Peeking at the Word “Racist”

 ‘Racist’… A word made up by Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary communist so extreme in his views that his fellow communists murdered him! That’s right, our politicians/rulers/leaders speak the language of revolutionary communists. Did you know that the word ‘Racist’ was popularized by Marxist Leon Trotsky in 1927? It was used to cudgel and bully ordinary Russians into accepting the horrible practices of the Communists. It has been used in Britain by the ruling class for the last 25 years to diminish the way of life of the indigenous British people, to frighten them against any protest against the drive toward a multi-racial Marxist totalitarian state, and will ultimately rob you and your children of your way of life and your homeland.
 
 
Peter Hammond
Slide presentation on Racism

Being called a “racist” by those who hurl that epithet is like being called a “fundamentalist” by a WOKE Liberal. It is like Chef Boy-R-Dee calling Gordon Ramsey a cuisine hack. It is like the ugly girl in the class calling the prom Queen, “Homely.” It’s like being called a homophobe by a raging flamer.

The accusation tells me more about the person casting the epithet than it tells me about the person upon whom the epithet has been cast.

In the end, all “a racist is, is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers — like virtually everyone — to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians, and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.”  (John Bryant)

 

As we consider the pejorative “racist,” or “racism” all can concede that if racism was hating someone solely based upon the color of their skin that would be hatred and sin.

However, in the current cultural milieu where the words “racism” and “racist” have gained so much traction, we do not find that simple of a definition. Instead what we get in terms of definition of racism is “prejudice plus power.” This is why many people insist that it is not possible for minorities to be “racists” or to practice “racism” because, so the argument goes, minorities, while perhaps having “prejudice” certainly do not have “power.” Hence it is impossible, so the argument goes, for minorities to be “racist” or to practice “racism.”

The irony of a definition of “racist” or “racism” that has as its substance, “prejudice plus power,” is inherently ironic because in such a definition the only people who can be guilty of practicing “racism” or of being “racist” are white people since, as the argument goes, only white people have prejudice as combined with power. So, we see, the cultural Marxist definition of racism is racist. Not only is the charge “racism” or “racist” racist it is a tautology.

Just as “bald people have no hair” is redundancy so “White people are racist” is a redundancy. In Cultural Marxist speak, it goes something like this,

Q.) Who are the racists?

A.) White people.

Q.)Who are white people?
A.) They are the racists.

Hard baked into the word “racist” or “racism,” as used by the modern cultural Marxist and churchmen (is there any difference?) is the presuppositional reality that the accuser himself, is the racist. He has a prejudice against white people and the use of the word itself is a power play. Prejudice plus power. The usage of that word against somebody else involves the one using the word in a contradiction of the most startling sort.

But hey … who cares about being in contradiction anymore? After all, rationality is so over-rated.

Scary Kinism Defined & Examples Given — (Part V)

Kinism believes;

 

XVII.) That inequality has developed both along individual and racial lines, and that every race has its areas of superiority. That we should not be ashamed of those gifts God saw fit to bestow upon us, but enjoy them.

 

Distinct races, nations, and families vis-a-vis other distinct races, nations, and families because of the reality that they are distinct each have different superiorities and inferiorities that run through their reality. Not all of the races are an eye. Nor are all the races an ear.

Because it is God that causes us to differ we should not be made to feel guilt over our superiorities and we should be constantly asking for God’s grace to overcome our inferiorities.

God gifts all peoples who look to Him. We should pray that God would be pleased to allow us to use the giftedness He has appointed us to glorify His name.

Of course, Luciferian egalitarianism (but I repeat myself) would flatten out all these varied superiorities so that eventually all races would be reduced to the lowest common denominator and so would all be the same in our shared inferiorities. All the races would become equally inept.

 

XVIII.) That envy is a desire for equality taking the form of hatred of the superior. That the envious man begrudges others of their advantages, and rather than seeking to acquire those advantages for himself, instead seeks to destroy them so that all will be equal in their poverty of advantages. That envy motivates many minorities, and that separation is the only effective way to deal with it.

