. Fraser’s sites.” Most of his article dealt with the way he was dismissed and ignored by the “Right Response” chaps at a recent conference the Right Response guys held. It seems they refused Mr. Fraser the opportunity to set up a book table at the conference.

I should say at the outset that I am a wee bit familiar with Mr. Fraser’s works. Several years ago, I read, with great delight, his “Dissident Dispatches.” There was very little in that book with which I found myself disagreeing. As such, it was quite the surprise when Mr. Fraser should find himself disagreeing with me so strenuously.

It seems that Mr. Fraser thinks that the chaps at Right Response (Joel Webbon, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch,) are somehow intellectually linked with myself. I would like to say here to Mr. Fraser that I’m pretty confident that’s not true, especially given the fact that they would move heaven and earth to avoid being labeled as “Kinists” while Rev. Andy Webb has called me “The Godfather of Kinism.”

Mr. Fraser, on the other hand, seems to embrace the idea of Kinism given what he writes in one of his analysis pieces explaining his recent book;

“Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism.”

And he complains in that same analysis piece that;

Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity. He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

So, on the narrow points of esteeming Kinism and thinking Stephen Wolfe is in error when Wolfe downplays the biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity Fraser and I are in league. If the blokes in charge of the Right Response conference knew of this conviction of Mr. Fraser regarding Kinism that would have been, by itself, reason enough for them to block Mr. Fraser from setting up a book table. For reasons that continue to completely mystify me, the Christian Nationalist movement remains scared out of their skin at the idea of Kinism. Alternately, they have no problem with the idea but the word itself makes them wet their pants with fear. They would, it seems, rather be flayed alive then to be associated with Kinism. Go figure.

In terms of the other three pillars that Mr. Fraser is building advocacy for his position upon (Royalism, Preterism, and Process Theism) I am personally indifferent to the first one (Royalism) am cautious about the second (Preterism) and am radically opposed to the third one (Process Theism).

I could easily live within a Monarchical system though I would prefer it to be a Constitutional Monarchy with the King hemmed in by the parameters of God’s Law. I have no problem with a healthy Partial Preterism though I remain convinced that Full Preterism is unabashed heresy. The Scriptures are unmistakable about the literal resurrection of the persons and physical bodies of those who have died — some to eternal misery, with the vast majority resurrected to eternal life in the renewed heavens and earth. The problems with Process of Theism are so vast that anybody who embraces it can no longer be considered a Christian. Process theism holds to a god that is a stranger to the God of the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is immutable, eternal, impassible, and is taught to have aseity. The God of process theism to the contrary is a God who is affected by temporal processes and so therefore is mutable, time-bound, passable, and lacks aseity. This is the god of Hegel who is constantly becoming as he responds to mankind in history.

Of course by embracing Process Theism one can’t help but wonder if Fraser is a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense. If the chaps at Right Response Ministries understood all this about Mr. Fraser it stands to reason they wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.

The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I agree with Mr. Fraser that what is needed is the Christ who is not only Universal but who is also particular. Christ is indeed a global Christ but He is a global Christ who rules over a confederated church that is represented by and comprised of many national churches. The New Jerusalem, we are taught, is populated by people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations. When Revelation 21 teaches that it is nation by nation that enter into the New Jerusalem we learn that Christianity is a faith that does not champion the Universal Jesus to the neglect of the particular Jesus. Because of this teaching there is no threat in my theology, as Mr. Fraser writes;

“Of an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reducing the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).”

And so I have no problem with what Mr. Fraser writes that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.” However, I would war against any ethno-Christian foundation that included process theism or full Preterism. Further, I would vigorously argue that one doesn’t need either full Preterism, or process theism, in order to have the rebirth of a folk Christianity that is Anglo-Protestant. Indeed, I would argue that any Christianity that is characterized by full Preterism and/or process theism would be anti-Christ and so anti-Christianity.

Mr. Fraser complains about a lack of particularity in current versions of Christian Nationalism and yet that complaint is what one would expect from a man who has the lack of the Universal in his theology. For Mr. Fraser there is no Universal to hold his particulars together into a cohesive whole. Without a Universal the particulars are not possible, just as without a “Uni” in University, there can be no “(di)versity.”

