Ethnic considerations

What Matt Walsh And Stephen Wolfe Have In Common

Question from the audience for Matt Walsh;

Is it wrong to want to preserve our heritage? The country our ancestors founded — European?

Matt Walsh the cultural Marxist Answers;

“I don’t believe our unifying principle was ever race, skin color, ethnicity. Our unifying principle was essentially a doctrine. It was a doctrine of human rights… It (the questioner’s position) sounds like bigotry.”

John Jay (One of the founders) tells Matt Walsh he is a man whom wisdom have forever chased but never caught;

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

For Pete’s sake, is Walsh so stupid that he flies right past the language of the Constitution where they talk about “for us and OUR POSTERITY.” Just exactly whose posterity were they talking about?

Look, while no one can doubt that Walsh has done some fine work with this response it is clear that Walsh is the enemy. Walsh is a neo-con and the kind of propositional Nation that Walsh believes in is not the unifying principle of the nation as it was founded. Walsh is an idiot and as long as he holds this view he will never defeat who he thinks is his enemy since at the end of the day they share the same foundational worldview principles.

Some of you think that the “Daily Wire” is a conservative redoubt. I am here to tell you that the “Daily Wire” is just another Trotskyist neo-con webzine.

Matt Walsh is not our friend, or is at least only intermittently our friend.

All of this reminds me of some analysis that I read by Darrell Dow when wrote an article that in part was dedicated to explaining Stephen Wolfe’s view of Christian Nationalism. Dow’s analysis of Dr. Wolfe offered this;

“In two additional chapters, Wolfe discusses the Christian nation. Rather than a historical analysis he offers a phenomenological approach to the nation, focusing on the lived experience of everyday life. Ethnicity is therefore something primarily (but not exclusively) experienced subjectively through shared manners, stories, and rituals rather than defined by blood. Common social norms and customs along with attachment to place are foundational, says Wolfe, to the highest aspirations of earthly life. What “…is most meaningful to our lives and what is required to live well is particularity and sharing that particularity with others.”

Now, if Dow’s analysis is correct in the paragraph above, we see Wolfe making the same kind of mistake that Matt Walsh makes above. Walsh would have no problem saluting the idea that “ethnicity is therefore something primarily (but not exclusively) experienced subjectively through shared manners, stories, and rituals rather than defined by blood.” Indeed that is the very point that Walsh is making above. Walsh insists the shared point of unity is allegiance to common propositions, while Wolfe insists that the shared point of unity is shared manners, stories, and rituals. However both agree that the point of unity in a nation/ethnicity is not blood.

Now, we can agree that blood relations as being the foundational point of unity for a nation/ethnicity can indeed be and has been in history fetishicized and/or idolized. But it is no fetishicizing or idolizing to recognize that the primary point of unity that makes a people a people and a nation a nation is having a common blood inheritance in conjunction with a shared faith. To place blood relations in a secondary role as if it is an afterthought to other considerations like shared propositions or shared experiences is to give up the idea of ever living in a nation or sharing an ethnicity.

It really is no different than family. Nation/ethnicity is merely family said at a broader level. If someone were to ask what was the shared foundational point of what makes my family my family the answer is a shared blood inheritance in conjunction with a shared faith. Now, there might be exceptions to that idea but it serves as the general rule. My family finds unity not primarily in shared propositions nor in shared experiences (though those will likewise be present in a secondary manner). My family finds its primary unity in having a common ancestor.

Wolfe and Walsh are just in significant error.

Are The Ogden Lads Really That Adamantly Opposed To The Post-War Consensus?

Additionally, you have recommended John Weaver on multiple occasions as a resource members of the church should look to. There are views which we will absolutely not tolerate within the church. One of those views includes the forbidding of so-called interracial marriages, or kinism, characterizing so-called interracial marriages as sinful, even adulterous. Due to this, we will not tolerate John Weaver to be recommended to anyone in the congregation and will, if necessary, publicly warn the church against his ministry and materials.

The Elders of Refuge Church
Ogden, Utah
Letter to Disaffected Member
Circa 2021

1.) I cite this letter because I get the sense that at times the Ogden chaps want to present themselves as somehow distinct from Doug Wilson on this issue “Kinism” and are providing an alternative. If they are distinct from Doug it would be a matter of merely degrees and not of substance.

Here we are left wondering if the Ogden chaps, like Doug, are practicing a type of conservatism that Dabney once wrote of;

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.”

