Apologetics – Page 19

Race Marxism, Whiteness As Property, and Adjacent Whiteness

In Race Marxism (vs. Economic Marxism — also now referred to as “vulgar Marxism”) whiteness is considered a property that white people and adjacent white people have. As such given the paradigm of Marxism, White people are the new bourgeois class in Race Marxism, owning the property of whiteness which they use to oppress the have nots who do not own whiteness. So, just as the Economic Marxists warred against the bourgeois class in the name of the proletariat (worker) class so Race Marxism wars against the white race in the name of the new proletariat and pervert class.

Keep in mind that as whiteness is a property that white people have this means that it is at least possible for non-white people to own this property even though they are not white. This is labeled, by the Critical Race Theory crowd as being “adjacent white.” Once upon a time these same people were referred to as “Uncle Toms” but now it is “adjacent white.” Some examples wherein Black people are accused of being adjacent white are as follows;

Larry Elder — “Conservative” Black man who ran for Governor of California was named by the L.A. Times as “the Black face of White Supremacy.”

Condoleezza Rice — Named a “foot soldier for White Supremacy” after disagreeing w/ the approach of race relations implemented by CRT in practice.

Clarence Thomas has been called in the media, “A Black, White Supremacist.”

Dave Chappelle — Who is accused of “white privilege” due to his jokes about trans activists.

Kanye West — Who, according Ta Nehisi Coates should no longer be considered “Black” because he donned a “Make America Great Again,” hat and supported Trump on some issues.

All of this means that whereas Marx’s cry was for “Workers of the World Unite,” the new Neo-Marxism cry is for “Non-Caucasians & Perverts of the World Unite,” in order to throw off the oppression of the Hetero-Whiteness “Haves.”

If you are White… you ARE the enemy

So, we see from all this CRT really ultimately isn’t about race. It is about racial Marxism seeking to overthrow the remnants of Christian order that was brought to life by white people. CRT is a Marxist ideology that uses “race” as a cover to advance its revolutionary aims.

So, to recap;

Whereas in classical Marxism (what the Frankfurt school referred to as “vulgar Marxism”) all past history has been determined by class conflict, Cultural Marxism (neo-Marxism, Western Marxism) insist that all past history has been determined by racial-sexual conflict. The vulgar Marxist antithesis between have and have nots in Western Marxism becomes an antithesis between White & Adjacent people/sexual perverts and all non-Caucasians and non-Heterosexuals. A more simplified version of this is the antithesis between the oppressors (Which is always white heterosexuals) and the oppressed (Which is always non-Caucasians and/or sexual perverts). Any increase in the well being or prosperity of White (adjacent) Heterosexual is not to be countenanced.

The interest of these groups are in absolute antithesis. Any increase in the well-being prosperity of (adjacent) White heterosexual is a diminishing of well being and prosperity of the non-Caucasian / pervert.

As such conflict between these two groups is an unavoidable conflict. This is why you hear that “White people will never cease being racist.” They philosophical system of Neo-Marxism could not survive and continue if the conflict could be resolved. This is also why you hear constant carping about “systemic racism.” Because the social order in the West was built by the white man that system is racist no matter what accommodations might be made. The West can not be healed unless it is first destroyed. As in vulgar Marxism, so in Neo-Marxism conflict cannot be resolved.

All of this explains why the Cultural Marxist, their fellow travelers, as well as their useful idiots can not be negotiated with. They must be destroyed. There is no compromising with WOKE-ism, or Critical Theorists. They must be utterly vanquished.

Only Christianity can do this but it must be a Christianity that has attacking on its mind and is resolved to give no quarter. In battle Christianity must raise the black flag and look for either complete repentance from the enemy or short of that a sequestering of the enemy away from any cultural gatekeeper status. They must be made to be the equivalent of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Any other solution allows them to rise up again to poison us.

Repressive Tolerance

“Marcuse believed that we live in imminent danger of Fascism unless his socialist liberation movement could save the world. As such, Critical Theory was created, in part, to forward the Cultural Marxist new way of ordering the world. Thus, their solution to this problem of too much freedom and too little justice (which they believed existed in dialectical tension) was to restrict freedom, but not in the way they consider fascistic. Rather, freedom should be restricted in a lopsided and self-serving way that favors neo-Marxists and other Leftists advances while suppressing, censoring, and bringing violence to everything Cultural Marxism perceives as ‘to its right.’ This sound extreme but is literally the thesis of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance.”

James Lindsay

Race Marxism — p. 116-117

” People who believe in moral absolutes from the Bible should be politically destroyed, utterly rendered helpless to the cause of pluralism and democracy … the world is not theirs. They have no right to impose their bulls**t on others. They can either change, or shut the hell up, or practice their special brand of crazy in their homes…or go away.”

