Ethnic considerations – Page 2

Ehud & Bret Tag Team On Kinism

“Even if imperfectly conceived under the various schools of paganism, race consciousness, nationalism, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws were normative in the ancient world. And the exceptions wherein integration was promoted were invariably in terms of the most aggressive anti-Christ imperial orders such as Babylon, Assyria, Babel, the Soviet Union, and the UN.”

Ehud Would

Faith and Heritage — pg. 327

I think we have to add the US, Europe, Australia, and South Africa to that list now.

God’s revelation teaches us that Nationalism is the Biblical social order and Nationalism by definition means a people descending from a common ancestor. Now, certainly Kinists understand that the pursuit of “one drop” rules is nonsense and so intuit that nations can exist while having within their borders those who do not belong to the core people group, but the fact that exceptions might exist doesn’t change the rule.

Also, it should be said here that Kinists pursue these truths out of love for God and love for others. It is not love to kith and kin to allow the social order to become mamzer. Indeed to be party to such is to hate God, our children, and our neighbor.

However, now we must realize that we have lived 60 years in the mad pursuit of a social order that is essentially a disintegration into the void. Our identity is increasingly become one of non-identity — a nihilistic approach if one ever existed.

Such a program, unless arrested, will end in blood and chaos. Empires always eventually fly apart. We have seen this in our lifetimes with the evaporation of the former USSR.

And whose purpose does this mass integration serve? It serves the goals and designs of Marxism, which is itself the theology of Hell. The end goal is the elimination of peoples, places, and family. If all are kin then nobody is kin.

Of course all this is driven by the desire to destroy the Creator-Creature distinction. If no horizontal distinctions exist as between peoples than the final assault on destroying the distinction between God and man is more easily achieved. Or, if one prefers, the destruction of horizontal distinctions is birthed by the present reality that the distinction between God and man has been blotted out. However, one argues this, the loss of peoples, places, and families is intended to pull Christ off His throne and destroy the faith once forever delivered to the Saints.

If we lose here we lose everything.

And that is why we will not lose. God will no more be mocked in 2024 in His world than He would not be mocked at the tower of Babel.

Those who fight against Christian Nationalism/Kinism/Ethno-Nationalism war against heaven. In this warfare against God Christians are especially going to be sorrowful and sorry for ever calling righteousness wickedness.

In my world, such people if upon being instructed in the Christian faith on this matter continue to insist on “cosmopolitanism,” “Liberalism” and “Alienism,” are outside the faith.

Joseph Spurgeon; Statement On Natural Affections — A Kinder & Gentler Antioch Declaration

So, Rev. Joseph Spurgeon has taken it upon himself to ink a new declaration for everyone to sign touching the issue of race, and WW II. It seems that in the Evangelical/Reformed world you just can’t be somebody unless you’re writing a new declaration.

I’ll be glad to admit that this one is superior to its previous bastard statement (Antioch Declaration) but this one still demonstrates that neither Joseph nor its signers realize what time it is.

I see this document as a “Kinder and Gentler” version of the Antioch declaration. George H. W. Bush would be proud.

Below are some of the highlights (lowlights?) of the new document being offered. It is hilarious that Doug Wilson and Uri Brito have signed this thing. Spurgeon expects anybody to sign a document on this subject who have repeatedly been given the mailed glove by these black knights?

Behold the document;

“I affirm that while the Allied powers rightly opposed the evils of Nazis, that some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality.”

Joseph Spurgeon
Statement On Natural Affections
A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

Some of the actions?

You mean like lying about the Bagel death totals, the lampshades made of human skin, bars of soap made out of Bagel fat, knowingly allowing the bombing of Pearl Harbor in order to have casus belli, like Operation Keel Haul, you mean like the post-war German death camps where over a million surrendering Germans died and where the Geneva convention was operated around by labeling POWs as “disarmed enemy forces,” you mean like dropping the Atomic bomb when the peace settlement that was accepted after the dropping of the bombs was the same that had been agreed to 6 months prior to the dropping of the bombs, you mean like getting in bed with Joe Stalin, you mean like giving Stalin all of Eastern Europe?

I could go on and on but to suggest that “some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality,” is like saying that some of Charlie Manson’s groupies could sometimes go a little overboard.

In the end the Nazis were no more evil than the Allies in that conflict and likely even less so. One could even just as accurately write that “while the Nazi powers rightly opposed the evils of the Allies some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality.”

