Category: Uncategorized

McAtee Contra Littlejohn on Nationalism

“Nationalism can also err by defining the boundaries of the nation too narrowly—identifying a part of the nation with “the true nation,” and ostracizing the rest. This is one possible error of Christian nationalists if they allow themselves to think their unbelieving neighbors are not really fellow Americans; it is also the error of “white nationalism,” which conflates national identity with race. National identities may involve race and religion—and indeed many nations have historically been quite racially or religiously homogenous—but American national identity is necessarily looser and more varied.”

Brad Littlejohn

1.) Dr. Littlejohn needs to keep in mind the etymological definition of the word from whence “Nation” comes. That word is “natal.” Per the 1828 Webster dictionary “Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.” So contra the esteemed Dr. Littlejohn nations cannot be nations unless they are both racially and religiously homogenous. The lack of such homogeneity presages conflict and friction in the geographic area mistakenly being called a “nation.” So, Dr. Littlejohn is simply in error here.

2.) As to “unbelieving neighbors,” I would still consider them Americans though their embrace of different faith will work to the end of their ostracizing themselves from the larger community just as I am now ostracized from America because I do not embrace humanism which is the current religion of America. I am a historic American by race but not a current American because of religion.

3.) Dr. Littlejohn says that “National identities may involve race and religion.” This implies that National identities may not involve race and religion which is just utter nonsense. A nation that does not share a common race (it may be the common race of no race or all races such as is the modern multicult America currently) and a common religion (it may be the common religions of no and all religions as is the modern multicult America now) cannot possibly be a nation.

4.) Dr. Littlejohn ends by saying; “American national identity is necessarily looser and more varied.” First, I would say that historically this just is not true. America was made for the descendants of Europe which is explicitly stated in the US Constitution when the White Christian European founders inked;

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and OUR posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …

POSTER’ITY, noun [Latin posteritas, from posterus, from post, after.]

A. Descendants; children, children’s children, etc. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from a progenitor. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Keep in mind that whether in the Continental Congress who inked the Constitution nor in the State Conventions that ratified the Constitution could you find anyone except White Europeans — and most of those were Christian.

The fact that we were not organized as “loosely and more varied,” as Littlejohn has it is seen in the writings of more than one founder. Here is John Jay;

“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.” –

John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Then there is The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) which provided the first rules to be followed by the United States government in granting national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

So, whatever may be the case now, historically Littlejohn is in gross error to say that Americans have a National Identity that is necessarily looser and more varied.

Next, I would say that current America is NOT looser and more varied in terms of National Identity. In order to be a current American, you have to own a National Identity that finds unity in the fact that America now will always be a mutt nation with mutt religion. To insists that America should not be mutt in race or religion makes one effectively non-American. I see little of Littlejohn’s “looser and more varied,” in American identity today.

Thinking About Becoming Muslim

 “It’s our belief that one day mujahideen will have victory, and Islamic law will come not to just Afghanistan, but all over the world. We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day.”

Taliban commander to CNN Reporter

(The gospel age) “will finally result in the complete destruction of the church as a mighty and influential organization for the spread of the Gospel. For, finally every tribe and people and tongue and nation will worship antichristian government.”

William Hendricksen
More Than Conquerors p. 178

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world… Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

Of course, I am kidding about thinking about becoming Muslim. The point I am obviously making is that Islam has the advantage of not holding to a pussified religion such as we often see among putatively Reformed clergy. (Their name is legion.)  The Reformed faith, characterized as it is by the militant amillennialism of R2K glories in defeat.

Keep also in mind that in order for R2K to work as a social order religion that allows people from all different faiths to live in a common realm that is unaffected by religion what is required is all other religions to have their own version of R2K. Read that Taliban quote again. Does it sound like Islam is ever going to put up with a common square?

Modern Reformed Christianity is the religion of a sick and dying people.

 

Khilanani & Rubin and their Response to White Decline

In the past couple of days, the news has come out from the recent 2020 census that the actual number of White in America (as opposed to the ratio of Whites) has dropped for the first time ever since America started keeping census records in 1790. The total decline was by about 2.6%.

At this news, the Washington Post’s Jennifer “I’m ‘White’ but not Anglo” Rubin tweeted giddily that;

“A more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. Now we need to prevent minority White rule.”

Imagine if this reality was all slightly altered and at the news of the decline of Jewish influence in America a modern-day Bull Conner had tweeted;

“A more diverse, more inclusive leadership. This is fabulous news. Now we need to prevent the 3% of the Jewish population from continuing to rule here in America.”

Can you imagine the outrage such a tweet would have driven? Why the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum would have put out press releases that a new holocaust was underway.