Tim Wise

Keynote address

Harvard’s Decade of Dialogue ‘diversity conference’
Invoking the Marcse’s principle of “Repressive Tolerance”

Now, this reality of Repressive Tolerance advocated by the Cultural Marxists and Critical Theorists among us explains why its perfectly fine for Julius Malema in South Africa to leads tens of thousands of blacks in a rousing rendition of “Kill the Boer,” as was demonstrated by the New York Times as the “Paper of Record” editorialized that Malema and the Marxist blacks were “not really serious,” while at the same time Jason Aldean’s Country Western song “Try That In A Small Town” must be shut down and canceled because of its “racist overtones.” That contrast between South African Malema leading tens of thousands of Black Marxists in singing “Kill the Boer,” as being perfectly acceptable, while Aldean merely croons about a small town not putting up with violence being seen as incendiary and outrageous is a perfect example of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance.”

Another example of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” that was on display a year or so ago was when the State of Wisconsin went after Kyle Rittenhouse for Homicide as well as other equally serious charges. Contrast that with all the mayhem from the Black Lives Matter riots and the miniscule prosecution of those reprobates.

Another example of Repressive Tolerance is when Statewide and local news media slanders and libels a Pastor seeking to shut him down and get him fired while defending in print other Pastors who are advocating the most perverted behavior.

Richard M. Weaver, in his Southern Essays, gets at this “Repressive Tolerance” in his description of what he referred to as a Faustian man;

“… a man who is unhappy unless he feels he is making the world over. He may talk much of tolerance, but for him tolerance is an exponent of power … For different opinions and ways of life he has not respect, but hostility or contemptuous indifference, until the day when they can be brought around to conform with his own.”

Marcuse’s repressive tolerance is pursued to the end of creating new social imaginaries by forbidding previous old social imaginaries. Repressive tolerance is invoked in order to suck the oxygen out of the room so that the previous plausibility structures by which a people lived by dies. Repressive tolerance is an attempt to clear away previous widely held worldview commitments and narratives in favor of a new cultural Marxist worldview and narrative.

Repressive tolerance is warfare and we Christians are now on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Now having said all that, I quite agree with Marcuse about “Repressive Tolerance.” Understand that Marcuse was seeking to advance a new religion and he understood that in order for his new religion to take root the old religion which was contrary to his religion must be rooted out, leaf, twig, and branch. So, in order to achieve this Marcuse created the doctrine of Repressive Tolerance. At this point Marcuse is merely saying that his religion should have the hegemony and no other religions should be allowed to challenge it and so should be repressed.

I quite agree, and because I agree I too believe that “Repressive Tolerance” should be practiced by Christians. Christians should have no tolerance for wickedness such as what Marcuse advocates in his religion. Just as Marcuse is seeking to wipe out Christianity (a faith Marcuse and the Left sees as wicked) via his Repressive Tolerance so sane Christians should likewise champion their own Biblically guided version of Repressive Tolerance. Christians should not tolerate religions which seek to overthrow Christianity.

I am saying that if we want to rebuild Christian civilization that all of this principled pluralism that we currently have in our social order with its corresponding tolerance that has now morphed into Repressive Tolerance of Marcuse and the Left has to go. We have to return to a Christ honoring social order that does not allow for a confessional pluralism which yields to a tolerance that seeks to buy time so it can replace Christ as King with other false gods in the name of Cultural Marxist “repressive tolerance” which is naught but anti-tolerance tolerance.

In the words of the great R. J. Rushdoony;

“There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance… Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system and to alien religious foundations or else it commits suicide.”

Cultural Marxism is another religion and Christians must not tolerate it. If you are a minister of Christ you should be saying what is found in this article from your pulpit. If you’re not saying these kinds of things you are a unfaithful shepherd.

Contra Mundum, Christian Nationalism Has Always Been a Thing Among Christians

Relative to the interpretation below, consider these quotes from the Geneva Bible footnotes:

Rom.11:22.3 “… we must mark here, that he speaketh not of the election of every private man, which remainest steadfast forever, but of the election of the whole nation.”

Rom.11:23 “…[Some] are cut off and clean cast away: which thing is especially to be considered in nations and peoples, as in the Gentiles and the Jews.”

Rom.11:24.1 “… he speaketh of the whole nation, not of every one part.”

