Dow & McAtee Take On the Ecclesiastical Regnant Follies

“Below are a series of quotations from Reformed pastors and theologians defining “race”. Note their agreement with the purveyors of Critical Race Theory.
 
 
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” 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’s dimmer acolytes may say–or your pastor–holding such views does not constitute heresy.
 
 
“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
 
Darrell Dow
 
McAtee adds
 
We are living in a bleeping madhouse on this issue in the “conservative” Reformed church as we few sane people left in the Church are suffering under the politics of guilt and pity as it has come into the Church.
 
Should one hold to the historic position on race that the Church has embraced at all times and all places up until 1950 or so one is considered a heretic or a racist. When one produces the quotes from the Church greats who have gone before they are never interacted with. Nobody even pauses when you march Charles Hodge, Geerhardus Vos, J. Gresham Machen, Augustine, Aquinas, Francis Nigel Lee, Morton H. Smith, A. W. Tozer, Dagg, Dabney, Cyprian, etc. etc etc. up to the microphone to give testimony that you are saying the same exact things they said on the subject. Modern clergy seem to be so daft that they can’t realize that races were understood as corporeally real and existing long long before Charles Darwin came along with his foolishness. Nope… none of it matters. If you insist that races exist and should be taken seriously you are considered, by our modern divines as “racist,” “Darwinist,” and  worst of all, clearly a not nice person.
 
It is not as if all this is not monumentally important. Indeed, I would say it is so important that anyone who denies race as existing has forfeited their privilege to be piloting a pulpit. I mean if someone can’t get Christian Anthropology 101 right how are they going to get anything else right? These people don’t seem to realize that error does not exist in a water tight compartment unaffecting all other disciplines of theology.
 
It is a hard time right now to be in the ministry because of this madness. Pray for the Church that God might be pleased to give in Reformation in its head and members.

Responding to Rev. Steve Hemmeke’s Take on His One Hour Reading of “Who is My Neighbor” — Part II

Rev. Steve Hemmeke of the CREC continues,

Now, do we favor them (the Stranger and the Alien) to the impoverishment of our own estate and family or nation? Of course not. American immigration policy is insanely impoverishing us. But Kinism seems to go too far the other way, calling for separation. Ruth should have been sent back to Moab: “let her own kind take care of her.” I believe they would say this, regardless of her assumed spiritual conversion. Even as believers across cultures (it appears to me they assert), we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best.

Bret responds,

1.) Notice that Rev. Steve says that Kinism seems to go to far and that quite without establishing a definition of Kinism. Maybe Kinists do go to far but we will never know without a definition of Kinism that Kinists would agree as being representative of their position.

2.) Here again we find Rev. Steve saying two opposite things at the same time. On one hand we should not favor the stranger and the alien to the impoverishment of our own estate, family, or nation, on the other hand we should favor the stranger and the alien because to not favor them would be the “sin” of calling for separation. Someone tell Rev. Steve that one cannot at one and the same time not favor the stranger and alien by separating from them because of not desiring to bring down our own house (along with them) while favoring the stranger and alien by not separating from them.

3.) Yes, kinists do believe — for the benefit of all distinct peoples, regardless of their race — that races and cultures that are distinct should remain distinct. At one time this belief was common place.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Now, lest some kind of wild accusation be cast here, that Kinists are after “racial purity” let it be said that Kinists understand that no culture is ever going to be unmixed to some degree. For example, America was over 85% white for time immemorial. White persons constituted 88.6 percent of the total population in 1960 and 89.3 percent in 1950. Very few people were going around saying that we had to get rid of the other 11%. Does Rev. Steve think that our Fathers and Grandfathers were sinful for this type of planned separation?