And yet it is perfectly acceptable for Jennifer Rubin to get all orgasmic over the decline of white people in the land that white people built.

That this kind of talk is perfectly acceptable in America is being seen in all kinds of forums. Consider the forum that the prestigious Yale University provided in April of 2021 for their University denizens. Yale hosted a Zoom talk titled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” by Dr. Aruna Khilanani. In this little homespun talk Dr. Khilanani said;

“White people make my blood boil.”

And again;

“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a f—ing favor.”

Just imagine some white person being given a platform in order to speak on the subject of the “Psychopathic problem of the non-Caucasian Mind,” and saying, “Non-Caucasian people make my blood boil,” followed by, “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any non-Caucasian person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a f—ing favor.”

Why even my asking you to imagine these roles being reversed has likely found me guilty of some kind of crime that will get me on some kind of SPLC list.

And that is the way all this claptrap is rolling out. If you notice these kinds of realities in the Occultic States of America today and celebrate it you are all good. You can get a spot on CNBC or be asked to speak at one of America’s Ivy League schools.

However, if you notice the very same thing in order to criticize it then you are guilty of being a racist slob. It is not racist for a Khilanani or a Rubin to say these things since they don’t have “power and privilege” but it is in bad taste to strenuously object to them fantasizing about killing white people or getting all orgasmic at the thought of the decline of the White race.

It is all very humorous in a way. Here I am pounding out all this on an obscure blog while Rubin writes for the Washington comPost and Khilanani is some kind of Shrink being asked to speak at Yale and I’m the one who has power and privilege?

Of course, the way this whole thing is being gamed out is that the Christian White man is being driven to his extinction all the while being told he dare not murmur or complain about being put into the cannibal’s pot.

And the wonder of it all is that so many Christian White people seem good with that arrangement.

McAtee Contra R2K DeYoung on Kingdom Anticipations

1.) “This means the kingdom story we are telling is not the story of Christ saving his people so that they might change the world, transform the culture, or reclaim a nation. Instead, the story is of Christ so ruling over the nations of the world that the church might be built up.”

Kevin DeYoung
“Typical Modern Reformed Clergy”

Notice the false dichotomy in what DeYoung is touting here. If it is the case, as DeYoung says, that the story of Christians is that they are united to Christ who is so ruling over the nations that the Church might be built up then how can it NOT be the case that the consequence will be the transformation of culture, reclaiming of nations and changing the world? DeYoung’s eschatological presupposition here is clearly amillennial. DeYoung presupposes that Christ can rule over the nations so that the Church might be built up while at the same time resulting in a Church that will not transform nations.

I find this reasoning to be pathetic.

2.) “To be sure, there is not one square inch in all the universe about which Christ does not cry out, “This is mine!” And yet, Christ does not reign over every square inch in the same way.”

Rev. Kevin DeYoung
The Gospel Coalition
Oh… I see.
So, over some areas Christ says “Mine” but not in such a way that He actually does reign over it. In some of Christ’s “Mine” areas Christ only rules spiritually or ethereally or absently. So, we learn from Kev that Christ can reign in such a way that He really doesn’t reign. You see, only the clergy can make up such leather-headed distinctions.

It is true that often Christ’s reign is not visible but at those points, there are usurpers who have taken up Christ’s scepter in order to deny His reign. Such people must be shown the door by the faithful soldiers of Jesus Christ the King.

Kevin does not anticipate victory and so Kev gives us “logic” that allows for Christ to be the King of Kings who loses in space and time to those who frustrate the great King’s sovereign rule.

3.) (We must) “make sure that we are telling the right story when it comes to the kingdom. In explaining the petition “thy kingdom come,” the Westminster Larger Catechism tells us to “pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world . . .the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances . . .that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever” (Q/A 191). The Catechism gives us a magnificent prayer for the growth, strength, and health of the church.
But that’s not the end of the answer. Here’s the last line of WLC 191: “and that [Christ] would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.” Notice the gospel-centered logic of the Larger Catechism. Christ rules over all things for the good of the church. The kingdom of power is subservient to the kingdom of grace (giving way to the kingdom of glory), not the other way around.”
Kevin DeYoung
Typical Reformed Clergy
There must be something about Reformed clergy and false dichotomies. The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches us that praying thy Kingdom come means to ask that the Kingdom of sin and Satan be destroyed.

Full Stop.

That’s all I need to know to know that transformation of cultures is the consequence of muscular Christianity. If Satan’s kingdom of sin be destroyed the only contender that is left is the Kingdom of Christ expanding over the whole globe and over every area of life. If Satan’s Kingdom of sin is destroyed then that means by necessity that Christ’s Kingdom covers the earth as the water covers the sea. There are no other options.

