Category: Ethnic considerations

A Quote On Kinism From The Legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier

Recently the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod, under the “leadership” of one Matthew Harrison has begun to reveal a decline that has doubtless been long in the making. As in so many denominations the Missouri Synod has been afflicted with creeping Marxism. One of the issues that has come to the fore in the denomination is some variant of Kinism. Kinists have been routed out of the denomination with the wildest controversies coming to the fore. All of this is a small part of the rise of Corey Mahler and his controversial Stone Choir podcasts.

In light of all that I thought a quote from the legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier would be of interest.  It is clear from this paragraph that the Lutheranism of Matthew Harrison (who has mixed race grandchildren) would not allow Walter Maier to be ordained in the Lutheran – Missouri Synod denomination.

After a paragraph long description of the marriage of a (white) Seattle girl to the Maharajah of Indore complete with a description of the steps she went through in order to convert to Hinduism, old Lutheran stalwart Walter Maier (1893-1950) wrote in his book “For Better, Not For Worse;

 

“Such interracial misalliances stand condemned before the forum of all clear thinking people. We agree with the verdict of Dr. Eliot, former president of Harvard;
 

‘Intermarriage between members of races that are not kindred is generally condemned by medical, sanitary, and eugenic authorities; so that the right policy in nations which include many different races is not fusion or blending or amalgamation, but a separate, parallel development of each race, acting in concord with the other races, but each preserving through many generations its own bodily and mental characteristics.

 

As evident as these principles are, however, we cannot be unmindful of recent efforts to overstep racial bounds. We believe that the Commission on Church and Racial relationships, maintained by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, has on occasion gone out of its way to encourage interracial marriages. This may be seen from statement in Information Service (published by the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America) of November 13, 1926. Referring to the widely heralded Olivet Conference of that year, which was devoted ‘largely to the relation of Negroes and whites,’ this bulletin asserted; ‘Dr. George Haynes of the Federal Council presented the problem and illuminated with his very extensive knowledge every discussion of the week…. Nor was the question of intermarriage evaded. That was considered at length. It was felt that some pioneer spirits should take advanced steps in that direction…. After the discussion on intermarriage the group concluded that, if the individuals concerned fully realize the difficulties involved, mixed marriages may be highly desirable.’

 

In the furtherance of its own program, Communism has ardently encouraged interracial marriages; and this enthusiasm has colored the preaching and practice at some of our radical youth gatherings. For instance, an eye and ear witness at the American Youth Congress at Detroit brings this picture of the social mixing: ‘I cannot refrain from saying, simply and positively, that the most shocking thing I saw in connection with the Detroit Youth Conference was the social mixing of boy and girls of the black and white races…. While Clarence Hathaway expounded the doctrine of Communism, not three seats removed from me a white girl clung to the arm of, and openly petted with, one of the blackest sons of Africa I have ever sen. This was not an isolated circumstance.’

 

University lectures, with a flare for this new enlightenment, have based their advocacy on Negro and Caucasian marriages on the theory that the strains of negroid blood wills strengthen the white race. But these social revolutionaries will never be able to remove the insurmountable difficulties that are created by these interracial alliances. What of the children? What of the social restrictions?

This is yet another example of thousands of quotes from our Church fathers that demonstrate that Kinism was the assumed position of the Church until the civil rights revolution. Of course all of this was percolating before as the quote above demonstrates but the real rush of Matthew Harrison type thinking began in earnest somewhat after WW II.

Can it really be the case that all our fathers were wrong on this subject and that we are now reduced to having to believe the low intellects like Matthew Harrison and other ecclesiastical Alienists? Has truth changed from one generation to another?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting Dr. Charles Hodge From His Theological Journal Article; “Emancipation”

Numerous people in “Reformed” “Churches” today are going after a handful of ministers today because they refuse to embrace what we might call “Racial Marxism.” Fathers like Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer, Girardeau, Machen, Rushdoony, and even Morton Smith are currently anathema to modern Reformed thought and so ministers today who advocate, in any measure, what those men advocated are being given the left foot of fellowship.