Mr. Fraser did me the courtesy of correctly stating my position when he disagreed with it. I do believe that;

“Biblical Christianity … believes in a universal ‘history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth’ in fulfillment of God’s plan ‘to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.’”

And in that statement we find the presence of the Universal and the particulars. There is one Kingdom of God (Universal) that is occupied by the “Kingdoms of this earth” becoming “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Further, as mentioned earlier, these sundry and varied Kingdoms all come into the New Jerusalem on that final day in all their particular nationalistic glory.

^{Revelation 21:22}I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. ²⁴The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

In the end, I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation,” though I would prefer the phrase “ethno-Christian.”

Much more might be said but I think this covers both my agreements and disagreements with Mr. Fraser. Given his embrace of Process Theism with its implicit Hegelianism I would lack kindness if I did not end with politely asking Mr. Fraser to consider repenting of such non-Biblical axioms.

Those wanting to read a more exhaustive explanation of Mr. Fraser’s position should read here;

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

If more questions by the readers arise from reading Mr. Fraser’s article I would be more than glad to answer them.

Baptist & Amillennial Blunders

“While it is true that the gospel does have ripple effects on society, it is wrong to equate the kingdom with those ripple effects.”

-Sam Waldron
Baptist Amillennialist

Waldron, along with Baptist Amillennialist Tom Hicks has written a book inveighing against Theonomy and postmillennialism. One position they take as Amillennialists is that the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church. Now, keep in mind that if it is true that there is no such thing as neutrality this Amillennial position means that all other Institutions of men that are not the visible church are, by necessity, outposts of the Kingdom of Satan. That which cannot be part of the Kingdom of God is always a part of the Kingdom of Satan and is always opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means, families, education, arts, politics, courts, medicine, and all the institutions that wherein these are contained all belong to Satan’s rule because according the Waldron, Hicks and countless number of Amillennialists the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church.

This is despite the fact that we are taught to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. This position is held despite the fact that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This position is held despite the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Christ who then instructed us to disciple the nations. This stupid Amillennial position is held despite the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church’s work of extending the Kingdom.

The Amillennialist position is fine with Jesus being King over the Church. They are fine with Jesus being King over our individual personal lives. However, these poor chaps get stuck on the idea that the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Church and personal individual lives, as that is multiplied by God’s faithfulness to build his Church, will necessarily mean that all the various institutions that are built up by converted men and women will thus become expressions of the Kingdom of God.

Waldron, instead wants to refer to all that as “ripple effects on society.” Apparently “Kingdom ripples,” are acceptable but actually being part of the Kingdom of God is verboten. One wonders where an acceptable Kingdom ripple ends and where an unacceptable Kingdom identity begins. Maybe we should begin a “Kingdom ripple police.” These Kingdom ripple police would make sure that ripples never became more than ripples.

Waldron needs to be reminded that Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening. Rome would not have found Jesus being King to be threatening to their rule if they had believed that the Kingship that Jesus brought was only to be over a private religious organization (Church) or over people’s “hearts.” Pilate would never of hoisted Jesus up on the Cross if Jesus had been only some kind of private sphere King.

“If these arguments that I am making are correct then Christian Nationalism is actually Satanic. It is, in truth, Satanic Nationalism because it is a usurpation of Christ’s authority… The book of Revelation teaches that their is an unholy alliance between state religion and and overpowered civil government. Any government that claims authority over the Church’s orthodoxy and fills the church with reprobates is under the influence of the dragon and is speaking with the voice of the dragon.”

Tom Hicks
Anabaptist Amillennialist

1.) Hicks great presupposition here is that a nation’s government should allow for all the gods into the public square. Being Baptist, Hicks, by definition, believes in pluralism, which means he believes in polytheistic Nationalism. Since religion is an inescapable category all nations practice a nationalism as animated by some religion.

2.) Notice when one gives up Biblical Christianity the categories of good and evil end up being inverted. Once Hicks calls genuine Christian Nationalism, “Satanic Nationalism,” he now has embraced “Satanic Nationalism” as being Christian.

3.) Hicks is correct about the book of Revelation but all because a godless union of church and state persecuted the Church in the book of Revelation (something we would expect) that doesn’t mean all cooperative work between a Christian church and Christian State is evil.

