Category: Ethnic considerations

From the Mailbag; Zielinski & McAtee Chit Chat On the Jewish Question

Dear Bret;

Does it occur to you that maybe the reason the Jews are so hostile to Christian nationalism (and so supportive of things you hate like religious pluralism, equality, and globalism) is that many centuries of Christian nationalism gave them pogroms, expulsions, inquisitions, and the Holocaust? Maybe if, instead of Jews, Christians had been on the receiving end of that, you might see the wisdom in tolerance and pluralism too?

If you’re going to persecute people, they’re going to fight back, so in that sense Christian nationalism is simply reaping what it sowed.

Kathleen Zelinski

Hello Kathleen Zelinski.

Yes, it occurred to me, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to answer my own questions. After it occurred to mee that the Jewish people might have a reason for being the way they are I went and did my research and realized that it was really the case that the reason Christians are so hostile to Jewish people is that for many centuries the Jewish impulse and goal as been to destroy Christianity. The things you claim about above either were defensive measures on the part of Christians, or as myths that Jewish people have made up to smear Christianity.

This clip demonstrates the view of many of the Jewish people (practicing or not) against Christ and Christianity, and provides insight into the intellectuals among the especially the “secular” Jewish people;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCBmJV5VSI8

Lets look to your litany of things you think I should look into. First, the whole myth about the Inquisition is ably dismissed by Rodney Stark in his book, “Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History.” As another example when we look at the Holocaust numbers and methods we see that they themselves are largely debatable. See the literature that came out of the Ernst Zundel trial in Canada. Even Auschwitz in 1992 reduced by 2million the number of people who died there from the original accounts that stood for 45 years before they were changed. The Jewish Bolsheviks in the USSR easily killed as many Christian Ukrainians in the Holodomor as died at Aushwitz. Sorry, Kathleen, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of history and I’ve read the literature that substantiates my convictions.

You might find these books helpful:

Bible —  Keep an eye on all the persecutions of Christians by Jews in the book of Acts
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit — E. Michael Jones
The Holocaust Narrative — E. Michael Jones
Bearing False Witness — Rodney Stark (Stark also has a chapter where he discusses the myth that Pope Pius was against German Jewish people)
The Jewish Threat — Joseph Bendersky
The Plot Against the Church — Maurice Pinay
Ron Unz (Himself Jewish) writes a lot of great stuff on this issue. See His “Understanding World War II: Essays on the Shaping Event of Our Modern World”

On the issue of so many many expulsions from European nations (Ulysses S. Grant even expelled them from the US South during the Civil War for awhile because they were being such a menace) have you ever asked yourself “what did the Jewish people do wherein they found themselves expelled over and over and over again from Christian Nations?” I mean is it even possible that they brought it upon themselves by their behavior?

Finally, in terms of pluralism… well, pluralism is a myth. As we are seeing pluralism is just a backdoor method to dilute Christian influence so that Jewish influence can be inordinately high.

Here is what the Presbyterian minister Dr. D. James Kennedy said about tolerance;

“Tolerance is the last ‘virtue’ of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last ‘virtue’ that they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality.” 

I have many more book recommendations I could offer if you are interested. I have read a good deal on this subject because I wanted to cover all bases on such an important subject. I just didn’t want to overwhelm you by giving too many recommendations at once. I have read tons of the literature written by Jewish authors surrounding the Holocaust also. Indeed, I have a nice little library. I also took a whole semester class in Undergrad (circa 1981) on “The Holocaust,” where we were taught all the usual tropes, read all the pro-Jewish books, and viewed all the propaganda film that came out of that time period. I merely believe that one has to look at this issue with a wide angle lens considering centuries of history and not merely 12 or so years in Germany — as horrendous as those years may have been.