Additionally, I reject the egalitarian ideologies of communism and secular liberalism promoted by some Allied powers, as these are contrary to biblical truth

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

Some Allied powers?

Which Allied powers didn’t promote Communism?

Inasmuch as all the Allied powers got in bed with the Christ hating Reds in that much they all promoted communism.

What Revisionist WW II History have you read? Any?

I affirm that marriage can lawfully occur between people of different ethnicities and races, as there is no biblical prohibition against such unions…

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

In our current climate this is an example of egalitarianism — a doctrine that another statement in this document said was not Christian. See below.

I affirm that children of mixed race are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, possessing equal dignity, value, and worth as any other human…

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Just exactly who denies this? This implies that there are people out there in the Church who deny this… who are these people? Names please.

Still, I’ll stick with Dr. John Edwards Richards statement who as recent as 50 years ago could write these words explaining the Causes of Separation in 1973 where the PCA separated from the liberal PCUS.

(We are separating from;)

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal. Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards

One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Look, we are in a position where the White race in general and the Christian White people in particular are fighting for their very existence. This document does not yet realize the peril we currently are in. Instead, it treats the wound of our situation lightly. This document, while an improvement over the Antioch Declaration will not provide a safe space for Christian White people in the Church or in this nation. What is required is a flame-thrower (Doug will like that reference) and all we are offered here is a glowstick.

McAtee Appears As Guest On Nationwide Radio Discussing Kinism

If you missed the live radio show here is the recording where we discuss Kinism;

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-3-2024-11-30/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3Ofye8EQ3OjNwM6Wm62AJ8fYW7AEFDOiztbozme4eddC45WB6LY6QEAIg_aem_TDZ1STXF5UpAG1EOw7x3IQ

The purpose was to plug this book;

https://antelopehillpublishing.com/product/faith-and-heritage-a-christian-nationalist-anthology/

Teasing Out Some Implications Of The Fifth Commandment

“Honor thy Father and Mother” Exodus 20:12

It should be observed first that these few words destroy the idea of a egalitarian social order where all are functionally and economically equal. These words spell out hierarchy in social order relations. This is especially drawn out by the Westminster Larger Catechism where the meaning of the commandment is explained;

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents,649 but all superiors in age650 and gifts;651 and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family,652 church,653 or commonwealth.654

If ever there was a portion of Scripture that destroys egalitarianism it is the 5th Word of the decalogue.

Secondly, it does not stop with the support of hierarchy but in citing the core principle as starting with Father and Mother this commandment is a clear articulation of Kinism. True, the commandment ripples outward to proper respect for all superiors and inferiors but the center core is love for one’s own kith and kin. Indeed, egalitarianism with its elimination of proper social hierarchy is the inevitable consequence of a steady and resolved disobedience of the fifth commandment. Where there is no honoring of one’s parents there will be no proper honoring of even recognizing of people placed by God in the position of “superior.”

On this score, third, we would observe that it is not possible to honor one’s own immediate parents without honoring the parents that belong to the parents we are to honor. Of course this then is a reflexive glance to not only grandparents but also to all the Fathers and Mothers that belong to all our generations. This commandment thus attaches us generationally to all our parents that have gone before us and does so by requiring us to honor them all. This requirement to honor our Kin serves as adhesive binding all the succeeding generations to all the previous familial generations. Where the fifth commandment is esteemed there we find a Kinist social order.

Of course the great presupposition behind this commandment is that all of our Fathers were honoring the God of the Bible — hence the first commandment. Where our Fathers were a God honoring people, they honored their parents. As such, when we honor our Christian Fathers and Mothers we are at that point then honoring their and our God. The corollary of this is when our parents do not honor God then we are released from obligation to honor our parents where their dishonoring of God serves as a barrier to our honoring God. As converts then, we are to then take up honoring God first and foremost so that our children may rightfully honor God and us.

This brings us to a point that will be disputed given our alienist zeitgeist.