4.) Yes, Kinists do believe that different peoples remain different even if those different peoples are all Christian. This is not to say that any of the differences are superior or inferior. It is just to say that conversion and regeneration don’t wash out the natural differences that exist among peoples — differences that God purposely created us as having. But again, this belief is not somehow new to Christians. Allow me to let Theologian Dr. Francis Nigel Lee speak on this issue. These kind of quotes can be easily multiplied;

“I don’t believe [racial integration] is what the Bible teaches. Even though we may have transgressed the boundaries of nationhood and of peoplehood, it seems to me that God did create man of one blood in order that he may dwell as different nations throughout the world. But after the fall, when sinful man cosmopolitanly – meaning by that, with a desire to obliterate separate nationhood, with a desire to build a sort of United Nations organization under the Tower of Babel…attempted to resist developing peoplehood…[God confused the tongues of men]…because men had said, ‘Let us build a city and a tower which will stretch up to heaven lest we be scattered’… Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.

“In another fourteen years, the future looks bleak for White Christians everywhere. In 1900, Europe possessed two-thirds of the world’s Christians. By 2025, that number will fall below 20% — with most Christians living in the Third World of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Then, nearly 75% of the world’s Catholics will be Non-Western Mestizos or Black Africans. Right now, Nigeria has the world’s largest Catholic Theological School. India has more Christians than most Western nations. And Jesus is more and more being portrayed with a dark skin. By 2050, more than 80% of Catholics in the U.S. will be of Non-Western origins. Only a fraction of Anglicans will be English. Lutherans, Presbyterians and other mainstream denominations will find their chief centres of growth in Africa, Asia and Latin America — often syncretistically absorbing large quantities of Pre-Christian Paganism as revived Voo-dooism and increasing ancestor-worship. This “Christianity” rapidly degenerates into an immigrationistic, prolific and socialistic jungle-religion.”

Dr. F.N. Lee circa 2011
Christian-Afrikaners pg. 87

Rev. Steve of the CREC writes,

Another way to come at this problem is to examine Acts 17:26:

“He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”

The Kinist emphasizes the second half of this, to the detriment of the first, assuming it means that the times and boundaries of nations are more static and set in stone than the verse intends. The point was more to assert God’s sovereignty over proud Greece, not to give Greece pride in its distinct civilization.

Bret responds,

Steve asserts but does not offer any proof that the Kinist emphasizes the second half of Acts 17:26. Kinists vigorously affirm that God indeed hath made from one blood every nation on the earth. Rev. Steve also asserts without offering proof that the point was what he says it is, or that Kinists believe that Acts 17:26 believe that it was given to give Greece pride in its distinct civilization. Rev. Steve also asserts without providing proof that times and boundaries aren’t to be static and that God no longer desires particular peoples to be particular peoples. Rev. Steve is blowing exegetical smoke.

Rev. Steve writes,

The first half of the verse is an indirect rebuke of the pervasive racial superiority found in Greece and Rome. “Hey, the African, and the ‘barbarian’ in Gaul is one blood with you, by God’s design.”

Bret responds,

True, but the first half of the verse doesn’t negate the 2nd half of the verse. No kinist denies that all men are of one blood. Kinists teach that all men everywhere are commanded to repent. Kinists believe that there will be people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues and nations in the New Jerusalem. Kinists believe that inferiorities and superiorities both run through differing races and peoples. God made them all from one blood for His delight. God loves biblical diversity. However, diversity is no longer diversity if their is a sustained and ongoing disregard for the distinction of races and peoples.

Now, can we get the Alienist to admit that God has ordained the races and nations to be the races and nations that He ordained them to be?

Rev. Steve writes,

When the objection is raised that there is no Scripture commanding this, the usual response seems to be to agree, but also say that it is normal and according to nature.

Bret Responds,

1.) In Romans 9 St. Paul communicates his love for his own kinsmen. Does not that imply the normativity of the existence of particular people? When we consider that the command to honor our Fathers and Mothers was given in the context of a particular people group it is hard to imagine that one can define honor as contributing to  “unmaking a people.”