4.) A Christian government correcting a Christian church that is giving up doctrines of the true Christian faith is a blessing. Obviously a government filling up the Church with reprobates would not be a Christian government and would, as such, have to be resisted. Hicks makes no sense.

5.) Hicks is speaking with the voice of the Dragon.

Hicks is speaking with the voice of the radical reformation (AnaBaptists). Below is a Puritan voice of the second Reformation – John Owen. It provides a correction to Hicks Baptist ramblings.

“Protestants teach unanimously that is it incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting, and defending of it by their regal power and authority; as also, that in their so doing they are to use the liberty of their own judgments, informed by the ways that God hat appointed for that end, independently of the dictates, determinations, and orders of any other person or persons in the world, unto whose authority they should be obnoxious.”

John Owen
Puritan

Hicks and Waldron are classic examples of problems one finds with amillennial, baptist, theology. These guys think they are claimants to the doctrines of the Reformation and claimants of covenant theology. However, when it comes down to it, all you are left with when one embraces Baptist Amillennialism is discontinuity, dualism, and dispensationalism.

Is Theonomy Naturally Libertarian? Rushdoony Weighs In

Recently, I’ve noticed the Thomists insisting that Theonomists are by definition Libertarian. The most recent one mouthing that is Thomas Achord. I’ve seen Wolfe regurgitate this in the past. It is so frequent that I think they are trying to make it a ear worm of sort. Repeat it enough and the normies will just spew it out. Here is the latest statement as coming from Achord;

“Has anyone explained why theonomy, seemingly naturally, took on a libertarian framework?”

There can be no doubt that many theonomists have a libertarian framework. However, the idea that theonomy took this on “naturally” is just bogus.So, we see that like all good lies there is some truth to the statement above from Achord. There were those in the Theonomic movement who read their theonomy through the prism of Libertarianism instead of reading Libertarianism through the prism of God’s Law-Word (theonomy). The biggest offender here was Gary North and Rush made a mistake not squashing his son-in-law on this score. But there have been others in North’s wake. Guys like Joel McDurmon, Andrew Sandlin, and Doug Wilson have strong libertarian tendencies.

But is it really the case that Theonomy is naturally Libertarian or is this just a way to discredit original theonomy? Well, R. J. Rushdoony is someone who knows a little about Theonomy as he can legitimately be said to be the grand-daddy of theonomy. Listen to Rushdoony inveigh against Libertarianism;

“Libertarianism today which passes for conservatism is really a radical relativism with regard to everything except man. It talks about free market economics, but it does not believe in economic law. There are libertarians for example in the Los Angeles area and most of you could think of several who conduct seminars in this area, in Orange County and here. They claim to be teaching a free market economy. They will use free market economists… but in effect what they are teaching is a free market for all ideas and practices.

So that, when you push these people they say that I do believe it, since I believe in this total free market, in the right of marxism to practice marxism, I believe in the right of homosexualism to practice homosexuality (and Hess is in favor of this), I believe in the right of cannibals to be cannibals, I believe in the free market of all the ideas and practices. In other words, everything is equally false and equally true. In such a philosophy there is no truth to free market economics because there is no truth outside of man. As a result his position is an absolutism with regard to man. Man is his own God and there is no truth outside of man, therefore no system of economics, no system of religion, no philosophy can be true, only man as he is whatever he is is the truth.”

https://pocketcollege.com/full.html
IBL06: Sixth Commandment
Coercion

The only Libertarian impulse that was characteristic of Rushdoony was his hatred of centralized and leviathan Government. Rushdoony, following Scripture, believed that Government should be diffused and variegated between self, family, church, local, state, and finally federal. What we are getting today from many Thomists is advocacy for a kind of Nationalism that is top down that would make Abraham Lincoln proud. There is a good deal of Leviathan impulse with some people who are advocating for a “Christian” Franco or a “Christian” Pinochet or even a “Christian” Mussolini. There is plenty of Statists right now running around under the banner of “Nationalism” who need to be hooked up to a paleo-libertarian IV drip.

So the next time the Thomists try to suggest that theonomy is automatically Libertarian tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about. If they were honest that truth wouldn’t be news to them.