2.) Note the phraseology “so called interracial marriages.” This would seem to mean that the Ogden chaps don’t believe that interracial marriages are possible and it strikes me that could only be possible if there is a implicit denial of the reality of race here. Why are interracial marriages only “so-called?” Hey Ogden fellows; Are such marriages people of two different races genuinely interracial or are they not “interracial?” And if they are not interracial … then pray tell why not?

3.) In this quote above the Ogden boys commit the same tomfoolery as their arch-enemy Doug Wilson does inasmuch as they both are giving a very narrow definition of Kinism. There are many Kinists who don’t say all interracial marriages are sinful though they may well consider many of them as sinful and most of them as unwise. That such a Kinist view is seen as outrageous is testimony to how liberal the Ogden boys are on this subject, for such a view was, before 1950 or so, the position of nearly all of Christendom. See the two anthology books … “Who Is My Neighbor,” and “A Survey of Racialism in the Christian Tradition.”

The quotes in these books vary. Some are less racially charged, and others more. There are writings that are often about the unity of all races (in their calling to follow Christ) but yet distinguish by race. Some of these make very clear distinctions even between what we can now understand and define as ethnicity (a select stock of descent; Irish versus Breton), nation (a body of members derived from the same ethnicity), country (a collection of members either of closely related ethnicities or of one ethnicity), and race (a broad grouping categorized by a general descent, especially as defined by continental region). Saint Isidore of Seville goes so far as to include the prohibition of miscegenation under the natural rights of nations.

Before 1950 or so, no one would have labeled someone who said that miscegenation is sinful as being beyond the pale of the Christian faith. Yet here is the Ogden group … a group who style themselves as reaching back to champion an older Christianity staining someone as upright as John Weaver trying to make him persona non-grata. This highhandedness is neither Christian nor conservative. It makes one wonder if the Ogden chaps are, like so many other clergy, just playing the tune that they think will resonate with their audience.

4.) When Weaver, and Rushdoony before him, talked about interracial marriages being “adulterous” they were pointing to a legitimate meaning of the word “adultery.” The word “Adultery” also retained the meaning of “to water down.” When someone mixes whiskey with water they are adulterating the whiskey. When someone mixes blue paint and yellow paint they are adulterating both the blue paint and the yellow paint. And when a Japanese marries a Cherokee they are each adulterating their races. This is not a controversial statement. It is an objective fact. So, when Weaver, or Rushdoony makes the statement about interracial marriages being adulterous they are really merely proclaiming a tautology.

5.) I know John Weaver a wee bit. I have good friends who know John Weaver very well. For anybody to indict John Weaver like this is just unconscionable and I take more than a little umbrage at this.

6.) I must tell you also that I find this correspondence very Doug Wilson like in tone. I mean who are they to tell people who they can or cannot read? Now, as a Pastor, if I know someone is pushing views that I believe are contrary to Biblical Christianity I may write a blog post or preach a sermon exposing the problems as compared to Scripture but then I would tell them to go ahead and read so and so if they must and see whether or not my warnings are correct.

Think about this … these chaps at Ogden have been screaming ruddy murder about Wilson’s “gate-keeping,” and yet is not this “gate-keeping” at its best? So it seems gate-keeping is not proper for Doug but it is proper for them.

7.) In the end my problem here is that these chaps are going on and on suggesting that they are opposed to what is now called “the post-war consensus” but in this letter from 2021 they are gate-keeping for the post-war consensus that Weaver had been rightly attacking.

Now, it may be possible that the Ogden blokes have moved in their thinking on this matter since 2021 and as such would not write this letter again in 2025. If that is the case it would be good to know because if they still hold the above position then they are really still invested in maintaining one important aspect of the post-war consensus.

I say all this as someone who does not believe that all interracial marriage is always sinful, while still believing that interracial marriage is the chief tool being used to make the post-war consensus eternal.

From the Mailbag … Roger and Bret Continue Their Discussion On Kinism & Christendom

Pastor,

Thank you (and all) for your detailed responses. It warms my heart to know that there are real people, your friends, that are in community with each other and ready to risk it all to fight. It is especially helpful to know where to send money for support in the fight. I am sure that supporting a firearms group like the NRA or the one you mentioned will go a long way.

Note that I asked you about fighting for kinism, but you said fighting for Christendom in the title of your reply. Are these synonyms? What would you say to a Christian family that leaves a church where the pastor is more devoted to kinism than Christendom, if they are not synonyms?

Hello Roger,

Yes … they are synonyms.

