Category: Ethnic considerations

Darrel Dow Demonstrates that Rev. Toby Sumpter is Either Stupid or Evil

My good friend Darrel Dow (co-author of the anthology “Who is My Neighbor”) posted this on a social media site. I though it so good that I am reproducing it here.

The reason the headline says that Rev. Toby Sumpter is either stupid or evil is because if he is saying this stuff and knows it is not true he is evil. On the other hand if he is saying this stuff and doesn’t know better then he is merely stupid (ignorant, dumb, idiotic, torpid, jejune, moronic, etc.) Now, I can’t know which one of the two it is. I guess I hope that Old Toby is just stupid. I’d hate to think he is evil.

I’m posting this because, frankly it makes me angry that Old Toby is leading people astray like this. People who don’t know any better listening to Old Toby on this podcast just walk away thinking, “Yeah, Rev. Sumpter is clearly correct,” when in point of fact he is either stupid or evil.

Anyway, below reproduces Darrell giving Rev. Sumpter a facial.

Begin Darrel Dow;

On a recent Cross Politics podcast, Toby Sumpter made the observation that our Founders thought of themselves as “descendants of Adam” and not “White people.” Is that true? Did our Founders believe that race and ethnicity were unimportant, that we are all merely “image bearers” and “sinners”?

I’ll provide a sampler to help evaluate the claim. Note that I could have pulled MANY more quotes. I begin with Revolution Era figures and also provide a number of citations from later figures. Again, this could go on almost indefinitely.

Let us begin with legislation offered in the state of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson which was designed to define citizenship in the commonwealth.

“Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, BEING A FREE WHTE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,”

In a letter, Jefferson explains his concern with having too many German immigrants and the need to disperse them (Benjamin Franklin held this same view.)

“Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.”

Letter to George Fowler
Sept. 12, 1817

Alexander Hamilton who disagreed with Jefferson on many important questions in the life of the early republic, agreed with him on the debilitating consequences of immigration.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

 

Benjamin Franklin likewise on this subject,

“[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

“Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.”

Giving more of the context from Franklin

“Which leads me to add one remark: That the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion ; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.”

– Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.

Here is the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which the FIRST CONGRESS passed.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States .”

James Madison endorsed colonization and indeed later ran the colonization society.

“To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”

Abraham Lincoln (who also supported colonization).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

 

Stephen Douglas is quoted as saying;

“For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. I believe that this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races.”

End Dow

Now, Old Toby may not like that these words were once said but in manifestly demonstrates that his numbskull insistence that our Founders thought of themselves as “descendants of Adam” and not “White people,” is just well beyond the boundaries of ridiculous.

And remember, what has been provided here is just a sampling of the avalanche of quotes that could be reproduced in order to embarrass Old Toby, were he capable of being embarrassed.

If you doubt this, find a copy (if you can) of Achord & Dow’s book, “Who is My Neighbor.”

Now, here’s the real question. Will Old Toby recant and repent on his Cross-Politic podcast?

“How Stupid Can One Be,” is not Supposed to be a Challenge — Rev. Uri Brito

“Kinism is a fundamental denial of God’s redemptive plan to restructure the world under the culture of resurrection and ascension. It wishes to return to a pre-AD 70 universe where race and lineage prevailed instead of the new creation in Messiah Jesus.”

Rev. Uriesou Brito
Yet Another CREC Retard

One wonders whose ear these guys are pulling this waxy substance from.

1.) Note here the matter vs. spirit kind of Manicheanism/Gnosticism. Pre-Ad 70 material world bad. Post-AD 70 new creation (spiritual) world good. Apparently, when Jesus brings in the new creation the new creation is no longer corporeal so that race and lineage are real realities.

2.) Someone might want to tell Rev. U Brito that race and lineage do not go away simply because someone or some people group are redeemed. When the Sawi people, by God’s grace were visited with Redemption as brought to them by the Herald of God’s Gospel, Don Richardson, the Sawi people did not cease being Sawi. They became the Sawi people living now in a Sawi culture that was shaped by the resurrection and ascension.

For Pete’s sake is Rev. UB going to gainsay the great Augustine?

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

Is Rev. UB wiser than Calvin?

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

One wonders what Rev. UB does with Jesus being the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah?” Were the inspired writers of Scripture also denying God’s plan to restructure the world redemptively? Frankly, this is so dorky, so lamebrained, so chuckleheaded that one begins to run out of synonyms for “stupid.”

3.) The problem that Rev. UB has (as well as these other lunkheads) is that his anthropology really sucks eggs. Does man, upon regeneration, becomes something other than who God has created him to be corporeally? Once again we see the denial the grace restores nature, in favor of a doctrine that grace destroys nature.