2.) Rev. Steve is arguing like a Baptist here. (It is possible, I suppose that he is a Baptist.) Baptists argue “there is no Scripture commanding us to baptize infants.” and so they conclude that we must not Baptize infants. Steve can’t find a verse to his liking that commands what he is expecting therefore it can’t be Scriptural. And yet the whole tenor of Scripture has a Kinist sense. At least that is what Dr. Geerhardus Vos thought;

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

Rev. Steve writes,

But in the examples above, we see that conversion trumps nature.

Bret responds,

Conversion trumps nature? Can you get anything more blatantly Gnostic? To the contrary Reformed theology has always taught that “Grace restores nature.” That is to say that God’s grace moves to make nature to be what God originally intended. There is no conflict between what God’s first work of creation and God’s work of re-creation in men’s lives. The above sentence is awful.

Rev. Steve writes,

We ought to seek covenantal succession from one natural generation to the next. But there is also the Ethiopian eunuch. Cornelius the Roman. Luke, the Greek doctor. All are welcomed into the church. They don’t continue building their own separate ethnic cultures, while just playing church on Sundays. The church herself is a new polis – a city on a hill. We spend and are spent for her as a family, and even if our family rejects us for it.

Bret responds,

No Kinist ever argues that there are people who are not welcome into the Church. This is a red herring by Hemmeke. What the Kinist does argue is that Ethiopians, Romans, and Greeks are likely going to find worshipping with Ethiopians, Romans, and Greeks to be more fitting to whom God has made them. If there are no Ethiopian, Roman, or Greek Churches wherein to Worship and wherein they would be more comfortable then of course all men should be welcome in all of the House of God.

That what I’ve said above is true is witnessed by the presence of Korean Churches and Hmong Churches and any number of ethnic churches. There is nothing controversial in the least in any of this. Men, not unusually, prefer to worship with people like them and that is perfectly acceptable. I once had a friend (he’s since passed away) that fondly recalled worshipping in Frisian churches in America when he was a boy. There is no fault in that kinist impulse.

Rev. Steve writes,

Nurture can determine culture-building as much as nature. Uriah chose to fight FOR David and Israel, though a Hittite. Rahab believed and feared the God of Israel. God’s enemies become His friends by redemption. That’s the heart of the gospel.

Bret responds,

And of course no Kinist disagrees with that.

Rev. Steve writes,

And this gets very practical. Almost everyone today is of some mixed race. I’m German-Dutch, but most people have even more mixed of an ancestry. This is not a problem, but we should claim and work for some specific nation and heritage. Yet to work for a specific RACE, is not Scripturally warranted, or even allowed.

Bret responds,

This is an assertion that can not be proven. Love for one’s own people is directly taught in Romans 9:3.

3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race,

So, not only is working for one’s own people Scripturally warranted but it is also clearly allowed and I would say even commanded.

Rev. Steve Hemmeke is yet another clear example of a muddle-headed clergy. I’m sure he is full of the best intentions but good intentions do zero good and positive harm when they are based on sound thinking.

Part III yet to come.

Responding to Rev. Steve Hemmeke’s Take on His One Hour Reading of “Who is My Neighbor” — Part I

“The huge weakness of this (Achord’s and Dow’s “Who is My Neighbor: An Anthology on Natural Relations;”) is that most of the quotations do not support the thesis of the book. To quote the Puritans or Jewish sources on the importance of family and patriotism is a far cry from what the authors argue for in the introduction.”

Steve Hemmeke Blog
CREC “Minister” — Herein after SH

Now keep in mind that Rev. Steve admits as he begins his review that he only spent 1 hour with this 650 page anthology and after 1 hour we are to believe that he can know that most of the quotations in the book do not support the thesis of the book. This claim leaves me credulous. It’s like someone saying that they’d only spent an hour with Augustine’s “City of God” and they know, after an hour of probing here and there in the book that Augustine failed in his work. Honestly, I can’t believe the hubris of this claim.

SH writes,

I’d like to lay out and then critique that thesis, from page 41:
Society is inescapably hierarchical, and so our duties are also prioritized, “favoring the near over the far. The implication is that we have obligations to our families, neighbors and countrymen over strangers and foreigners…. This is piety and gratitude.”