One cannot contend for Christendom without contending for Kinism. Especially in our current context in the West where Christendom is being attacked via the means of attacking the family structure. Christianity is a faith that presupposes the family unit. Kinism is merely an extension of that presupposition carried out to each continuing concentric circle that ripples out from the family unit.

Since I hold that there is no such thing as Christendom (or Christianity for that matter) that has subtracted the centrality of family such as is found everywhere in Scripture, and since Kinism is merely another way of stating the doctrine of the Creator Creature distinction (an essential and primary truth without which the Christian faith cannot exist as the Christian faith) I would say to such a hypothetical family leaving such a hypothetical church having such a hypothetical pastor that they should rethink their understanding of Biblical Christianity.

Besides … this is surely a vastly hypothetical question since I am full of doubt that any Pastor exists who is more devoted to Kinism than Christendom. Indeed, since the WOKE assault that now servers as the point of the spear attacking Christianity, and Christendom it is simply the case that most Pastors are asleep at the switch.

Since Christianity has as an essential aspect to its reality what Kinism is championing your question is like asking “what if the Pastor at the Church is more devoted to the incarnation or to the penal substitutionary doctrine of the Atonement than to Christendom.” You see the implicit contradiction here don’t you? You have presented what is called a “false dichotomy.” How can a Pastor be faulted for being more devoted to a cardinal doctrine of Christianity without which Christianity can not be Christianity than he is to Christianity itself?

As to time spent on this one doctrinal aspect of Christianity Luther is reputed to have said;

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”

Guess where that one point is now Roger? That one point is the point that Kinism is engaged in. If the Church loses here Christendom goes into declension (something R2K desires very much) and it is back to the catacombs while living in Dark chaos and old night. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the enemy will have been successful in a short term victory.

In Athanasius’ time the issue that was being attacked was the deity of Jesus Christ. In Augustine’s day the issue that was being attacked was whether or not man had Libertarian free will. In Luther’s day the issue was both Justification by faith alone and the what was the epistemological ground for the Church — Scripture or Tradition. Today the issue is also twofold

1.) Creator-Creature distinction and the means of attack is by attack the doctrines of Scripture that have been shorthanded to be called “Kinism.” (Which is merely Christianity 101).

2.) Theonomy or Autonomy. (These two issues are implied in one another just as the two issues at the time of the Reformation were implied in each other.)

Of course, as has been more than hinted at in the original response, most Christians seem not to have the capacity to understand the implications and consequences of this issue. Just as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther were the minority voices at their time so Kinists are the minority voices today.

But as Rushdoony said …

“History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”

R.J. Rushdoony

Blessings Roger as you consider all this,

Bret

p.s. — FWIW The NRA is counter-productive to securing the 2nd amendment. If you want to secure the 2nd amendment don’t send your money there.

p.p.s. – If you really want to dig into this I can offer a few books that may help turn some lights on. Let me know.

Are The Jews Still The Chosen People? …. Are the Jews Today Really Jews?

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Mt. 12:31

You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did.

Acts 7:51

Read in the context of the unfolding of Redemptive history these passages should be coupled together. In Matthew Jesus communicates that Blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven. That Israel blasphemed the Son is clearly seen in their crucifying Jesus and by screaming…. “His blood be upon us and our seed.”

When we get to acts we see Stephen saying that Israel is now blaspheming the Holy Spirit as seen in always resisting the Holy Spirit. Throughout the book of Acts we see Israel blaspheming the Holy Spirit by rejecting the messengers of Christ. At this point there are multiple witnesses to this blaspheming of the Spirit.

In light of this Blasphemy of the Spirit, in AD 70 Christ serves divorce papers on Israel and cuts them out of the Olive Tree (Romans 11). Before that time the Israel of God among the Hebrews are gathered into Christ and so when the divorce papers are served in AD 70 it is true what was predictive in Romans 11 that “all Israel was saved.”

This reading fits with the multitudinous passages in the New Testament that communicate that God was done with (divorced) Israel. First we have the parable of the non-productive fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) which finds the servant conceding to cut down the barren fig tree (Israel) if it does not produce fruit after a year (it didn’t). Then there is Jesus cursing the fig tree, saying; “May you never produce fruit again (Matthew 21:18ff) .”