4.) Notice the antithesis the Rev. UB has introduced. Rev. UB’s antithesis is  race and lineage vs. new creation as if new creation erases race and lineage, as if race and lineage are wicked and new creation is righteous because it eliminates race and lineage. It is maddening enough to cause a bald man to go get hair implants so he can tear it out.

5.) What does Rev. UB do with all those passages in the OT (Isaiah 2 & Micah 4 to just name two) that talk explicitly about all the nations streaming to the Mountain of the Lord?

6.) Everything said by Rev. UB said above is completely out of his nether regions. It has absolutely no roots or grounding in Scripture. It is the height of desperation and frankly, it is a gross mishandling of the Word of God.

These chaps are going to be awfully disappointed at how corporeal the new heavens and the new earth is going to be.

 

Recovering All the Past Doug, or only Part of It?

” There is no way for America to recover herself without recognizing the actual sources of the actual legacy we actually squandered. That legacy came from somewhere, and all the wishing in the world won’t transform it into something that will have come from somewhere else. Subtle uses of the subjunctive can’t alter the past. And our past is a covenanted past. Our past is a Christian past. Our past is the source of the good gifts we are now using in the pursuit of our debauchery.”

Doug Wilson
The Prodigal Son & Christian Nationalism
21 August 2023

I can only add an AMEN to what Doug says above even though it doesn’t cover all the territory needed to be covered.

Our past is also a White Anglo Saxon Protestant past and there is no way Doug can lead in the recovery he calls for until Doug repents of not recognizing that source of our past that he is contributing to in squandering by railing against Kinists.

Oh sure, Doug will agree with the necessity of recovering our Protestant past but he will give a “hard pass” to the need to recover our White Anglo-Saxon roots. This is what Kinists are calling for but Doug is a leading voice in denouncing this attempt by Kinists to recover our past that we have squandered. By doing so, Doug demonstrates he has a Gnostic streak running through him and that he has more in common with Moanin’ Owen Strychnine than he does with Dr. Stephen Wolfe.

Let Doug be consistent and call for the recovering the legacy of America’s White Anglo Saxon Protestant Christian past. I mean, not even Doug’s subtle usage of the subjunctive can alter the past.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” VII

“We encounter the Gospel when we experience the places made spiritually significant by our Christian loved ones.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 179

 

“The instrumentalities of the family are chosen and ordained of God as the most efficient of all means of grace—more truly and efficaciously means of saving grace than all other ordinances of the church” (p. 693)

R. L. Dabney

The Reformed are sticklers for advocating that the only means of grace are Word and Sacrament. However, I must say that I appreciate what Wolfe and before him Dabney were communicating. There can be no doubt that place and people having been ornamented by the Gospel can indeed evoke in us a great depth of thankfulness to God for bringing those Christian people and those grounds which are now hallowed in our thinking into our lives.

II.) “Those who exhibit a preference for foreigners have disordered loves — a condition we can call xenophilia, or the love of foreigners. Its conjoined condition is what Roger Scruton called ‘oikophobia,’ or the fear of home and familiarity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 150 / FN 37

Here we discover that the modern Christian Church, exceptions notwithstanding, is now a institution characterized by xenophilia. The contemporary White Church in the West is all hot to trot to have minorities in their midst seemingly thinking that to have such means that they are “really holy now.” What else can this be called except xenophilia?

On this same score, Scruton was exactly right with his label “oikophobia.” White Christians in our mega-churches are characterized by their hatred of their own ethnic people. Indeed, it has gotten so bad that it really is the case now that the stranger and alien are so loved and there is such fear of racial kin that the stranger and alien are in point of fact the new kin for these whom Wolfe and Scruton are describing. If that observation is indeed true it teaches us that “Kinism” is an inescapable categoriy.

III.) “Non-Christians living among us are entitled to justice, peace, and safety, but they are not entitled to political equality, nor do they have the right to deny the people of God their right to order civil institutions to God and their complete good.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 346

 

That will make the R2K crowd pee their pants.

IV.) “Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I agree 100% but I would bet my retirement fund that 90% of conservative clergy would viciously disagree with that quote.

Dr. Wolfe’s point here is, I believe, that people from different cultures, races, and/or classes can indeed be one in Christ but still not be able to have formal ecclesial unity. As an obvious example, imagine a group of Reformed Hmong people here in the states trying to establish formal ecclesial unity with a group of Reformed Mexicans. The very real spiritual unity would not overcome the very real cultural differences. This reality is not to diminish the reality that each people are indeed Christian through and through. It is merely to recognize that cultures and peoples differ enough to make the kind of difference that would not allow formal ecclesial unity.

V.) “It is time to recognize that the theonomists were right about the direction of Reformed political theology as it manifested itself in the late 20th century up to today.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 270

Damn straight we were right and we continue to be right about the futility of Dr. Wolfe’s natural law project.