Envy desires to pull down the superior quite without desiring to become the superior itself. It is satisfied just with seeing the superior in the same squalor and dust in which it dwells. Further, the envy of the inferior can not be quenched even with the aid and assistance of the superior because all that aid and assistance does for the inferior is to remind them that they are inferior. Consequently, only the destruction of the house of the superior will satisfy the envy of the superior.

Marxist ideology has made a career of inflaming a not insignificant number of minorities with envy as well as many lower-class whites. As no lifting up of that minority class and their white brethren who are infected with envy is possible, given that envy only grows with being helped by the superior the only answer seems to be some kind of separation.

The idea of advancing social-order separation should come as a well-received prospect from many who are afflicted with envy since the white man is now considered a pariah by much of the minority community as seen in just one quote. Many more could be duplicated that reveals how evil the white man is per the minority community who live within our shared borders.

“The Reformed and evangelical tradition(s) has repeatedly, across centuries, found itself in collusion with the worst embodiments of white supremacy in America even while presuming its orthodoxy at each juncture.”

Rev. Duke Kwon
PCA Minister

What could be better news for minorities inflamed with the Marxist ethic and their white Marxist brethren than arrangements that would find them finally done with the racist white man? Separation seems to be an answer that would be well-greeted by all parties.

XIX.)  That man, as a creature, is necessarily limited. That because he is limited, his responsibility to others is also limited. That human responsibility is Biblically regulated by relationship, such that we have a greater responsibility to our own family, race, town, state, region, and country, than we do to “the other”. That Christians should favor the native and the normal over the alien and the novel.

Equal universal love for everybody is at the same time a lack of unique particular love for anybody. Even the Pixar animated film “The Incredibles” understood that simple concept. Scripture calls us to Honor our Father and Mother and in doing so teaches that we are to prioritize them over other adults who are not our Father and Mother. The idea that I am to prioritize my own Father and Mother does not mean I hate every other adult who is not my Father and Mother. The idea that I am responsible to love everyone the same is an idea only a Marxist could love.

The implication of this is the truth that by helping everybody equally I may be hurting those I am called to help specifically. If I earn a paycheck week by week and spend it on the needy neighborhood children the consequence is that the children of my household who I am called to be specifically responsible for will become needy. Similarly, the elimination of borders here in the name of loving the world ends up being a bolus of hatred for our own people as seen in the economic impact, the breakdown of social infrastructure, and the increase of crime. This kind of love is a knife at the throat of our own children and our own countrymen –black, red, white, or brown.

That this has become so controversial is suggestive that are further down the road of Marxism than any of us would like to admit.

 

 

XX.) That placing burdens on people they cannot bear inevitably induces guilt. That a guilty man is an easily controlled man. That a man with impossible burdens will seek a more powerful entity to bear those burdens for him. That the most powerful earthly entity is the state. That the agents of the New World Order have a vested interest in inducing guilt as a means of control.

With the insistence that we must love everyone the same, there is failure since that is impossible. With failure comes false guilt. With false guilt comes contrivances to carry that false guilt. One contrivance is to enlist the state to carry the false guilt with the tacit agreement that the state will help carry the false guilt in exchange for the one carrying the false guilt to look to the state as the God who provides atonement. The dirty secret is that the state then keeps piling false guilt on the citizenry. The most recent false guilt is how we are guilty of not being WOKE.

This is integral to kinism because kinism sees the state being the primary agent which is advancing the 3multis, as well as polyglot marriages and transracial adoptions via false guilt.