DeYoung seems to want Satan’s Kingdom to cover all the earth while Christ’s Kingdom is limited to the Church realm. However, if Satan’s Kingdom of sin is a Kingdom that affects family relationships, national cultures, law orders, Educationals Institutions, etc. then the triumph of Christ’s Kingdom over Satan’s Kingdom means those areas will be transformed by the grace of God’s law informing every area of life.
DeYoung is just trying to cover his R2K arse with this bilge. It doesn’t work Kev.

Loose Transcript of Pactum Institute Interview — Science, Presuppositions & Worldviews

Host — Adi Schlebush

The idea of objective science as based on rationalism initially found expression in Descartes, embodied in the 19th century by the likes of Max Weber and Leopold Ranke. The idea is that, through the use of pure reason, one can come to scientifically objective conclusions.

However, this idea was challenged firstly by Reformed philosophers such as Groen van Prinsterer, PJ Hoedemaker, Cornelius van Til, Gordon Clarke, and later by Herman Dooyeweerd in particular. These people pointed out that there were inescapable presuppositions or pre-theoretical commitments required to make any scientific engagement possible.

But significantly this notion of objectivity would also be later challenged by postmodernism, a worldview which in turn emphasizes the intersubjectivity of truth and the fact that none of the sciences can lay a claim to doing completely unbiased and “objective” research so to speak. Whereas postmodernism descends into complete skepticism, however, Christian philosophy emphasizes the dependency of truth upon the presupposition of a Sovereign God and his Revelation. For example, this can be seen even in exact sciences such as mathematics, where there is, among some anti-Christian scholars today, a movement aiming to return to the pagan idea of finitism, that is, not recognizing infinity as a legitimate mathematical category, whereas, of course, as Christians, we know that numbers can be infinite, since God, the Creator of Mathematics, is infinite.

However, criticism against the Enlightenment idea of objective scientific investigation seems to have been suddenly forgotten over the past couple of years, with the rise of the “respect the science”-cult now enforcing covid-19 regulations and vaccine mandates over whole populations in the name of a so-called “scientific consensus”, which in itself is a myth propagated by the media.

And so today we are going to talk a little bit about those pre-theoretical presuppositions when it comes to doing any scientific or scholarly research.

So my first question to you, Bret, is this:

  • Firstly, do you agree with my proposition that all scientists and scholars have certain biases and pre-investigative commitments? And if so, how does this work? Aren’t scientific facts merely self-evident truths equally available to all people regardless of their religion or worldview?

    BLMc responds,

    Yes, I certainly agree that all scientists and scholars have certain inescapable bias and pre-investigative commitments. We might call this philosophical prolegomena. The reality of this in the field of Science was established by Thomas Kuhn in his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” published in 1962. Gordon Clark likewise made this case from a distinctly Christian perspective in his, 1964 book “The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God.” Greg Bahnsen likewise has done work locating the philosophical fault in the supposed “Scientific method.” We should also mention Vern Poythress’s “Science and Hermeneutics.” So, yes, it is just silly to suggest that anybody can do philosophy, science, sociology, history without certain biases. Fallen man has to have pre-investigative commitments precisely because he is a creature. Only God being the creator can be objectively objective.

    This of course means that for the creature there are no self-evident truths. All truths must be God interpreted first and then man must interpret facts via God’s interpretation. This means that without God there are no stable facts. Facts presuppose the existence of a creator God.

    The fact that scientific facts are not merely self-evident truths equally available to all people regardless of their religion or worldview is seen in a host of places but let us start with two scientists with two different religions. One of our Scientists is a Christian who confesses that God made the World all good in six days, resting on the 7th day. Our other Scientist practices the religion of humanism. He does not believe in God instead of believing in evolution and that all has taken place by time plus chance plus circumstance. This is the religion of each. Now each of our scientists is given the same exact fossil and asked to examine it and report back on their conclusions. The first scientist looks at the fossil and concludes that this fossil is consistent with the belief that God made all that is made in 6 days. The second scientist looks at the fossil and starts talking about how the fossil is consistent with the billions and billions of years it took for the earth to form.

    Here we have the same exact fact (the Fossil) and yet the two scientists with two different worldviews and religious commitments serving as their pre-investigative and pre-theoretical commitments (presuppositions) each contribute either to recognizing the fact for what it is or to engaging upon practicing fake science.

    The problem with most science, as I am fond of saying, is that it is not particularly scientific. One’s science is only as good as one’s theology as theology is the driving force behind whatever science is being done. The whole notion that Science is this independent something so that we can all start chanting… “just follow the science” is absolute nonsense if only because what is typically really being said is, “just follow our humanistic theology and the fake science that is rendered up by our humanistic theology.”

