Ethnic considerations – Page 13

Replacement Theory as Proxy War

Given that the attack on White people is a proxy war w/ the real intent of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ so as to roll him off His throne, any refusal to defend the attempt to replace and even extinguish White people when they are wrongly and summarily attacked is a refusal to defend the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus demonstrates that such refuseniks are cowards and traitors to the Sovereign rule of Jesus Christ as well to their own people.

Yes … it is that serious.

If the Church can’t figure out that faggotry is sin, how do you expect it to figure out that Kinism is righteousness?

If running with the footmen makes the Church weary how shall it ever keep up with the chariots?

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part I

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

LC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie, directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

Robertson on the Relation Between Kin and Faith

“If you will not preserve your ancestral heritage, ultimately, you will not preserve your doctrinal heritage either. Honoring the former teaches us how to honor the latter. The two are inextricably intertwined. Thus, alienism ultimately destroys not only families but also all of Christianity.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

The unipolar world that the NWO is going for by necessity not only means a coffee colored world where all colors bleed into one but it requires a hyper blended faith world where all faiths are put into a blender which is then hit at high speed. In a unipolar world distinction is the enemy. This is the ultimate explanation for the attempt at the erasure of genders. Uniformity must be achieved. And yet, even this is a proxy war for an even grander project and that is the millennium hold Luciferian project to erase the distinction between the Creator and the Creature. This is the ultimate strategy of the Uniformitarians.

And every time someone attacks a Kinist, at that moment they have entered into league with the Christ haters who are seeking to destroy distinctions. This is why Kinism is so important. This doctrine alone is standing against the raging Luciferian Alienists of our day. All clergy who resist Kinism are in principle advancing the agenda of Lucifer.

Andrew Sandlin & the Sey Marriage… Splashes Insults Everywhere

“Samuel Sey is a godly young Christian leader, and it’s tragically no surprise that his marriage to a faithful Christian woman has provoked opposition among the racists within “The New Right.” This reflects the growing re-paganization of a conservatism that has lost its tether to Christian culture. Opposition to interracial marriage is a tribalist, pagan idea. It’s inter- marriage the Bible opposes.”

Andrew Sandlin

Facebook Post

1.) Given the fact that Samuel Sey himself has insisted that he is NOT in inter-racial marriage I don’t why Sandlin is defending their non inter-racial marriage by referring to the Sey marriage as a “inter-racial” marriage.

2.) Is it “racist” for someone to observe that inter-racial marriages are not wise and so oppose inter-racial marriages since they;

a.) Have a higher rate of divorce

b.) produce children who will have split identities

c.) produce children who will have a more difficult time finding donor matches should they have medical problems

d.) do not find or provide support for the particular ethnic community that of which they will be a “part.” (See linked article)

3.) Actually it is Sandlin who is reflecting a growing paganization of a heretofore conservative ethos. The paganism that Sandlin is reflecting is Cultural Marxism and it reflects how Sandlin has lost his tether to millennium of Christian Culture as exhaustively demonstrated in Achord & Dow’s book, “Who is My Neighbor.”

Have I mentioned recently that everyone keeps ignoring that anthology and that to date nobody has answered this volume that clearly demonstrates that the Church Fathers throughout the centuries would have thought that Andrew Sandlin was a certifiable lunatic for advancing his position on inter-racial marriage.

4.) Support for inter-racial marriage is a New World Order pagan idea and Sandlin should be ashamed for giving it his full throated support.

5.) The Bible supports neither inter-racial marriages nor inter-religious marriage.

Andrew really should give this a read for proof that the Bible does not support inter-racial marriages;

https://thereformedconservative.org/ai_story_collection/on-natural-communities/?fbclid=IwAR3Xj8e1sGQg_mIEutESrPcM3QxaX7CGBy9LX1vwh_VJ7ku5J6n1sNycjRE

6.) Let me make it clear that I have no reason to doubt that Mr. & Mrs. Sey are fine Christian people. (Indeed, as of this moment I have more confidence that they are Christian people than I am convinced that Dr. Andy Sandlin is a Christian person.) Further, I am convinced that now that the Sey marriage has been contracted Christians should do all they can to support this unwise move on their part. What God has joined together let no man cast asunder.

However, at the same time Christian ministers should be working overtime to explain to their young people why this kind of inter-racial marriage is less than a good idea.

McAtee Corrects Dr. Owen Strychnine on Christian Nationalism & Kinism

Dr. Owen Strachan is the Provost & Research Professor of Theology at Grace Biblical Theological Seminary. Dr. Strachan also hosts the “Antithesis” podcast and is author of the book, “Christianity & Wokeness.

Recently on Twitter Strachan lit out after Kinism tweeting;

“I see 2 forms of “Christian Nationalism” today: One that is problematically ethnocentric and traffics in sinful “kinism,” whatever other claims it may make: AVOID.

Kinism. Unblushing. Unhidden. Anti-gospel. Dead wrong.”

Bret responds,

One does wonder if Dr. Strychnine is only upset with white Christian Nationalism or if Dr. Strychnine would fault a Christian Nationalism that was characterized by minority communities and churches. For example is Dr. Strychnine apoplectic over Kinist churches that are uniquely Korean, Hmong, or Black which are also, per Strychnine, problematically ethnocentric or is it only white Churches that are anti-gospel and dead wrong?

I suspect that Dr. Strychnine has only a problem with white Kinism and white Nationalism. I suspect that he would be perfectly fine with minority expressions of Kinism. I know I am. I am thankful for my friendships with minority member Christian Kinists.

However, Strychnine is correct in accusing Kinism as being unblushing. It is true that we are not ashamed of Biblical Christianity.

Dr. Strychnine goes on to say,

A second that is *not* sinfully ethnocentric and that’s focused on God’s law and public good: THINK THROUGH.

The first is associated with Stephen Wolfe’s “A Case for Christian Nationalism” and his broader program, which undoubtedly has “kinist” elements. The second is being pondered by many folks, alongside matters like theonomy, postmillennialism, and the role of the church and state.

Bret responds,

1.) If people become theonomists if they are consistent they will become Ethnocentric, Kinist and Christian Nationalist. Theonomy implies ethnocentrism, kinism and Christian Nationalism.

2.) I am pretty sure that Dr. Stephen Wolfe would be appalled at the notion that he is associated with theonomy. I know that many theonomists are appalled at the notion that they would be identified with Wolfe’s Natural Law project.

3.) Dear reader you need to understand that kinism has become a acid test for Biblical Christianity. Those “Christians” who refuse kinism are to be suspect since somewhere in their DNA they have adopted Cultural Marxist (WOKE) categories. As Achord and Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor” demonstrates what is called Kinism has been for a millennium Christianity 101. Get the anthology. Look at the quotes from Augustine, Aquinas, and the Reformers. Over and over again our Fathers were what Dr. Strychnine is warning against.

We end this entry by demonstrating Dr. Wolfe’s inconsistencies. Remember, it has been my point consistently that Wolfe’s problem is that he is all over the map on the issue of Christian Nationalism, particularly as it pertains to the ethnic component. We see that clearly in this quote and response;

“And thus while intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves.”

Stephen Wolfe

30 Sept. Twitter

Bret responds,

This is a wee bit confusing because if groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves then the expectation is going to be that the group is indeed going to insist upon the individuals who are part of their groups the truth that intermarriage is wrong. In doing so the group is taking up their collective duty to insure that their people separate and marry among themselves.

It doesn’t seem to me that one can argue that it is right for a group to act one way while saying that the individuals in that same group are not wrong for acting the opposite way.