On one level, this is just common sense. I’m going to invest more time parenting my kids, than the kids next door. I take more time consuming news concerning my country than Zimbabwe’s, so I can vote and act faithfully where I live.

Bret responds,

Here the man says the book is just common sense. He, in essence, says he agrees with this common sense. But in true Wilsonian fashion he has to try to have it both ways and say that he doesn’t agree with the book.

SH writes,

“The problem comes with the flip side – a non sequitur which Scripture does not endorse: to favor those not of your kind is impiety. This turns out to be a call for segregation, though kinists don’t seem to like to use that word. A people’s culture should not be tainted by intermixing, they say, which breeds confusion in personal identity, and a dilution of energy which should be focused on positive, tangible culture building.”

Bret responds

Actually, to be precise, the flip side is not what Steve says. The flip side is “to favor those not of your kind above those who are of your kind is impiety.” Notice the subtle difference between what SL wrote and the corrected flip side. Now, there is no way that one can claim that Scripture teaches the kind of piety that SL initially says he agrees with and is common sense without at the same time affirming the teaching that the same statement stated in its negative (in the bold print above) is also piety. There is no impiety in that statement in bold and yet Steve wants to say that he does not agree with the exact opposite of what he affirms. What he affirms is piety. The same position expressed negatively he affirms is impiety and a non-sequitur. Only a CREC minister could “reason” like this.

Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of segregation as long as it is part of the whole idea of “freedom of assembly.” You remember that one don’t you Steve? For example The Washington Times recently ran an article stating;

Universities are increasingly offering graduation events focused on participants’ identities and segregated by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and even income, according to a report by a conservative education publication.

Campus Reform, which is published by the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, reported last week that more than three dozen colleges and universities are holding graduation events this summer to recognize groups based on race, gender and sexual orientation.

I  have no problem with this kind of segregation in the least. Nor do I have a problem with Universities now offering dorm living according to segregated preferences. Is Steve saying that this segregation (freedom of assembly) is wrong? Sinful? If it is acceptable to Steve for this kind of segregation to exist why would he think that kinists’ believing in segregation is a bad thing?

Steve Hemmeke writes,

But this book’s thesis in the introduction is: don’t favor the foreigner over your own kin. That may be proverbial wisdom, like the common sense above, but it should not be made a moral absolute on racial or national lines.

Bret responds,

Now let me understand this dialectical reasoning.

1.) It is proverbial wisdom to not favor the foreigner over your own kin
2.) However, when our own kin is a racial or national phenomenon what is proverbial wisdom should now not be a proverbial wisdom absolute.

Steve Hemmeke writes

Let’s look to Scripture for guidance.

I believe the Kinist standing in Boaz’ field would rebuke him for looking favorably on Ruth, the Moabite.

He would look on with horror as a faithful Israelite of the tribe of Judah, Salmon, married a Canaanite whore from Jericho – Rahab.

He would believe that Ahithophel’s family was sinning to allow the Hittite Uriah to marry a daughter of their clan – Bathsheba.

Bret responds,

Steve gives three examples of marriage that would have been akin to marrying ethnic cousins. His examples amount to a German marrying a French lady. This is not the same as cross racial marriages.

Secondly,   even Ruth is disputed as to whether she was an ethnic Moabitess or an Israelite who lived in the former territory of Moab and so a Hebrew. Much the same way one might refer to a Puerto Rican living in New York City as a “New Yorker.”

Third on the matter of Rahab see

Rahab the Hebrew: The Royal Genealogy Vindicated

And as to Rahab see,

Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 4

Steve Hemmeke writes

Yet each of these are mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. Not as cautionary tales, but as laudable examples to God’s people that we are to “welcome the stranger.” This is a ubiquitous phrase in Deuteronomy, “for you yourselves were sojourners in Egypt.” So it was astonishing to see in print that we should NOT favor the stranger and foreigner.