 

A Son’s Recollections of His Father — David Lee McAtee (Part III)

Some might ask why I would write such hard things about my own father. The answer to that is probably manifold. First, it’s now just a few weeks shy of 22 years since Dad passed and I am of the age that if I get 22 more years I will count myself as blessed, and so there is an odd symmetry that strikes me as providing a fitness for writing this now after all these years. Second, I want my male descendants to know the importance of being a godly father. I don’t want them to go down the path my Dad went down. Third, I want people to see the power of God’s grace. God’s grace can and does break generational and familial curses (“to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”) and makes trophies of His grace out of the most unlikely of all. Indeed He delights in doing so. Rough beginnings for children should not be translated as “God has forgotten me.” Fourth, I want people to have the same compassion for Dad that God gave me. Biblical Christians are always going to be treated ill by those outside of Christ. The natural impulse is to call down God’s curses on them, and there is a place for that. We should not want the wicked to prosper. However, there is something wrong with us if we can’t feel genuine sorrow for the people who ill-use us. They would not do so if they weren’t themselves so twisted, bent, and exhausted with sin. This is the lesson that Tolkien is seeking to teach in the relationship between Frodo and Gollum. Frodo knows Gollum and yet Frodo can’t help but have compassion. We should be able to find in ourselves someplace of compassion for the Gollums in our lives and weep for them even when they are treating us the way that Gollums do. I am not saying this is the only response we as biblical Christians should have but I am saying it should be a response that is present somewhere in us. I think it is something of what Jesus meant when He instructed us to “love our enemies.” This Holy Spirit given ability to have compassion for Dad was the only way I found to avoid the bitterness and to rise up out of potential self-pity and to not embrace the victim role. I never hated Dad. I loved him with all my being. Even now, I tear up remembering him. At 62 years of age and after all these years I still ache, wishing it all could have been different. I am not so much sorry for myself as I am sorry for how much delight and joy he missed out on experiencing. Sin is such a cruel and relentless taskmaster.

Let’s begin with a few abstracted pericopes involving my Dad.

In retrospect one of the funniest memories I have of Dad (though it sent me into terror at the time) is when Dad was taking a friend of mine (Cal Richmond) and myself to Church one day. We were probably somewhere around 16. Dad pulled up to the busy intersection at White School Road and US-12. This was a busy intersection for little Sturgis. Anyway, Dad pulls up to this intersection and asks Cal, who is sitting in the front seat with Dad, “is there any traffic coming.” Cal answers instantly, “Nope.” With that report, Dad began to pull out. Just as we were inching forward Cal continues with his previous one-word answer by saying, “Nothing but traffic.” Dad slams on the breaks and backs up from where he had inched forward. Cal was laughing hysterically over pulling one over on Dad. I was sitting in full fright mode. I knew what was coming.  Sure enough, Dad exploded. Cal instantly quit laughing. I had never seen Dad that mad at anybody before except his wife and I. I thought for sure that Dad was going to go all unleashed. But, to his credit, he got his rage under control quickly realizing that this adolescent wasn’t his to deal with as he pleased. But, boy howdy, that was an intense storm. After Dad dropped us off at Church, Cal asked me, “Does your Dad get angry like that often.” I deflected but thought, “buddy, you don’t know the half of it.”

I noted earlier that Dad was proficient with firearms. He had won county-wide trophies in competitions and was justly pleased with his ability in this regard. Dad did a great deal of skeet shooting and pistol range work at the local firing range. I suppose by today’s pc standards our home would have been called a compound or armory with all the weapons (rifles, shotguns, pistols — all of them of all descriptions — as well as assorted and sundry knives. I had thought at one time this would be our inheritance but in subsequent years the IRS caught up with Dad and errors on income tax reporting and the finest weapons were sold to satisfy Uncle Sam’s lust. All these weapons were fascinating for an adolescent but now in retrospect, I realize that those weapons were present at the expense of Mom having to work. In short, they shouldn’t have been purchased because the household budget just didn’t allow for that extravagance.

Dad was so attached to the weapons that he routinely slept with a loaded derringer under his pillow at night. I genuinely feared he would accidentally shoot himself or worse yet one of us for thinking us a burglar or something.

