Category: Ethnic considerations

McAtee Interacts with Old Toby & His “Having No Legs” Blog — Part II

“… What it sounds like you’re saying is that since the color of your skin is from God, you must preserve it. But would you say the same about the color of your hair? The shape of your nose or ears? The color of your eyes? And I suppose the come-back would be, well, what if they were trying to exterminate your color of eyes or color of hair? But that’s where I refer you back to my previous point: despite some generalizations along those lines, it turns out that isn’t really what they are trying to exterminate. What they are really trying to exterminate is Christianity, and in America, a whole bunch of Christians have had lighter color skin. But there’s nothing inherently white about Christianity, as is likely to continue becoming obvious in the coming decades.”

Old Toby Sumpter
Having No Legs Blog

1.) This repeats the Gnostic error that race is only about the melanin level that a person has, as if race isn’t about every aspect of a person. It is a ignorant statement.

2.) Yes, we get that ultimately the Cultural Marxist crowd are not going after whites but rather are trying to roll Jesus Christ off his throne. Still, Old Tobe we have to ask, “why would they go after white people as proxies for going after Jesus Christ and His dominion?” And the answer to that is that the Cultural Marxist crowd understands something that you are absolutely clueless about (and it is cluelessness that finds you fighting on their side for all practical purposes) and that something is the fact that white people have been, by God’s providence and grace alone, the civilizational carriers of Christianity. Get rid of white people and the goal of rolling Jesus Christ off the throne is now merely a mopping up exercise.

So, to be sure, there is “inherently white about Christianity,” but there is something providentially white about Christianity and the Cultural Marxist gets that while you are busy making “No Duh”  arguments.

3.) The way you are arguing reminds me of a hypothetical situation in the frontier West. The Indians are galloping around a fort that is about to fall. However, in that band of Indians there are also a couple of white Braves who were captured in their youth and are now part of the Indian tribe about to scalp and rape the inhabitants of the Fort. People in the fort are lamenting and crying about the fact that the Indians are about to savage them. But not to fear… Captain Old Tobe is going around correcting those on the cusp of dying, “Hey, you shouldn’t be talking about those Indians out there because I saw a few white Braves out there also.”

Old Tobe Sumpter writes,

“But I’m also grateful for King Alfred and John Knox and George Washington. But the amount of pigment in their skin, the color of our hair, and shape of our noses had nothing to do with that heritage.”

Bret responds,

More Gnosticism. More reducing whom God has made us racially/ethnically to being about merely physical features as if race/ethnicity is dis-connected with the reality of who we are. Understand that Old Tobe here is arguing that genetics has nothing to do with our heritage. Understand also that the genetics that all of us have, regardless of our race/ethnicity is about God’s favor and providence. And while genetics can never save us, it doesn’t therefore mean that genetics have nothing to do with our heritage. If Old Tobe denies this he is denying that whole idea of “Christian families,” and covenant theology. Grace does tend to run in familiar lines and while that grace is not connected to regeneration it is connected to being baptized into the family of God.


McAtee Interacts with Old Toby & His “Having No Legs” Blog — Part I

What they (CRT) are really trying to exterminate is Christianity, and in America, a whole bunch of Christians have had lighter color skin. But there’s nothing inherently white about Christianity, as is likely to continue becoming obvious in the coming decades.

Rev. Old Toby Sumpter
Having No Legs BlogBret responds,

While it is true that there is nothing inherently white about Christianity to say what Old Toby says above is to reveal a tone-deafness on how God, by His grace and providence alone, has chosen to use White people to be the civilizational carrier of Christianity, generally speaking.

Old Toby writes,

“One friend replied in defense of Torba arguing that no one is arguing that ethnicities are totally fixed or hermetically sealed. But as I said in my reply, a whole bunch of his followers aren’t getting the memo.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

Implicitly this is the charge that many of the followers of Torba and Christian Nationalism are Nazis. Old Toby is saying here that many followers of Torba are hankering for the rise of the super Aryan race again.

And while there may be a miniscule number out there like that I call piffle on Old Toby’s putative point. Old Toby needs this point in order to justify his rabid opposition to Christian Nationalism and the necessity of preserving our ethnic boundaries and so Old Toby makes a mural out of this accusation that many of Torba’s followers secret Himmler fans.

Here’s a memo for Old Toby and his CREC comrades. How about finding some hard evidence that Torba’s fan base are strewn with Nazis before you begin insinuating that is the case?

“And my basic objection is that to allow “whiteness” and “Christian West” to be reduced to the same thing is to allow the categories of critical race theory to win.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

More utter tripe from Old Toby.

Do we need to remind Old Toby again that things can be generally true without being universally true? Do we have to, every time we talk about something say, “this is generally true” so that people like Old Toby won’t hear as saying “this is universally true.”

It is simply the case that it is generally true, exceptions notwithstanding (are you satisfied Tobe) that “whiteness” and the “Christian West” can be reduced to the same thing. Furthermore, acknowledging that reality does not, despite your lamebrained accusation, mean that the categories of Critical Race theory have won. It merely means that the categories of the white Christian West have won.

I’m telling you folks, the clergy corps of the CREC is not our friend in the battle royale to save the West and to save the people who made the West the West. With chaps like Wilson, Foster, Brito, Sumpter, and Hemmke it is clear that the CREC clergy is on the side of the devil in all this. They should be manfully resisted.