Bret responds,

So many of these I’ve responded to before. Here one can reference;

Random Notes From Hoffmeier’s “The Immigration Crisis”

Steve Hemmeke clearly does not understand the nuances that Hoffmeier brings out in the book discussed in the link above. And this is just the problem with people spouting off about this issue who haven’t done the spade work to discover other possibilities then the cultural Marxist narrative that they are drowning in.

Steve Hemmeke writes,

Now, do we favor them to the impoverishment of our own estate and family or nation? Of course not. American immigration policy is insanely impoverishing us. But Kinism seems to go too far the other way, calling for separation. Ruth should have been sent back to Moab: “let her own kind take care of her.” I believe they would say this, regardless of her assumed spiritual conversion. Even as believers across cultures (it appears to me they assert), we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best.

Bret responds,

Just as Hemmeke did not read a book he is reviewing so he now is guessing at what kinists might and might not say in any given situation. Incredible.

If Kinism is asserting that we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best it is only because Kinists are learning from the Church Fathers. I reproduce just two of many more quotes of the same kind that could be appealed to. The Alienists, like Hemmeke, are revolting against the Church fathers on this issue. Kinists are seeking to be faithful to both Scripture and Church history.

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” ~

Dr. John E. Richards
Theology Professor Reformed Theological Seminary appx. 1970’s

If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .

The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.

Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-2017) (For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)
Founder — Greenville Seminary

 

The Calabrian Butcher Wields His Clever Cleaver Against the Effeminate Soy Boy

Here I am trying to mind my own business while I enjoy my dogmatic slumbers and my name gets sullied and besmirched by a kid whose probably young enough to be my grandson. So much for an Elder being worthy of double honor. It is a tad frustrating that, in the words of Michael Corleone, just when I think I’m getting out they pull me back in. Ah well, I’m always up for another round of whack-an-Alienist.

Tait Zimmerman wrote, ( A shame he was too young to vote for Sarah Palin last time she ran for office),

They (the Kinists) start their argument with the claim that they only want to “love their kin.”

Bret responds,

Imagine the hutzpah in starting an argument with wanting to love our kin? What’s next? Kinists starting arguments that they love their place of birth? The cheek of it all.

Taiter continues,

When developed, though, the argument is they can only love their kin if separated from all other “kins,” which means that the final objective is racial separation and segregation, and declaring a “racially-mixed society” to be an evil society.

Bret responds,

1.) Kinists don’t have to have racial separation and segregation as an objective because it always naturally occurs when Government isn’t legislating that people do not have freedom to assemble, thus unnaturally forcing people together who otherwise wouldn’t gather. If Taiter had eyes wide open he’d notice, for example the self-segregating that happens as the Universities increasingly having graduation ceremonies for their Black students or for their Hispanic students. Maybe Taiter would notice organizations like the Black Congressional Caucus or, I don’t know … something like Black Lives Matter. Kinists don’t have to have as an objective racial separation or segregation because it happens naturally when both,

a.) Government quits legislating against freedom of assembly and
b.) When the Lugenpresse and Hollywood doesn’t jam integration down everyone’s throats. 

2.) I don’t know that I would say that a “racially-mixed society is an evil society,” though I certainly would say that a racially-mixed society is a unstable and unhealthy society. But then if I said that I wouldn’t be alone. I would just be parroting the conclusions found in sociologist Robert P. Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone.” But as Taiter probably doesn’t read much past his multi-volume graphic novel set he probably has never heard of this book or author. Putnam is hardly a friend of Kinism but his conclusions are that a racially/culturally mixed society is one where trust denigrates and people disengage. 

Taiter writes,

Needless to say, (kinists think) “inter-racial” marriages between Christians are sin, or, to put it more mildly, “not according to the original marriage,” where Adam and Eve had the same genetic composition.

Bret repsonds,

Not all Kinists say inter-racial marriage is always sin all the time. Many, like me, say, that inter-racial marriage is on the whole unwise and should not be entered into for the sake of both parties and for the sake of any future children. We look at the statistics for divorce for inter-racial marriages and see that it is even higher than for intra-racial marriages and seeing that we conclude that it is not wise and counsel against it. Kinists believe that two people entering into marriage ought to have us much common ground between the two people as is possible. This includes race/ethnicity, culture, faith, class, lifestyles, worldviews, etc.