I spent a large amount of time in hospitals growing up. Accident-prone and disease-afflicted doesn’t begin to cover it. To Dad’s credit, he kept a close and protective eye upon me during those hospital stays. I knew he was concerned for his son’s well-being and recovery. Dad also protected me once from a Junior high-school Principle who once crossed a boundary in terms of physical abuse of me as a student. I chuckled at the time thinking that Dad’s main beef was probably that the Principle was trying to take possession of territory that belonged to Dad. I knew that wasn’t true but there was a dark humor in considering it.  So, you see, Dad did love me. He just couldn’t get it out.

Years later, in my education travels, I learned that troubled parents will often typically beat the child in the home they love the most. Win, place, and show for me in that regard. I never doubted that Dad loved me. He just was carrying too much baggage to get it out in the usual channels.

Here I pick up where we left off in the previous entry. Dad had moved out and had his own apartment now in Columbia, South Carolina. We stayed in touch and would have Dad over for meals. During this period he attended my Seminary Graduation and sprung for some nice steaks that we grilled.

I was thinking that some normalcy might be restored. Not so much.

One night one of my siblings who lived in Indiana phoned me. She had been talking with Dad on the phone and Dad was making what she believed to be some pretty credible threats of committing suicide. Dad always had a streak in him of trying to get sympathy from people. It was the old routine of him saying … “I’m such and such a negative thing,” with the desired response that being sought; “But Dad, no you’re not, but rather you are just the opposite of such and such whatever negative thing that was said.” This time though the ante had been raised with my sibling. This time he was threatening suicide with the expectation that my sibling would talk him out of it by saying sweet things about how important he was to her. At least that is how I analyzed the whole thing at the time but my sister was convinced that Dad was serious. My sister is an educated woman and though I had my opinion of what was going on, she was the one talking to him and she was convinced he was serious. I trusted her opinion which meant I had to do something about it. I tried to call Dad but he wouldn’t pick up the phone though he had just hung up talking to my sister.

So, I had to decide what course I was going to take. If I went to bed ignoring it all and he really did it I would be living with it the rest of my life. Something like that is not something people get over. So, after banging on his door to no response, I did the only other thing that could be done. I made the proper calls, tracked down and awakened a judge at some forsaken wee hour in the morning to sign documents, and had Dad committed for 24 hours in an institution so that he could be analyzed and watched. The alternative to doing what I did was possibly living the rest of my life knowing that I had, by my inaction, killed my father. I’m in my mid-20s at this time. Someone that age should not be put in that kind of position.

It was a long time after that occurred before Dad spoke to me again. Interestingly enough he never brought it up when he did speak to me again. He also never talked about suicide again with me or any of my siblings.

This brings us to a good place to pause. One more entry ought to find us finishing.

Consequences of Sin, and Guilt, as not Quenched in God’s Atonement

Modern man creates substitute atonements that are either masochistic or sadistic. Man, in defiance to submitting to God’s reality where God alone provides atonement, chooses instead to either seek to lay his sin upon himself in a sadistic frenzy or on the other hand seeks to lay his sin upon others in a masochistic frenzy. In neither case is the pursuit ultimately successful and so the masochism and/or sadism in search of atonement continues. This explains, in part, why fallen man so often has trouble maintaining relationships. No relationship can be healthy where both parties are seeking to either use themselves or the other party in the relationship as a means of shedding their sin.

These substitute atonements for Christ’s atonement can never do what they are designed to do — that is take away sin and guilt — and so they ensure ongoing and perpetual guilt. This in turn makes for impotent men and women who are easy to control because of the manipulation of their guilt by others. The elite class seeks to create false guilt to add to the true moral guilt with the end in view of controlling the population. An obvious example of this is the “racism” narrative. This is false guilt piled upon white people in order to successfully manipulate them into accepting a masochistic atonement that finds them beating themselves over their embraced racist identity. Because of this false guilt followed by the masochistic false atonement the white man willingly goes into abeyance and subjugation as minorities are lifted up to serve as those who are advantaged by this attempt to pay for false guilt.