Thanks for stopping by at Iron Ink Kathleen. We try to give air time to all kinds of opinions here. I trust that your hope for eternity is rooted deeply and only in Jesus Christ — Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

The Theology Behind, “Race is Not Real.” A Primer

It seems a point that should be made against this notion that recognizing that race is real is “racist” should be made. The modern refusal to recognize race strikes the close observer as a kind of perverted spiritualism. This denunciation of “race is real” looks to be an incipient embrace of Manicheanism/Gnosticism where the material and the corporeal are denied reality. So far as I can understand it, the claim that race is not real involves the notion that since realities are at their bottom all spiritual, therefore all embracing of the reality of race is seen as some kind of serious and even heretical departure from this new modern Manichean interpretation of Christianity. This argument, then, rests on the ideal of the godlessness of all the corporeal categories of mankind that God specifically created. Indeed, given its head, the natural consequence over time of this argument that “race is not real or important” as put forward by people like Sandlin, Wilson, Strachan, James White, J. Ligon Duncan, Baucham, etc. seems inevitably to be that one day high profiled Reformed Clergy will not be able to answer the question; “What is a woman?” I mean, if “race is not real or important,” and/or if “race is only a social construct,” or if “race is only about melanin levels,” then how far is that from “gender is not real of important,” and/or “gender is only a social construct,” or “gender is only about different chromosomes.” Those who contend that race is not real can only be seen as a seeking of spirituality purely in abstraction from the corporeal. This is a reversed denial of the incarnation and the physical resurrection. Whereas the early heretics just came out and denied the corporeal in Jesus birth and resurrection, thus bollixing up the implications for the corporeal in the life of men, our latter day heretics are moving in the opposite direction effectively denying the corporeal in the life of man (“race is not real”) and over time that will work its way backwards to effectively denying gender realities and so one day eventually denying the corporeal in the birth and resurrection of Jesus. All of this is logically destructive of the Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Body.

In brief the denial of race as a biological reality is heresy of Docetism where Jesus only appeared to be a man, as seen in its early stages.

Ideas have consequences.

“Reformed” “Clergy” and their descent into Idiocy on the Reality of Biology

Below are a series of quotations from “Reformed” “pastors” and “theologians” on the subject of “race.” Shenvi, Wilson, White , MacArthur, Strachan, etc. should not be listened to for one second because they share the same fundamental premise as do those touting Critical Race Theory. Indeed, these chaps only complaint is that they don’t like their CRT being 100 proof. They embrace the primary premise of the WOKE crowd, and that is that race is a social construct with no rootedness in biological reality.

As I’ve said before try to keep in mind how mind numbingly stupid this position is. I know this because when someone who is mixed race comes in for a bone marrow transplant, the Doctors don’t say, “Hey, no problem. Race is a social construct and as such we’ll grab one of our Korean Janitors to give you some bone marrow.” No, when someone needs a bone marrow transplant suddenly race is seen to be as real as it never ceases to be and the poor kid who is mixed race is likely up crap creek in terms of finding a donor.

Denying the biological reality of race is just stupid and the preachers quoted below who embrace this stupidity should be marked out to be avoided. I would even go further and say anybody who makes league with these idiots and recommends them as a good source of truth likewise should be marked out as “there be dragons here.”

It is, of course, true that all people belong to the human race (Acts 17:25). However within the one human race, varying “races” exist — each fully human, each Image Bearers of God, but each a distinct expression of the one human race. Together they communicate the idea of the “One and the Many” triune character of God. Taking one additional step, within these broad racial groups (think in terms of large extended families) there exist different ethnic groups, tribes, and families.

Here is how a Roman Catholic explains this idea based on the teaching of his church:

“Consequently at the same time as acknowledging the diversity and singularity of races, the Church rejects, equally with the racist assertions of radical racial superiority and inferiority, the tendency towards a depreciation and leveling of races found at the opposite extreme. It does this in the confidence that Christianity, grounded in reality and truth, is able to harmonize the affirmation of the radical unity of mankind with the recognition of racial diversity…There can therefore be no better way of combatting racism and racial discrimination, than by a sane and realistic acknowledgement of the facts of race and of historical and cultural inequalities” 

Bonaventure Hinwood
Race; Reflections of a Theologian, p. 103

This is all quite conventional and was obvious to everyone with a pair of eyes until roughly three weeks ago. Whatever Doug Wilson and his dimmer acolytes may say… whatever some idiot Seminary professor says … whatever your idiot Pastor says …. holding such views does not constitute heresy and if it does constitute heresy then every Reformed Pastor before appx. 1960 were heretics. Indeed if saying that “race is a real biological category” is heresy then there has been no true Church until we’ve been hoodwinked into believing that race is not real.

And for the quotes that demonstrate that the modern “conservative” Reformed clergy are drinking deeply from the WOKE well.