However, like me, many kinists also say that once such a marriage is contracted that the Church should support such a marriage as much as possible. 

Taiter opines,

(Kinists think that) Culture is defined not by faith (Henry Van Til, “Culture is religion externalized”) but by the genetic composition of a nation.

Bret responds,

1.) I do believe that culture is religion externalized. However, the religion that is externalized is the religion of a particular people. Taiter is dealing in abstractions while I am saying that, “yes, culture is religion externalized but you can’t have religion externalized apart from a set people who are externalizing that religion.” Even the Scripture agrees with me when we see St. Paul talk about the Cretans. Just imagine the culture the Cretans created because of their religion. Paul said the Cretans were always liar. People who are always liars are liars because of their religion and as part of their religion externalize all that to create a culture of lies.

2.) Taiter is being all Gnostic here to suggest that cultures are made by faith and religion apart from the people — with all their genetic traits — who make up the cultures, faith, and religions in question. Culture isn’t created without people and people, I’m sorry to report to the Taiter, are who they are in their physical reality in harmony with their genes.  One simply can’t peel what a person believes apart from the person who is doing the believing. Culture is religion externalized as that religion is poured over the people God has ordained a people to be in their genetic reality. So, culture, like humans, has both a spiritual component (what we believe) and a physical component (the person who is doing the believing). If Alienists, like our Taiter, here cut off the genetic reality what else can that be but Gnosticism? 

Here I pause to go all C. S. Lewis and ask, “What do they teach these children in Sunday School these days?”

3.) Yes, Taiter I think a culture should be defined in part by the genetic composition of the nation since one can’t peel a culture away from the nation that in which it exists.   

Look, as an example in micro, when we consider the family culture of the McAtee’s we have to consider how what they believe interacts with who God has predisposed them to be by way of who God has made them to be per nature (genes). McAtees historically have been stubborn. Now that can be bent to God’s purposes by channeling it into determination or it can be bent to opposition to God by being pigheaded. Being regenerated doesn’t take away that disposition. However, grace can restore nature so that stubborness becomes a tool in God’s hand for God’s glory. Taiter, on the contrary is suggesting that grace destroys nature which is, as we have said, a Gnostic move.

Taiter writes,

Mixture of genes, then (or, as they call it, “miscegenation”), creates a “multicultural society,” which is anti-Biblical, they claim. They all teach segregation of society, and they all believe a “multi-racial” society is by default a “multi-cultural” society and therefore evil, even if everyone in that society is a Christian.

Bret responds,

I’m completely open to learning about all these multi-racial societies that are not multi-cultural. Let the Taiter march them before our eyes by giving us examples. At the same time let the Taiter give us examples of multi-cultural societies where everyone has been a Christian.   

Taiter, in my favorite part, writes,

Their main guru, McAtee (who, ironically, looks nothing like a Celt but rather like a Calabrian butcher) believes in the forming of segregated “Christian cultures”: Mongolian, Celtic, etc. Segregated by genetic composition, of course.

The Calabrian Butcher responds,

1.) I weep for the lack of originality in American utes. It’s been probably around a decade since a small alienist Bulgarian first dubbed me a “Calabrian Butcher.” Can’t Taiter come up with anything original? I mean I can come up with all kinds of metaphors of what he looks like. “Effeminate soy boy?” “Nightgown boy?” “Honey, how does this dress look on me boy?”  Still, I’m good with the Calabrian butcher title. Have you ever seen those Calabrian butchers handle a cleaver Taiter? Better not get to close Effeminate soy boy.