It is hard to imagine how we honor our Christian Fathers and Mothers by marrying into peoples that were aliens and strangers to our Fathers and Mothers. If our Fathers and Mothers saw fit to pass down to us not only a godly legacy but also the particular genetic inheritance of generations of a particular people it is difficult to see how it is the honoring of those generations to cast aside the genetic inheritance built up over generations and generations in order to do something (marry interracially) that in all times and places was considered verboten until about 1960 or so when the sexual revolution / civil rights revolution began to reinterpret Christianity through the lens of Cultural Marxism. Of course this principle is true for Christian peoples of all races. Interracial marriage, especially among Christians, is a dishonoring of generations and generations of one’s Christian people and past.

On this score alone we might wonder if the fact that the WASPs who once owned this country are no longer finding it to be the case that we are safe in the land that our Fathers and Mothers built? Is it not the case that because we no longer honor our Father and Mother as seen in the way that we have become comfortable with interracial marriage we no longer see the latter half of the verse being the case;

“that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

That our days are no longer “long upon the land” is known to us as “replacement theory.” This theory holds that the white anglo saxon Protestant is being replaced by the stranger and the alien. All I am asking is, “is the reason that we are being replaced due to the fact that we have been, for generations, no longer honoring our Fathers and Mothers as seen especially in our marriage habits as a people.”

It is worthy at least to be considered.

Twin Spin #2 — McAtee Contra Wilson On The Value Of His Conservatism

In this 30 second clip the Modernist of Moscow tips his hand in a revealing fashion;

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx7CxL4q6HzpNHhIzYS7j1kJI0UjqHnL6p

Wilson is a classic example why Biblical Christians need to avoid the sobriquet of “conservative,” and why they need to be done with being followers of Wilson. Wilson has demonstrated for us that there is very little admirable in being “conservative.” This is why some of us have reached for other labels. Some of us have suggested “Reformed Dissident.” We certainly need some identification that marks us as distinct from the type of conservatism that Wilson embodies.

The three quotes below from Samuel T. Francis begins to limn out the problems that currently exist with being thought of as “conservative.”

“What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.”

Samuel T. Francis

“Abandoning the illusion that it represents an establishment to be conserved, a new American Right must recognize that its values and goals lie outside and against the establishment and that its natural allies are not in Manhattan, Yale, and Washington but in the increasingly alienated and threatened strata of Middle America. The strategy of the Right should be to enhance the polarization of Middle Americans from the incumbent regime, not to build coalitions with the regime’s defenders and beneficiaries.

Samuel Francis

“The first thing we have to learn about fighting and winning a cultural war is that we are not fighting to “conserve” something; we are fighting to overthrow something….While we will find much in the conservative tradition to teach us about the nature of what we want to conserve and why we should want to conserve it, we will find little in conservative theory to instruct us in the strategy and tactics of challenging dominant authorities.”

Samuel Francis

Wilson in that link is nothing but astonishing … maybe “shocking” is a better word. I think my readers will find this link interesting.

To set this up, we need to keep in mind that there is a rumor floating around that Trump’s Sec.Def. nominee, Pete Hegseth is no longer a zionist, but that is not confirmed and is meaningless at this point. It is also interesting that I also heard that Hegseth attended a CREC church.

Anyway … in this recent clip linked above, Doug expresses glee over the possibility that Hegseth IS a zionist, all because it puts a damper on those Doug label’s “Aunti-Zemite” and that crowd’s hope of prevailing against the advance of Zionism in America.

The great irony of this is that boiled down: DW would rather a Christian Heresy (zionism) continue to prosper and haunt our nation, just to shut down a group of people he has a personal grudge against. This even though this heresy of Zionism is really aimed at the strength of the church in favor of a heathen belief and people.

DW expresses glee over a heresy which has subjected our children and nation to constant war / poverty. He takes glee in the undermining of the Church and nation, so that these “Aunti-Zemites” he so detests personally would experience setback.

It’s also interesting that DW in the clip above talks about “bad forms of Kinism.” Does this mean that DW finally recognizes that there is a Kinism that isn’t bad? And if he finally recognizes that would he possibly come out and say so?

Folks, conservatism is dead and ministers like Wilson (and Foster, and Sandlin, and Boot, and White, and etc. etc. etc.) are Pied Pipers either keeping us in the very bad place we currently are or worse yet leading us to an even worse place yet.

Dabney noted this long before Samuel Francis when he wrote of Conservatism in the 2nd half of the 19th century;

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. 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. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? 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. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

― Robert Lewis Dabney

Biblical Christians need to be done with conservatism and they need to be done with the clergy, like Wilson, who are the embodiment of the Conservative impulse.