Here is one of my conclusion on Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Wolfe, as a Natural Law theorist, is giving a rejoinder to the Natural Law theorists who are R2K. This discussion is a in house discussion between those who champion Natural Law.
Presuppositionalists will be dissatisfied with both parties, though as it pertains to the contest between Wolfe’s theories and R2K’s theories we are clearly praying that Wolfe wins out.

McAtee Interacts with Jon Harris (Friend) & Owen Strachan (Foe) On Kinism

I.) “Andrew (Torba) I pray you understand the true biblical gospel, which has nothing to do with your kinist message of ethnic preservation and propagation. I say this in love: you are promoting a false gospel.”

Dr. Rev. Owen Strachan

Baptist Idiot (Tautology alert)

1.) There is a category confusion here that has gained a wide-spread footing and that is to reduce Christianity to “the gospel.” The gospel is at the heart of Biblical Christianity inasmuch as it answers the question, “How shall I be saved.” However it is Biblical Christianity as a whole that provides the answer to another question that arises for those who have been united to Christ and so redeemed by the Gospel and that question that Biblical Christianity answers is “How shall we then live.”

I add this because it is true, in a sense, that the Gospel, narrowly considered, doesn’t have anything to do with ethnic preservation and propagation unless, of course, one observes that the Gospel can’t be preached to white people who have experienced genocide.  Further, because this is true it is quite possible for someone who follows the model of Biblical Christianity in preserving and propagating their people to still advocate for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, as is customary for these blithering idiots (with apologies to all blithering idiots for suggesting that y’all are as bad as these people), they are confusing categories.

2.) Still, to take this as Strachan obviously intends it, we would counter with the observation that it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that one ignores the ongoing attempted genocide of your people because of Strachan’s version of LUV.  It would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant that we LUV our children enough to turn a blind eye to their being replaced. it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that we LUV God enough to ignore the 6th commandment. Strachan would have us believe that the true gospel once embraced is a ethnocide pact.

3.) Moanin’ Owen is fundamentally opposed to the Gospel in its broadest sense. You see, Jesus told the disciples to baptize and disciple the nations (not merely individuals), which cannot happen if those nations cease to exist. The true Gospel is about the reconciliation of the nations to God, not deeming the existence and health of nations as irrelevant, such as Strychnine Strachan would have it.

II.) “Real talk: You go against inter-ethnic marriage, you go against God.”

Rev. Dr. Owen Strychnine Strachan

Pssst…. someone tell Moanin’ Owen that Ezra (ch. 9) and Nehemiah (13) are two books in the Bible and he might want to consult before tweeting such abject stupidity.

III.)“So, if someone is going to use what I just said to try to say I am a Kinist or something they just have no clue what they are talking about.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter
The Shadow that Follow Liberalism

55:00 mark

 

I have a real problem here with this. Jon is communicating here as if there is something wrong with being called a Kinist. Jon is acting as if it would be the worst thing in the world to be (gasp) a “Kinist. This mindset keeps Kinists behind the 8 ball in the minds of the people he is influencing.

Now, if Jon doesn’t think that there is any problem with Kinism then he wouldn’t care about being called a “Kinist.” But Jon is afraid of being called a Kinist and he wants people to not dare call him a Kinist. This suggest that somehow being a Kinist is out of bounds for Jon and that is to give in to the idiots out there who are shrieking about the presence of Kinists in the Church.

The funny thing is, is that from what I hear Jon saying in this podcast (“The Shadow that follows Liberalism”)  it moves me to conclude that the man is indeed what is called a weak “weak Kinist.” When people name Jon Harris as a Kinist they are exactly correct even if Jon is repulsed.

Bottom line? I don’t think Jon has any idea what Kinism is except as he has heard it described from its enemies.

IV.) “Know, that culture is linked to lineage, at least on a mass scale.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter

The Shadow That Follows Liberalism — 102:15

The problem here is that one can NOT get to a mass scale apart from individuals of a particular lineage maintaining their particular lineage by not marrying inter-racially.

IMO, Jon, desires to say that “Kinists like” convictions are right on a mass scale but wrong on a micro scale and this does not follow. One can not get to the mass apart from the micro.

And I note this as one who understands that advocacy for legal definitions of purity of lineage are stupid and counter-productive. I say this as someone who understands that inter-racial marriages are going to happen. However, inter-racial marriages should be discouraged if we want to keep a Anglo-Protestant culture as Jon says he desires. Inter-racial marriage may not be sin, but it is normatively unwise.

On the whole I consider Jon to be friend to the cause to crush WOKE, but I think the man is still simmering and has not yet come to full boil. Time will tell.