Save your lives and the lives of your children. RUN from these false shepherds.

“There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history.” 

Doug Wilson

“I use ‘ethnicity’ because, as we shall see, ‘race’ is not actually a positive biblical reality, but a construct. On this point, ironically, I agree with CRT advocates, much as many of them state that race is a social construct, but then practically operate in many senses as if it is real.”

Owen Strachan

“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”~~James White
“”Race’ is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”

Dallas Statement on Social Justice

“One of the sad realities of antiracism is that it is 100 percent correct about race being a construct.”

Voddie Baucham

Inspired by a friend’s post elsewhere. I added a few Carolina Reaper peppers and contributed a few observations of my own.

Rushdoony & McAtee On One of Satan’s Oldest Tricks

“On the other side of the Euphrates were the two great enemies of the people of God, Assyria and Babylon. Now Assyria and Babylon were the two great powers that applied very literally and forcefully the dream of a one world empire without God. They moved populations, scattered them throughout the empire, in order to destroy linguistic differences and produce one language, to destroy national and racial differences, and produce one people.

This same dream was carried on with considerably more ability by Babylon….

The world is continually, constantly trying to destroy the boundary between Gods people and itself. Between the church and the world, between the kingdom of God and the world, by compromise, concession and invasion, it seeks to reduce the kingdom of God and make it captive to the kingdom of man, and then to obliterate it.”
RJR
Pocket College Lecture
The Plagues of Babylon
From Babel, to Babylon and Assyria, to Stalin’s great movement of peoples to our own “Virginia vs. Loving” to our contemporary culture that seeks to force all colors to bleed into one, pagan man has sought to erase racial, linguistic, and national differences so that Lucifer’s New World Order arises.

This is why Kinism is the issue of the day and should Kinists lose this battle Christianity will go back to the catacombs and the earth will be covered with dark chaos and old night. This is why the Kinists, few though our numbers be, are the one hope for ongoing resistance to the push both within the church coming from people like Sandlin, Wilson, Strachan, J. Ligon Duncan, etc. and outside of the church from nearly everybody. Kinists are the alone champions of Biblical Christianity and if and when Kinism has no champions then the Church is back to the Babylonian captivity where it was before the Reformation of the 16th century.

What my prayer is for 2024 is that the Kinists sharpen their arguments so that they cut even more deeply against the Alienists. My prayer is that more and more follow me as I follow Christ, and so become what our Fathers were for centuries before us.

Kinism… no hope without it.

Dr. Joe Boot Joins The Stupid Brigade … McAtee Defends Wolfe

The confusion on the relationship between man as both a spiritual being and a corporeal being continues to flex its muscle among those reputed to be pillars in the Church. If this confusion were a disease the fatalities among the inhabitants of the Evangelical/Reformed/Lutheran Church would be so catastrophic that people would be thinking the church would never recover from this pandemic.

The most recent example of someone showing all the symptoms of diapslama-ia is Dr Joe Boot. I find this most disappointing since I’ve profited by the writings and speaking of Boot. I’ve read many of the man’s works and though I’ve had a quibble here or there, (like being too influenced by the Amsterdam philosophy school) on the whole I have recommended his writings.

Now I will have to explain to people, to whom I recommending reading Boot, that he is not trustworthy on the issue of the man as a dichotomous being.

Before we get to the Boot quote, allow me to interject that I am no apologist for Dr. Stephen Wolfe. I offer that because the Boot quote comes as lodging a complaint against Wolfe. My problem with Wolfe is his reliance on Natural Law theory. However, this complaint by Boot as little to do with that aspect of Wolfe’s thinking.

So, here is the monstrously stupid quote from Dr. Joe Boot;
 

“Wolfe seems oblivious to the fact that, had his course of making a given country the absolute cultural possession of its people – simultaneously absolutizing a ‘natural right’ of ethnic and cultural particularity – been taken seriously by missionaries to the Anglo-Saxon world, none of us would be Christians today, but would still be drinking the blood of the dead! Nor would William Carey, the remarkable British missionary to India, have worked against his host culture to abolish the heinous custom of Sati (burning the living wife on the funeral pyre of her dead husband). In his enthusiasm to preserve the remnants of the Anglo-European Christian culture of America, Wolfe fails to grasp its religious, not ethnic root (incredible in itself, since America is a new nation of immigrants) and cuts a re-paganizing America off from the possibility of godly transformation by incoming Christian missionaries from around the world calling the nation to repentance.”