2.) McAtee believes that Christian cultures will self-segregate so that there will be no need to employ a plan to form these different Christian cultures. When people are left to themselves like will seek out like. But even if McAtee did think exactly what Effeminate soy boy says he would stand in good company with Abraham Kuyper;

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

3.) Although I would love to think it is true, it is manifestly not the truth that “McAtee is the main guru of the Kinists.” You could lop my head off tomorrow and the strength of Kinism would not diminish one iota. Kinism is a decentralized movement with more gurus then you can shake a stick at. In point of fact, anybody who is epistemologically self-conscious as a Kinist is a Kinist guru. They have to be since they are under such withering idiotic attacks. If a man is a kinist you can be sure he has thought it through to the point that he himself is a guru. I suppose I’d like to be “King of the Kinists,” but that is just nonsense. Every Kinist I know is as much as a guru as I am. Thanks to people like the Taiter that will continue to be true.

Taiter writes,

And no, most of them do not keep it generally to races and skin color, they do go deeper to genetic differences between ethnic groups, for they all use as their support verse in the Bible where the Jews were advised to divorce their non-Jewish wives. That passage, of course, is not about different skin colors but about different ethnicities within the same skin color, and many of the wives were of Semitic nations kin to the Hebrews. So, no, it’s not just general about skin color, it is much more specific about different ethnicities.

Bret responds,

First, race is more than skin color. Only a public school educated person thinks otherwise. Second, naturally kinist would advise that a second generation Italian growing up in New York city’s “Little Italy” would be wise to marry another second generation Italian growing up in similar circumstances. Remember, we kinists advocate that two people entering into marriage have as much common ground as possible. Just shoot us for thinking that way.

Second, in terms of the Ezra passage let us just note that not only the foreign wives were sent away but also the children of these unions. Obviously, as such, there was more than just different religions going on in the dismissal in the Ezra passage.

Now, Taiter, please allow me to return to my dogmatic slumbers.

Michael Foster’s Evasions … McAtee Evades Foster’s Evasions

From what I am told Michael Foster and Andrew Torba are soon to speak at the same conference. As of late Torba has said some very Kinist like things while Foster continues to slam any notion of Kinism. Recently Foster suggested that was because his Jewish grandmother who survived the holocaust had a major presence in his life. Now what that has to do with the hating of Kinism (which Foster most certainly does)I couldn’t even begin to guess. Well, actually, I could begin to guess and guess pretty good but I’ll restrain myself.

Below we find Foster trying to nuance is recent attack on Kinism. I will fisk as we go.

Michael Foster,

Do I think that there is a war on white people? Kind of. I just don’t think it is what some people think it is. There can be no question that there is a deep animus aimed towards “whites”* in most forms of popular media. There is a constant attempt to depict “whites” as hateful selfish oppressors against “non-whites.” And with this there are implicit and explicit calls to lessen or even eradicate the white population.

McAtee responds,

1.) War is like pregnancy Michael. Either people are warring against you or they are not. There is no “kind-of.” Kind of dead is still dead and dead is the consequence of both war and “kind-of war.”

2.) Notice that whites is continuously recorded as “whites.” Are we in quotation marks because Mikey doesn’t believe that whites really exist and so he says “whites.” Is this the social construct game that CRT so readily excels in? Is Foster going all CRT on us by typing out both “whites” and “non-whites?”

3.) If implicit or explicit calls to lessen or even eradicate the white population (the one time in Foster’s quote where there are not quotation brackets) then I’m pretty sure it is safe to advance the idea that there is a war on white people. I mean, if someone is trying to even just implicitly eradicate me and mine I would never consider that just “kind-of war.”

Michael Foster writes,

Yet I only say “there kind of is a war on whites.” Why? Because I don’t think the main motivation behind it isn’t primarily racial.

McAtee responds,

1.) Look, Sir Hebetude, if it is the case that people are trying to eradicate me and mine then I couldn’t care less what the motivation is. If my clan, tribe, nation, and people are eradicated (Foster’s own chosen word) then I don’t care what the motive is of those seeking to eradicate us. Eradication is eradication regardless of what the motive is.

2 ) When we speak of motivation that implies that there is a someone acting who is animated by this motivation. Who is that someone Mikey? Who is driving this “kind-of war on whites that will leave us eradicated?” Who has that much societal leverage? Who exactly Mikey wants to eradicate white people?