Stephen Wolfe’s Dualism Baldly Stated

“More than any other discipline, theology is prone to becoming a political ideology. Theology’s source is supernatural; it’s propositions are above nature. And so people use it to conceal or to generate “tension” with obvious natural truths known by reason and experience.

Mixed with doctrines of utter depravity, theology is a constant source of trouble for basic truths informed by experience. Everything you think you know from observation, or from deep instinct, is actually “fallen” and needs to be replaced by seemingly absurd supernatural ethics.”

Stephen Wolfe
X posting

Bret responds,

When I read this I couldn’t belief Wolfe was serious since this was such a blatant appeal to the scholastic dualism wherein grace and nature stand opposed to one another. Note here that for Wolfe there are two sources of truth. One source is theology which is supernatural. The other source is natural which comes by “reason and experience.” These two sources of truth conflict with one another because supernatural truths are to be confined to an area that deal with matters that are “above nature,” while natural truths are, presumably, to stay out of “the above nature domain.” To be faithful in interpreting reality one has to keep in mind these two different truth sources and apply accordingly.

Now, as to this area of Wolfe’s “natural truths,” we find an epistemological appeal to autonomous man’s

1.) reason
2.) experience
3.) observation
4.) deep instinct

However, Wolfe’s problem here (a problem shared by all Thomistic Natural Law “thinkers”) is first the presupposition that reason isn’t itself fallen, and so is an untrustworthy guide for interpreting reality. The second problem that Wolfe has here is that experience, observation, and deep instinct all themselves are held to be likewise not affected by the fall. The four factors listed above do not suffer the consequences of original sin but are, in Wolfe’s classic scholasticism, all trustworthy guides to interpreting reality. Reason, experience, observation, and deep instinct being definitional of who we are as humans all share in our fall and so are not sources of knowledge that can be cordoned off from theology as the source of truth.

Another thing that Wolfe does here is he tries to suggest that those non-dualist Reformed folks disagreeing with him are guilty of embracing “utter depravity.” Wolfe is trying to turn the pedestrian Reformed doctrine of Total depravity into the obscene doctrine of Utter depravity. It is most certainly not utter depravity to teach that all of man is fallen including his reason, experience, observation, and deep instinct.

Scripture supports this doctrine of total depravity which teaches that man’s experience, reason, observation, and deep instinct are fallen.

Romans 8:7 teaches

“The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

And Ephesians 4:17f teaches,

¹⁷This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as ^[f]the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; ¹⁹who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

I must say that it is past odd that Wolfe, who repeatedly noted in his recent book that he was no theologian and so had no intent to take up theology, has apparently as of late become a theologian and so can post on theological matters like total depravity.

However, the fact is that Wolfe is a theologian — just as all men are — and only sought to sidestep thorny issues in his book by seeking to push theology off the table as he took up the subject of Christian Nationalism.

In closing, I can’t help but note how close Wolfe is to blasphemy when he above writes above about appealing to “absurd supernatural ethics.”

Wolfe is a practitioner of dualism and so is to be warned against. It is true that the man comes to some conclusions that we wholeheartedly salute but his methodology finds him to be nought but a blind old sow who finds a felicitious acorn once in a while.

On Those Reputed To Be Jews

“The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal), Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument … Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth … Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers,” whilst they call themselves “revisionists.”

Robert Faurisson

Former French Professor of Literature at Lyon University
Statement regarding the religious implications of the Holocaust narrativeNow, immediately there will be those who will scream that Faurisson was a holocaust denier. This in spite of the fact that the uber-Leftist Jewish Academic Noam Chomsky once wrote; “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.” One should also note that if even Auschwitz in the early 90s had to revise their originally grossly inflated death count total down from four million. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1992;

“Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.”