Joseph Boot
“Christianity Versus Racism”

1.) Boot’s accusation here, boiled down to its essence, is that Wolfe is a ethno-cultural particularist to such a degree that Wolfe is saying that if we really took seriously the necessity of every people to have its own cultural particularity then we would not take up the Great Commission in order to herald Christ to heathen anti-Christ cultures for fear of changing their cultural particularity.

The problems with that assertion by Boot against Wolfe are;

A.) Nowhere, have I read Wolfe propose any such nonsense.

B.) The accusation that Wolfe would not be interested in Missions endeavors in no way follows the idea that Wolfe favors cultural particularity for people of a particular country,  who are the absolute possessors of its culture. It does not follow because when the Gospel works to redeem Christ-haters from their empty way of life as handed down to them from their ancestors it does not mean they lose their cultural particularity. What redeemed cultures lose, is the sinfulness that characterized their culture. Boot seems to forget that grace restores nature and the nature that grace restores is what makes for the particularity of any given people. Now, to be sure, there will be changes in those cultures but those changes that come from being redeemed will not eliminate the particularity of any given people. Wolfe can hold to cultural particularity of any given people and still believe in the necessity of the Great Commission, knowing that a redeemed people and so culture will still be unique vis-a-vis other redeemed people’s and cultures.

2.) Basically, Joe Boot is arguing that to believe ethno-cultural preservation and separation precludes receiving the Gospel and repenting as corporate national salvation would require giving up the sinful expressions of an ethnicity’s identity. Boot is saying that Wolfe so favors nature that Wolfe’s position requires the refusal of grace to restore nature.

So, this accusation despite 2000 years of Church history that teaches that the Gospel changes people, peoples, and cultures while still leaving them a particularly ethnic people. Does Boot think that if different people groups become Christian therefore all cultures lose their particularity and so are going to be the same across the board?

As my British friend Henry Plantagenet said in a conversation concerning this monstrously stupid Boot quote;

“It’s as insane as saying that if we believe gender is fundamental to being human that we are precluding the Gospel from redeeming men and women because to do so would change the particularity of their gendered expression.”

3.) Joe Boot’s presupposition here is that to believe that blood relations have inherent and defining characteristics upon the nature of man, as Wolfe and all sane people do, is to reject the spiritual power of the Gospel. Boot is accusing Wolfe of absolutizing the corporeal side of man so that it would be impossible to own spiritual impact. As such, Boot is accusing Wolfe of being a materialist in this accusation, which I find interesting because it is the kind of accusation one might expect to find a Gnostic make against someone who claims that man’s material (genetic) side is really real. Is Boot laced with Gnosticism?

4.) Boot’s accusation that Wolfe prioritizes a people’s ethnic over religious root is insane. Indeed, some of us have been saying that Wolfe prioritizes man’s religious root over his ethnic roots. Wolfe has gone out of his way to insist that his theory of “Nationalism” does not absolutize, nor even necessarily prioritize ethnicity/race.

5.) We need to realize here that culture is merely the outward manifestation of a people groups belief. Culture is theology poured over ethnicity as existing in a particular place. Given that definition of culture (theology made manifest) when Boot accuses of Wolfe of what Boot accuses him of, Boot is saying that Wolfe is not interested in seeing a people’s theology changed to be Christ honoring. This is a serious accusation to make against a fellow Christian. Does Boot really believe that Wolfe desires for the unconverted to remain unconverted?

6.) Boot raises the old canard, that just isn’t true, that America was a nation of immigrants as if it never had a ethno-racial base, but was solely founded on ideas (propositional nationhood). I have demonstrated so often here, with quotes from the founding fathers, that the founders would have said that Joe Boot was full of fertilizer when he insists that we are a nation which has not ethno-racial base. If anyone happens to be reading this and wants me to reproduce the quotes once again, I’ll be happy to do that.

Let’s here from Henry Plantagenet again;

“I don’t get why everyone today fails to recognize that the redemptive order is simply the original Creation order cleansed from the power of sin.”

So, unless Boot repents, count him as just another platformed Reformed scholar who is stupid when it comes to the issue of basic Christian anthropology.