However, the views that these men held when it came to the issue of race were not unique to the men of the South, but were held by Reformed theologians of the North, including a giant of the Reformed faith, Dr. Charles Hodge. In a theological Journal before the War Against The Constitution the great Charles Hodge wrote on page 549;

“Another feature of that plan (to compensate slave owners for their freed slaves) was the expatriation of the liberated blacks. This also when feasible is wise. There are natural laws which forbid the union of distinct races in the same commonwealth. Where the difference is slight, as between Saxons and Celts, or the Teutonic and Romaic families, the different elements are soon fused. But even here we find that they often refuse to combine and remain apart for ages, the weaker constantly sinking, and the stronger constantly advancing. We have examples of this in the French payans of Canada, and Louisiana. The effect of the amalgamation of distinct races is seen in the physically, intellectually and socially degraded mongrel inhabitants of Mexico and South America. In these cases the chief elements were the Spanish and Indians, elements less widely separated than the Anglo Saxon and the Negro. The amalgamation of these races must inevitably lead to the deterioration of both. It would fill the country with a feeble and degraded population, which must ultimately perish. For it is a well ascertained fact that the mulatto is far more frail than either the white man or the negro. We read in the disastrous physical effects of the amalgamation of the blacks and whites, a clear intimation that such amalgamation is contrary to the will of God, and therefore is not an end which statesmen ought in any way to facilitate.”

Dr. Charles Hodge
Reformed Theologian – Old Princeton
Article — Emancipation 

Now, the point here is not necessarily that Charles Hodge was correct in this view. The point here is that this view was considered consistent with the Reformed faith and nobody was screaming for Hodge to be excommunicated for this view.

This compels us to ask; “Does truth change?” If it was taught for centuries that race was/is real and that certain considerations must be made because race is real (as the two books “Racialism in Sacred Tradition,” and “Who Is My Neighbor” clearly demonstrates) then how can “Reformed” denominations today be seeking to cast out clergy who hold to comparatively thin versions of what the Church has believed for millennium– and that in all times and in all places? Isn’t this demonstrating a kind of cultural or historical relativism where these “Reformed” denominations are saying that truth is culturally conditioned and so what was true for one generation is a lie and offense for another generation and so cannot be allowed?

The warfare in Reformed denominations (ARP, PCA, OPC, etc.) has to end lest these denominational bodies be seen as fighting against God.

 

Vice President J. D. Vance Sanctions Kinism … And The Fur Flies

“There’s this old school — and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.

“A lot of the far left has completely inverted that. They seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders. That is no way to run a society.  And I think the profound difference that Donald Trump brings to the leadership of this country is the simple concept of America First. It doesn’t mean you hate anybody else, it means that you have leadership. And President Trump has been very clear about this — that puts the interests of American citizens first. In the same way that the British prime minister should care about Brits and the French should care about the French, we have an American president who cares primarily about Americans, and that’s a very welcome change.”

The idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does Anyone?

J. D. Vance 
Vice President of these united States 

“First, the kindred in blood, caeteris paribus, (all other things being equal), are more to be beloved than strangers, in those things which pertain to the good things of this life; and among those who are near in blood those who are nearest are most to be loved.”

William Ames — 1576-1633
Puritan Theologian
More Widely Read in Colonial America than Calvin and Luther combined

The Christians is supposed to love his neighbor, and since his wife is his nearest neighbor, she should be his deepest love.”

Martin Luther

I notice over on X Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk and these CREC types who have forever bashed Kinism — which was the very embodiment of the Ordo Amoris — are now chirping in praise over J. D. Vance’s statements on the Ordo Amoris.

The problem w/ these CREC types is that they want to hold and embrace the Ordo Amoris in the abstract but the minute someone starts to apply it concretely by, for example, explaining that generally speaking (which is different than universally speaking) marrying outside one’s race is not a good idea precisely because of the teaching of the Ordo Amoris suddenly they get all outraged and are adamantly opposed to a basic derivative principle of the Ordo Amoris.

That marrying within your race is a basic principle of the Ordo Amoris was articulated in Church history repeatedly;

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
Colleague of the Great J. Gresham Machen

“It has become fashionable in recent times to talk of the leveling of nations, and of various peoples disappearing into the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I disagree with this, but that is another matter; all that should be said here is that the disappearance of whole nations would impoverish us no less than if all people were to become identical, with the same character and the same face. Nations are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The least among them has its own special colors, and harbors within itself a special aspect of God’s design.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

These CREC guys want it both ways. They want to come across as perfectly orthodox in embracing the Ordo Amoris in the abstract but when it comes to the concrete suddenly they treat the Ordo Amoris like it is a Cross being presented to Count Dracula.