It would seem to be reasonable to believe, that in light of this gross overestimation (a gross overestimation that lasted for almost 50 years) of death totals in Auschwitz that it is likely the case that gross overestimations were made in the numbers reported from other camps. The idea that the numbers were routinely grossly inflated has been reported not only by Faurisson but also by others such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

I, myself, do not have a concrete opinion on the matter of total deaths suffered by those reputed to be Jewish though I can easily see how it serves as an advantage for those reputed to be Jewish to continue to cling to these numbers. While, I do not have an established opinion on the total death toll on those reputed to be Jewish I do find it curious that so much is made of this death toll in comparison to the horrendous death toll of other tribal communities that receive comparatively little attention. For example, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Ukranians by Jewish Bolsheviks under Stalin. Also, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Armenians by the Dönme (Jewish) “Muslim” Turks (members of the Sabbatai Zevi cult). We should also mention that holocaust of over 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” (nomenclature used to skirt the Geneva Convention treatment requirement for POWs) inflicted by the Allies upon surrendering German troops after WW II, the holocaust visited upon the Khmer people by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, and the holocausts of Mao visited upon the Chinese in both his “great leap forward,” and during the later “cultural revolution.” Indeed, the 20th century could be labeled as the “Holocaust century” — especially were we to add the holocaust of the unborn.

And yet I’d be willing to bet the farm that 9 out of 10 Americans have heard only of the Holocaust visited upon those reputed to be Jews. One is left asking… “Why is that?” A cynic might say that the answer presents itself when one notices what people group it is that has been the guiding light of the Western media / Hollywood since its inception. Those who own the news/entertainment report the news.

Those reputed to be Jews have gotten a good deal of mileage out of their unique ownership of the trademarked word “Holocaust.” They have been able to play the global victim due to their trademark ownership. This is an insurmountable advantage when living in a WOKE global philosophy that prioritizes the oppressed victim over and above the evil oppressor class. Those reputed to be Jews have, because of their holocausted status, have become the greatest victims of them all. In the game of Cultural Marxist poker, where he who is the greatest victim hold the greatest hand, the reputed Jews who were holocausted hold the royal flush against all competing victimhood hands. The reputed Jews who were holocausted are the trump that trumps all trump. Nobody can out victim them.

Their victimhood card was played again just a couple days ago when their Prime minister Netanyahu, invoking the holocaust, said;

“No Nation Came to the Aid of Jews During the Holocaust.”

I think all those boys who died on the beaches of Normandy might argue otherwise.

But, all argumentation is irrelevant. When you hold the royal flush of victimhood nothing else matters, and that was the card, Netanyahu played when he said that.

This returns us thus to the opening Farisson quote. The Holocaust has been turned into a religion. Some wags have taken to calling it “Holocaustianity.” Farisson fails to mention above that Holocaustianity also has its own unique Messiah and the Messiah of Holocaustianity are those who we routinely call “Jews.” They are their own saviors, and one of the means of saving themselves is this new religion wherein all have to bow before their very real tragic history, being required at the same time to ignore the very real tragic history of many other groups who have experienced attempted genocide. If other peoples are to be sympathized with then the sympathy with which those reputed to be Jews are sympathized with becomes diluted and reduced in its guilt invoking power.

Another advantage of Holocaustianity is that serves as a “get out of jail free” card. Any behavior by those reputed to be Jews can be overlooked because, “after all they are the greatest victims of all time.” Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre, or the sinking of the USS Liberty, or the bombing of the King David Motel, or the ethnic cleansing of Christian Palestinians, it can all be washed away because “we were holocausted.”

Even if Faurisson was wrong about holocaust death totals, the point he makes about the creation of a new religion is spot on. That Faurisson is accurate on this point is seen by that Lawmakers in several U.S. states have recently pushed for laws defining antisemitism so as to censor wrong-speak. One sees the problem here when one considers that there has been no push for laws defining anti-Christian speech so as to censor wrong-speak against Christians. I would submit this is an example of holocaustianity at work. Especially, when living in a climate where antisemitism is defined as disagreeing with someone reputed to be Jewish.

These kinds of things need to be said with the coming of Trump. Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists (Hegseth, Stefanik, Huckabee to name just a few) and Trump has been labeled by Netanyahu as “the greatest friend Israel as ever had in the White House.” Radio Personality Mark Levin recently introduced Trump as “Our First Jewish President.” In light of all this voices need to be raised warning, (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan here) about the continued increasing Israeli occupation of America.

I shouldn’t need the tag that finds me saying, “I am not pro-Arab or pro-Muslim.” I am not even “anti-those reputed to be Jews.” I am merely pro Christian and I don’t think that anybody but Christians should have special protection in a nation that was established on Christian principles and I am against politically correct poker.