    This is particularly true when it comes to the whole “science mantra” that we are living through with our current Deep State virus. The Science that Fauci, Gates, the CDC, the WHO, etc. are pushing is every bit as fake as the fake news that is pushing the narrative of the fake science. We are currently living in a sea of fake reality driven by fake theology.

    Adi Schlebusch 

  • Now that we know that holding certain theological or philosophical presuppositions are inescapable, how would you go about explaining to someone that the Christian worldview is superior to any alternatives?

    BLMc responds,

    I would go about explaining that the Christian worldview is superior to any alternative is the fact that all other alternatives are based upon epistemological authority source that is not derivative of the God of the Bible. Christians live by every word of God while the non-Christian lives by every word of fallen man. When the non-Christian gets something right it is only because they have imported Christian capital into their worldview in order to get it to work. If they were consistent with their own epistemological authority source they would eliminate all the Christian capital they have stolen and so be wrong at every turn.

    The fact that the Christian lives by every word of God and looks to God and His Word for his epistemological authority source does not mean we look to the bible for answers on how to do heart surgery or how to do siesmology. It means that God’s word gives the reality context wherein the ability to do heart surgery or seismology make sense.

    Secondly, I would offer that all worldviews save the Christian worldview are inherently contradictory at some point. Take the Scientific worldview called “Empiricism” and “verificationism” for example.

    The Scientific method teaches that all facts must be empirically observed in order to be scientifically endorsed. The problem here is that the Scientific method’s assertion that all facts must be empirically observed in order to be scientifically endorsed is not a fact that is or can be empirically observed and so the Scientific method as a method for gaining facts must be ruled out of bounds before we start since its major premise is not gained by empirical observation. There we see the contradiction of Empiricism.

    Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement of Science that all things must be Empirically arrived at or can not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world simply reflects the subjective (perhaps meaningless!) bias of the scientist (so-called) who pronounces it. Hence the anti-metaphysician not only has his own preconceived conclusions (presuppositions), but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Rom. 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions, he refutes himself (II Tim. 2:25). As Paul put it about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: ‘They become futile in their speculation (Rom. 1:21)!

    So, to quote Bahnsen here,

    That anti-metaphysical presupposition has certain devastating results. Notice that if all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g., if salt dissolved in water on Wednesday, it will do likewise and not explode on Friday) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections — in which case the whole enterprise of natural science would immediately be undermined.”

    Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    Always Ready — pg. 187-188

    Adi Schlebush,

  • I think a major question on everyone’s mind right now is the prevailing narrative from the scientific establishment. We have a virus, the Covid-19 virus which has spread around the world over the past 18 months. We have been told by the media and by the scientific establishment that firstly full-scale lockdowns and now vaccines are necessary to save lives. However, they have ignored the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin against the virus as well as various studies which have shown that the lockdowns are counter-productive, that is, that they are not preventing people from getting infected and it is also destroying many people’s livelihood, not to mention taking away some of their basic liberties. I know, for example, that there are, despite all the censorship, almost 60 studies published in medical journals proving the efficacy of Ivermectin, for example, and yet, most scientists and the media continue to simply deny this. Why do you think this is, and does it have anything to do with the scientific philosophy or the presuppositions these scientists hold? And would the sanctification of the medical and political sciences help in preventing such deceptive narratives from prevailing in our society?

    BLMc,

    Why do I think this is?

    I think what we are living through now is more a case of “follow the money” as well as “all those who hate Christ love death,” then I think it is about the fault of the Scientific method. In other words, I don’t think there are many Scientists – so-called – out there who believe much of this scat that is being pushed out by the Scientific community. It is my conviction that the problematic philosophies being held are not Empiricism or Verificationism but rather the problematic philosophies we are suffering under right now are competing forms of Marxism, Anarchism, and Nihilism. All that we are experiencing is a consequence of the pursuit of a vision that goes back to the Garden and that is of man rolling God of His throne in favor of some elitist expression of man corporately considered. Science is merely being used for a cover much like the Science of Lamarck and Lysenko was used as a cover for Stalin’s and later Mao’s program of starvation.  We are living during a time of “The Great Reset” and the “Great Reset” will use all levers including Science, (so-called) in order to build a globally centralized New World Order where a few “Party Members” will rule the whole globe. “You will have own nothing and be happy.”

    I guess one might say that it does have something to do with the preusppositions the Scientists hold because if they were converted and Biblical Scientists they would be standing tall and screaming that this Great Reset is Marxist dung.

    Of course if these putative scientists and politicians were converted with the result that these fields were increasingly sanctified we would not be living through this grand-daddy of all Gaslighting endeavors in world history.