The most clear indication that God was done with the Jews is seen in Matthew 21:33-46. Here it is clearly and unmistakably taught that the Jews are divorced and cast out. In the story a landowner plants a vineyard, lets it out to farmers, and moves far away (33). The landowner represents God and the farmers represent the Jews (45). When harvest time comes, the owner of the vineyard sends servants to collect his share of the fruit, but the farmers beat, kill, and stone these servants (35). These servants represent the prophets (Luke 11:47) God sent to the Jews through the centuries, and how the Jews mistreated such prophets (Luke 13:34). Lastly the landowner sends his son to collect, but the farmers kill him also. This son represents God’s son Jesus Christ of course.

Jesus asks his audience in verse 40 “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” His audience correctly answers “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen ….” Jesus reaffirms this conclusion by saying in verse 43 “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Precipitated by their longtime disobedience, with the final straw being the killing of the son of God (Matt 23:37-38), the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. In AD 70 the Lord of the vineyard came in His judgment coming and He miserably destroyed Israel, scattering them to the wind in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem. In this judgment coming of the Lord Christ the Jews as a people were eternally divorced by God never to be grafted in again to the Olive Tree as a nation. Certainly, individual Jews can be, and praise God are saved but as a people God is done with the Jews.

So read Redemptive Historically, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirt was committed by Israel and they were cut off for that blasphemy (much as the faithless generation in Canaan was cut off from the promised land), just as Jesus had prophetically spoken as recorded in the NT.

As such we know that to interpret Romans 11 as still being future to us about a great ingathering of the Jews is a misinterpretation of the passage. The ingathering of Jews spoken of there in Romans 11 was future to Paul but past to us and indeed throughout the book of Acts, starting with Pentecost, we do see many Jews grafted back into the olive tree of Romans 11, and in the end all of Israel who was the Israel of God was saved before that AD 70 return.

Also, one has to consider the mistake it is to read Romans 11 as if it referred to physical Israel because in Romans 9 God had clearly stated that “not all of Israel is of Israel.” So, this idea that God still has work to do with the Jewish nation that is tied to His eschatological clock is just bollix. National Israel is in no way tied to God’s eschatological clock, though as postmillennialists we believe that what Jews remain upon the coming of Christ many will be saved as being part of other nations.

We note this final thought above due to the fact that it is an open question as to how many genetic Jews exist yet today. The book, “The Thirteenth Tribe” by Arthur Koestler, as one example, questions whether those whom we call “Jews” today are really, in fact, genetically Jews. Most of them seem to be from Khazaria or are Edomites. The ironic thing is that lately there are reports that the Palestinians in Israel who are being slaughtered by “the Jews” are indeed more Semitic than the Israelis killing them. Of course if it is true that those called “the Jews” today are Khazaria then the whole infrastructure of much of Evangelical and evene Reformed theology has the ground cut out from underneath of it. For the Reformed, if this is true, they will definitely need to re-adjust their interpretation of Romans 11.

From The Mailbag — Could You Give A “Back Of The Napkin” Explanation Of Kinism?

“Hey brother, when you have a minute could you sketch out for me a quick ‘back of the napkin ‘ explanation of kinism and what the opponents of kinism are all twisted up about. Just haven’t been able to nail it down. No rush, I know you are with family and it is Advent, so whenever you are inclined.

Thanks.”

Kyle Patrick

Hello Kyle;

Thanks for asking.

Remember, per your request this is a back of the napkin kind of explanation. Much more could be said.

Kinism is the doctrine that God, by His creative and providential work has set men in families, clans, tribes, and nations and because of that there is a natural and biblical requirement to prioritize and order our loves in just such a fashion.

Kinist do NOT deny that they also have responsibilities to those who share a common faith who are not in those concentric circles of natural responsibilities but they recognize that normatively we are to provide for our own relatives and especially for members of our own household, realizing that the man who does not prioritize his own Kin has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

Further, Kinists do NOT believe that conversion strips a man of his race, nation, tribe, clan, or family. Instead, Kinists believe that grace restores nature and as such conversion and sanctification lifts us to be the best sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, Uncles, Aunts to our own people that God in creation intended us to be.

In brief Kinism is anti-Gnosticism.

Finally, people (especially Christian Clergy it seems) are all tied up into knots and hysterical about Kinism because;

1.) They were educated in Government schools and so have bought into the egalitarian swill.

2.) They think the civil rights era was all about Christianity when in point of fact it was all about Marxism.

3.) They are afraid of the peer pressure. Their children might not be able to marry just the right people. They might not get the promotion at work. They might get shunned by friends for believing Christian truths held for every generation by Christians until 1950 or so. Most people are basically cowards.

4.) They follow the crowd.

I hope this helps Kyle. If you have more questions I’d be glad to field them if I am able.