Old Toby writes,

“For example, Larry Elder is the new black face of “white supremacy,” according to the LA Times, and Rep. Ayanna Pressley isn’t interested in any “brown faces” that don’t want to be “brown voices.” Related would be the Supreme Court decision striking down at least some Affirmative Action legislation this last summer, and the full court conservative press against DEI policies in corporate America.”

Old Toby Sumpter

Having No Legs Blog

Bret responds,

So, when we look at the demographic voting patterns for Democratic candidates we see that the black vote is somewhere in the 90 plus percentile. So obviously there is a small minority of blacks, like Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Candace Owen, @Keon Garraway, etc. of whom we can say, “see it is not universally the case that whites are alone in this struggle against Cultural Marxism in the West.” So raise a Bronx cheer for Old Toby who has gone all Captain Obvious on us here. But again, none of these example disprove what is generally true and that is as it pertains to the West Christianity and white people while not exact synonyms are more involved than even kissing cousins.

And Old Tobey and the CREC knows this.

Old Tobey writes,

I would also like to point out that a majority of our anti-white elites are, well, whiter than leprous wonder bread. For all of their talk of deferring and empowering and uplifting “people of color”, the leprous whites are still in office, still in power. It’s more complicated than just skin color and ethnicity, and it’s foolish to merely accept some of their superficial claims.

Bret responds,

1.) Since this country is still somewhere around 67% white this observation is not shocking.

2.) Still, it would interesting to look at all these whites Old Tobe is telling us are “whiter than wonder bread” and ask, “how many of these wonder bread whites belong to the 2% of our population who like to pass off as wonder bread white people? I bet that number would shock old Toby.

3.) Still, I’m glad to agree that we have many Judas-goats among us. More than a few of them are in the CREC arguing the way Old Toby is arguing here.

Doctor Strange and the Multicult of Madness Part I

Over here;

Mid-America Seminary sponsors a podcast having as a guest Dr. Alan Strange. Dr. Strange had decided to do a four part series of the subject of Christian Nationalism.

Now, as it is my conviction that Reformed Clergy have an absolutely tin ear when it comes to this subject (and a host of others) I thought I might give this a listen, doubting from the outset that this podcast was going to encourage me much.

I was right. All I got from Dr. Strange’s podcast was discouragement combined with a list of books, many of which I’ve already read.

Generally speaking, Strange’s main problem is that he keeps talking about “secular” culture as if such a thing existed. Strange even categorizes “secular culture” as being more benign vs. more vicious. Strange doesn’t seem to realize that the more benign version of “secular” culture is just Stephen King’s Kujo as a cute little puppy before he grows up and becomes all vicious. All benign “secular” culture is, is the vicious version just getting its legs under it.

Strange, like so many Reformed clergy does not seem to realize that there is no such thing as “secular” culture. He does not seem to realize that when it comes to culture there is no neutrality. Either a culture reflects Christ and therefore is Christian or it does not reflect Christ and therefore is “secular.” And it really isn’t “secular” since all culture is driven by its theological convictions. Culture is the outward manifestation of a set peoples inward beliefs. The point here is that “benign secular culture,” is never benign but is always being driven by a “I Hate Christ and love some other God” motif.

Dr. Strange begins the podcast by saying;

“My overall assessment — well let me just say this — I’d say it (Christian Nationalism) is a wrong-headed response to many of the cultural currents.”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid-America Podcast

So, I take it if Christian Nationalism is a wrong-headed response to many cultural currents that anti-Christian anti-Nationalism would be the right response to many cultural currents? I mean, where else are we as Christians to go when it comes to this issue except to Christian Nationalism? Does Strange prefer Christian Internationalism (i.e. — “Christian” Communism)? Does Strange prefer America as “Christian” Empire? It is just nuts that we have so many denouncing Christian Nationalism while not giving us a Biblical alternative.

Dr. Strange goes on to offer;

“We live in a particularly polarized and politicized atmosphere and I don’t think that we want as Christians simply to add to that by embracing this title (of Christian Nationalism).”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid- America Seminary
Podcast on Christian Nationalism

1.) Look, its hard not to call this cowardice. Why shouldn’t Christians want to add to this polarized and politicizes atmosphere? These people in this culture are coming after us with sharpened knives and Strange’s advice is to not become polarized or politicized? That is damn strange advice if you ask me.

2.) Notice how Strange is scared of the sobriquet “Christian Nationalist.” The phrase has now, by the work of our enemies, become so polarizing that Strange concludes that we must never embrace it. This is the old game of the Marxists that I myself have run into. I’ve been told countless times, “You shouldn’t embrace the term ‘Kinist’ Bret since there are so many bad connotations.” Now, we are being told that the alternate term that people have landed upon, “Christian Nationalist” is also a terms we should flee. This is just stupid. The enemy, whose expertise is polarizing will steal any term or phrase we might like and poison the well. And the laughable thing is, is that it is then our folks who come along and say that because of the enemy’s work of polarizing our language therefore we should give up our language.

As I said… this is both stupid and cowardly.

When are we going to stand and fight?

Oh, I forgot, per people like Strange (and their name is LEGION) it is not Christian to either fight or even be polarizing.

This is so pathetic.

And it is made all the more so by many of the people that Strange recommends that people should be reading?

Kidd?
Mattson?
De Young?

Gag me with a crozier.

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.