Failing that it could be just another case where these CREC types are sticking their fingers into the wind and seeing which way the wind is blowing are now setting their sails to catch this new wind.

However, there is another angle to all this and that is the countless number of putative theologians who are coming out of the woodwork to say that J. D. Vance and all of Church history up until 1950 or so are wrong. You can find some of that protest here;

Theologians push back on JD Vance’s view of ‘ordered love’

Over on X the Marxist minister Ron Burns is jumping up and down insisting that J. D. Vance and all of Church history is not as smart as he is. It seems Ron thinks that the parable of the Good Samaritan proves Vance wrong. However, it is the case instead that the parable of the Good Samaritan proves that Ron Burns couldn’t grossly mishandles Scripture.

Ron Burns and other on the Christian Marxist left appeals to the Parable of the Good Samaritan as the template that all Christians must use in order to demand that amnesty for illegal immigrants be put in place.

The Good Samaritan has been made the tool of Social Justice Warriors everywhere and by it we are being taught that in order to inherit eternal life we must disinherit ourselves and our children so that the alien and the stranger can inherit the here and the now. This is an exceptionally un-neighborly thing to do to our Children and our descendants. According to this interpretation the teaching of the Good Samaritan means that we must treat our children and our people as Aliens and Stranger in order to treat Aliens and Stranger like our children and our people.

The failure with this interpretation lies in the attempt to universalize a particular obligation. Jesus is teaching here in a very specific and particular situation.  The Lord Christ was not laying down policy for 21st century Nation States to take up. He was not creating new policy for Magistrates of all time everywhere to pursue. He was speaking to a religious Lawyer in order to crack his smug confidence that he indeed was a good person.

Jesus is giving ethical instruction, I believe, to the end that the Lawyer would see that he is not an ethical person. Yet the Ron Burns in the Christian world want to see the Parable of the Good Samaritan as a way to say that given their desire for open borders it is clearly the case that they are ethical people. In reality, by using the Good Samaritan parable wrongly the Thabiti Anybwile (Ron Burns) Marxists of the World can preen their self righteousness while seeking to foist guilt upon those who dare disagree with their gross misinterpretations.

The thinking that insists that the parable of the Good Samaritan is about immigration and amnesty policy, if taken literally, would mean the disappearance of borders and nations and peoples. It is a world where we can

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do

Upon giving this Parable, Jesus was not setting National or International Policy. He was not teaching on the Universal brotherhood of all man. He was not negating the reality of ever widening concentric circles of love whereby we first have to look out for our own and prioritized who are of the household of faith. Jesus was not negating the prioritizing of them who are of the household of faith in terms of our care and affection.

He is simply teaching that in the course of our daily living, as we walk through life, when we come upon a real live human being in desperate need of care we have a duty and privilege to care for the least of these.

Some will retort that by seeing this passage as individual and personal that I am not loving my neighbor. Some will insist that by not championing that the Government open up the borders that I am not loving my neighbor. But what of my next door neighbor who can’t find work? How loving is it to that neighbor to glut the market with cheap labor so he will never find work? What of the minority communities in this country who’s unemployment rate is 25-30% in some quarters? Is it neighbor love to them to insist on an amnesty which will cement their unemployment? Is it neighbor love to fellow Christians to invite in a global population that is hostile to Biblical Christianity? Is it neighbor love to Christian women to open the borders to those from misogynistic cultures?

Those who want to use the Parable of the Good Samaritan to the end of pursuing the Cultural Marxist agenda of Social Justice have only incompletely thought through the matter. In many instances the misuse of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is just a means to advance a liberal humanist non Christian agenda.

J. D. Vance and William Ames centuries before him are right, and the long tradition or the Ordo Amoris going back to Augustine and behind him to the Bible is the Christian way of thinking held to by millennium of Church history. Men like Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, are poseurs who hold the Ordo Amoris in the abstract but blanch at any real application of the doctrine. Finally men like Ron Burns (Thabiti Anybwile) are just not Christian in contending that the Ordo Amoris is not a Christian Doctrine.

And I might add here in ending that the Kinists are incrementally being seen as vindicated. What Ames, and Luther and countless other Christians advocated centuries ago and what Vance is advocating today is what Kinists have been lambasted for and as seen in the cases against Spangler, Hunter, and Garris, Kinists are still being bashed for holding to the timeless Christian principle of the Ordo Amoris.

 

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.