And now for the interpretation of Romans 11 proving Christian Nationalism;

“Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

“God’s decree is not exclusively concerned with individuals but also comprises nations and establishes the bond between generations. The destiny of a nation is weighed by Him, as is the destiny of a person. There is not the slightest interest, indeed is completely impossible on Reformed grounds, to deny national election or whatever it may be called.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol 1. — pg. 111

A few observations;

1,) This statement more clearly than could be asked prohibits the New World Order agenda of erasing the Nations and turning the world into a vast melting pot. If God elects nations then nations are God’s means whereby he elects persons from those nations. To advocate positions that would destroy nations is to resist God.

2.) Note also that this National Election, Vos offers, establishes the bond between generations. Clearly if National Election establishes the bond between generations it is a ethnic bond as well as a generational bond. Generations in a nation belong to the same ethnos since nation by its very definition is descent from a common ancestor. God works in ethnic lines as covenant theology expressly teaches. The bond God establishes in a elect nation is ethnic as well as Spiritual. Any attempt to destroy the ethno-generational bond that God establishes in and among nations is an attempt to overthrow God.

3.) Any alienist theology which tries to teach a postmillennialism where all peoples bleed into one is a anti-Christ theology-eschatology. New World Order “Christianity is anti-covenant theology. The same is true of those “theologians” (we refer to them as theologian only by way of courtesy, not by way of conviction) like Doug Wilson or Andrew Sandlin and numerous others who adamantly oppose Christian Nationalism. If what Vos says is accurate in interpreting Romans 11 then Christian Nationalism is as Biblical as any other doctrine one would like to name. One cannot be a postmillennialist and at the same time eschew Christian Nationalism and its kissing cousin “Kinism.”

4.) The Vos quote exposes the depths of stupidity of people like R. Scott Clark who despite saying he believes that whole notion of Christian Nationalism is cosplay has devoted to this point 7 full entries railing against the notion of Christian Nationalism. If Christian Nationalism is so impossible why is Clark wasting his time on it?

Continuing on this theme we find Reformed Idiots like Andrew Sandlin saying things like this;

“Racism (with its kissing cousin kinism) has deep roots in ancient paganism. The gospel universalizes. Racism tribalizes.”

Keep in mind that the whole concept and idea of “racism” barely existed as a thing until Trotsky wildly popularized the notion, filling it with new negative meaning, as a means to eliminate Slavic political groups he wished to eliminate.

Today, the word “racism” functions in the same way that Trotsky intended it. The word “racism” today has no stable meaning and is merely used as a linguistic cudgel to beat white Christians over the head with in order to seek to fill them with false guilt unto the end of eliminating them as a people who bring the fragrance of Christ to every area of life.

Beeke and David Dickson Destroy R2K Innovation

Completed Jonathan Beeke’s work “Duplex Regnum Christi; Christ’s Twofold Kingdom in Reformed Theology.” Like all Academics Beeke’s work seeks to be irenic but when read closely, Beeke’s work tears the guts out of Radical Two Kingdom dualism theology. It exposes the glaring weaknesses of the completely innovative theories of the R2K chaps like Van Drunen, Tuiniga, Littlejohn and their ilk.

Beeke’s work needs to get into the hands of polemicists who will use this work as a crowbar to pry apart the “theology” of R2K and if needs be to knock R2K on the proverbial cranium a few times.

If you are in the ministry and are infatuated with R2K I highly recommend you read this work if you can find it. (It’s now out of print.) If you’re and Elder in a local Church I highly recommend you read this work so you will not be buffaloed by the Escondido Spirit of the age.

I reproduce a few of the highlights of Beeke’s work here;

“Lastly, it should be observed that Dickson did not limit the regnum mediatorium (mediatorial reign) to the incarnate Son’s rule over His church. While Dickson certainly believed that the focus of the specific kingdom is the mediatorial and redemptive work of Jesus Christ within His church, he nevertheless stressed that the kingdom ‘committed’ to the God-man (i.e. – the regnum mediatorium) is ‘over everything in the world’ (in omnia quae in mundo sunt). This again buttresses one of the primary arguments of this study, namely, that the Reformed orthodox did not primarily differentiate the twofold kingdom of Christ as to its scope (i.e., determining what areas of each life each kingdom pertained to), but as to the mode of Christ’s rule (as Dickson argues, whether the Son rules immediately as one person of the Trinity, or mediately as God-man). Evidence of this mediated kingdom, give to the Son by the Father, is also found in Dickson’s co-authored work ‘The Sum of Saving Knowledge.’

Jonathan Beeke

Regnum Duplex Christi

This is the money quote. This is a thumb in the eye of R2K but the way it is so academically stated one would never know the Beeke just torpedoed the R2K project with this observation. Read it carefully. Beeke just said that dividing the world up into a “common realm” where Christ ruled by Natural Law vis-a-vis a “grace realm” where Christ ruled by Revealed Law was not the way the Reformers understood the idea of Two Kingdoms.