Here is one contestant as being a primary suspect that answers the question of the “Who” that is motivated to eradicate white people.

“I think there’s a resurgence of Anti-semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

Barbara Lerner Specter
Jewish Activist Pushing Sweden

Mikey Foster writes,

“I think the goal is to stirrup racial tensions and particularly bait lower class whites into certain activities/attitudes. But why? To camouflage their real motive and goal. The liberal elite in America, who control the media, have bluntly said that they want to radically restructure the nature of our society. They are pushing for something like a new feudalism. You will own nothing but they will take care of you. That sort of thing. The main thing standing in their way is America’s middle class. We own a lot and we want to take care of ourselves. As a group, our middle class still has more money and influence than the liberal elite. That is something they hate.”

Bret responds,

1.) Of course it is lower class whites who are being baited because no upper class whites could ever enter into certain activities to protect their descendants. It is only the white trailer park trash types, per Mikey, who could possibly be interested in refusing to be “eradicated.” and so be successfully baited.

2.) Here Mikey tries to make this about classically liberal economics. The they who have these motives and goals aren’t really interested in this racial divide except as it serves an economic end. They hate the middle class therefore they will seek to eradicate white people. The clever thing about Mikey’s argument here is that there is likely some truth to it. Cultural Marxists do hate the middle class as well as hating white people. For that matter the Cultural Marxists hate the upper class also. To dismiss Mikey’s argument here just ask yourself whether or not if it were the case that minorities made up the major percentage of the middle class if there would be a war on minorities in order to eradicate them? The question answers itself. This is just Mikey trying to evade the obvious and that is that the real pursuit here is not primarily about eliminating the middle class though the Cultural Marxists certainly desire that. No, the main pursuit is white people. The side benefit to those who are pursuing all this is getting rid of the middle class.

3.) Actually, it is my conviction, as I’ve stated before that the real goal here is to roll Jesus Christ off His throne. The real goal is to rid the West once and forever of Christianity. Now, as it is the white man who has been the main carrier of Civilizational Christianity then of course it is the white man who must be “eradicated.” Rid the West of Christianity and one rids the West of the economic middle class and the white man. However, the enemy can’t do a frontal attack on Christianity so he goes through the back door by arguing that the White man is an oppressor.

Mikey Foster writes,

“Now, it’s hard to demonize the middle class which has long been celebrated in our nation. But it is much easier to demonize a “race” or “color.” And guess what? The American middle class is mostly white. One way the liberal elite can attack and divide the middle class is to create a ruse and proxy war via race-baiting. And it’s working. More and more folks are getting draw away for the real battle-line (largely socioeconomics) to the diversion (race-baiting stuff).”

Bret responds,

1.) It is no more difficult to demonize the middle class than it is to demonize white people in general. History demonstrates that the middle class has been repeatedly demonized. Stalin demonized the Ukrainian Kulaks. Robespierre demonized the shop-keeper middle class.  Indeed, I would argue that it is a bigger lift to demonize a whole race than to demonize the middle class.

2.) The American middle class is mostly white? That’s brilliant. Did you come up with that all by yourself Mikey? Guess what … in a country that is still 70% white it is the also the case that American upper and lower class is mostly white. All of America is mostly white. Well done Sherlock.

3.) Again, this is not about primarily about economics. It is primarily about race and that is true no matter how much Mikey or Tucker Carlson says to the contrary. Now, this is not to say that there are not based minorities who agree with based white people but it is to say that the enemy is going after based white people. If they succeed in pulling down what little is left of Biblical Christianity then the house of the based white man falls and with that falling tumbles also the economics of it all. However, if it were minorities who comprised the middle class you can be sure that none of this would be happening.

4.) If Mikey were to be true to the evidence he would have to enter into the fray supporting both a Christian entrepreneurialism (this current crony Corporatism has to go) and the Christian white man because these two realities are not mutually exclusive. You cannot peal them apart as Mikey is trying to do.