Beeke goes on to write and by doing so wreaks absolute mayhem and havoc with the theory of R2K;

“Despite the essential differences that Dickson sees between the church and magistrate, he nevertheless argues, like many Reformed orthodox that cura religionis is proper to the duty of the magistrate. According to Dickson then,

‘The Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and all sorts of heretics, and sectaries err, who maintain (under the pretext of Christian Liberty) that the civil magistrate is not in duty to punish any man with the sword for errors in doctrine, but that they ought to be tolerated and suffered, providing such persons as own them do not trouble or molest the commonwealth.’

In defense of this claim, Dickson points to the godly example of OT kings (such Hezekiah, Josiah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat), as well as key scriptural passages such as Isaiah 49:23 (where in his view it is foretold that under the NT kings ‘shall be nursing fathers to the church, and queens nursing mothers’). Because the magistrate is to suppress all blasphemy and heresy according to the example of these godly kings, the civil leader is custodian of both tables of the law (custos utriusque tabluae). Dickson’s language is particularly forceful here; with the ‘assistance of the church and her censures,’ the magistrate duty is TO FORCE (if necessary) ALL SUBJECTS TO CONFORM TO THE ‘TRUE WORSHIP, SOUND DOCTRINE, AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. Dickson concludes:

‘If then [the magistrate] may punish evil doers who offend against the second table and force and compel them to obedience by the sword of justice which God hath put in his hand, much more may he punish idolaters and blasphemers who offend against the first table and force and compel them to obedience, seeing there are many sins against the first table which are more heinous and odious than the sins against the second table.’

Dickson’s conclusion is admittedly surprising for the modern reader: According to this 17th century Edinburgh theologian, the Roman Catholic practice of forcefully compelling others to convert was not ‘sinful’ in principle, but was wrong only because the Church of Rome taught a ‘superstitious and idolatrous religion. For those ‘who have the true religion among them,’ however, this practice is legitimized, even if, Dickson acknowledges, ‘our blessed Saviour and His apostles did not use such means for propagating the gospel.'”

Jonathan Beeke

Duplex Regnum Christi — pg. 212-213

Just in case you missed it I will repeat again a portion of the above quote for those R2K types who are slow of learning. All of this is from David Dickson who was a 17th century Reformed Theologian who was platformed @ Edinburgh as the 6th Divinity Professor at that prestigious Reformed school. Dickson, though not widely known now, was a major figure during his time.

Dickson, in the quote you’re about to read, reveals that R2K is just outright lying when it wants to suggest that it has “recovered the Reformed confessions” when it comes to Reformed Two Kingdom theology. Dickson, at the same time, also blows apart the worldview of classical Liberalism which is really the worldview genesis of R2K.

Ask yourself as you read this quote, “where do the R2K acolytes fall in Dickson’s list cited? Are Van Drunen, Horton, Clark, Hart, T. David Gordon, Matthew Tuiniga, and Littlejohn (to name but a very few) Lutherans, Anabaptists, or Arminians, or are they numbered with all sorts of heretics and sectaries who err?

David Dickson

Truth’s Victory Over Error — p. 173-174

Clearly, if Rev. Dr. David Dickson was correct, then at the very least we can say that R2K is not Reformed theology.

Covenantal Unity From Genesis to the New & Better Covenant

“Thus while Calvin described Adam’s arrangement in paradise as gracious — Calvin maintained it was distinct from the one covenant of grace first promised to fallen Adam in Genesis 3:15 and successively to the OT and NT Church. Underscoring the unity of the covenant of grace from its first postlapsarian (fall) declaration until the present, Calvin writes;

‘The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.'”

Jonathan Beeke

Duplex Regnum Christi — p. 90

1.) Per Beeke on Calvin the covenant of works was a gracious covenant though gracious to a different degree than the covenant of grace. We might note the difference as prelapsarian creational grace vs. postlapsarian redemptive grace.

2.) The covenant of grace is a unity. Therefore, we can say that any theory of the covenant (such as R2K’s theory) that insists that the Mosaic covenant was a return to a covenant of works “in some sense” is significant error. It is at the very least heterodox and even more likely heresy — at least as it lies in the hands of the R2K “theologians.”

3.) The New and Better covenant remains a unity with the covenant unfolding in the OT. It is the realization of all that was heretofore only promised. If the New and Better covenant brought in by Christ was completely divorced from the unfolding of the covenants (progress of covenantal redemption) then we would have to say that the saints in the OT were not saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.