Scary Kinism Defined & Examples given — Part IV

Remember, in this series of posts, I am providing commentary on a set of proposals written by Mr. Mickey Henry several years ago on defining characteristics of Kinism. These can still be found on the Tribal Theocrat website. The original postulates are the paragraphs with the Roman numerals. There are 24 total postulates. We have been providing commentary on four daily.

Editorial note — in the future, I am going to use the phrase “the 3multis” as a shorthand way of saying “multi-culturalism/multi-racialism/multi-faithism.”

XIII.) That atomistic individualism and centralized totalitarianism are not in tension, but are necessary corollaries. That the rise of rationalism has led to the simultaneous rise of an impersonal and rootless man and a unitary, technocratic state. That man inherently desires association and a sense of belonging, and that, in the absence of human-scale associations, will substitute the sense of belonging offered by the total state. That the cure for collectivism is not individualism, but rather to increase human-scale associations, principally in the primal community of the family, but also in multitudinous local social institutions, such as the church, civic organizations, and trade associations.

We might say that centralized totalitarianism is the logical consequence of atomistic individualism. Before I explain that, allow me to say that the reason that this is listed here is that kinists believe that the agenda of the New World Order with its polyglot marriages, transracial adoptions, and putatively multi-faith/multi-cultural/multi-racial social orders is being accomplished as a global centralized totalitarianism is precisely because of the pursuit of atomistic (or hyper) individualism.

Centralized totalitarianism succeeds more easily when the individual is stripped away from his varied covenantal contexts wherein he finds his identity such as family, church, guild, clubs, community, etc. so that all is left is the sovereign individual alone the consequence is that the atomized individual will look for some environment in which to find some identity and the only place left after all those covenantal contexts are destroyed is the State. Humans are like chameleons. They will always change colors to fit their environment. If men and women have all their varied covenantal contexts stripped away from them in pursuit of a hyper-individualism the result will be only one context will exist against which man will change colors to identify with and that will be the State so that atomized men will live, die, and find their being in the god-state. Because all this is true it is in the interest of statist governments who desire to grow in their power to pursue legislation that will set the individual “free” from all these covenantal communities. By pursuing this kind of “freedom” the end game is total and complete bondage of the individual to the centralized state. Now when you combine this reality with previous observations made in this series the result is the pursuit of a universal sameness as dictated by the state.

That multiculturalism is destructive of community and leads to isolation, alienation or loss of identity and a prevailing sense of loneliness. That a man who no longer identifies with his community will not expend his labor or capital in its maintenance, improvement, or in service of its future existence.

The rationalism that is referenced above is the rationalism of the autonomous man. The kinist believes in rationality but he does not believe in the rationalism that has been the trademark of modern autonomous man since the Endarkenment project. Rationalism as used here leads to an impersonal and rootless man because man has been cut off from a personal God who alone can provide roots in the various covenantal contexts as ordained in Scripture. Man disconnected from a personal God has nowhere to go but the impersonal plus time plus chance and as such man becomes impersonal. The unitary and technocratic state comes to the fore as the new immanent One that is seeking to provide an immanent transcendence that has been lost because the God of the Bible has been locked out of His cosmos (or so modern man thinks). So modern man, cut off from God is cut off himself from the possibility of being genuinely personal and becomes a cosmopolitan wanderer as the rootless atomized individual. When that happens look for the technocratic unitary and totalistic state to rise like bubbles blurping up in cooking pancake batter on a hot griddle.

All of this requires a re-thinking of the whole idea of individual freedom. The individual is not most free when he is most abstracted from God-ordained covenantal contexts such as family (nuclear and extended), community, church, clubs, and guilds. Indeed, the case can be made that the more we are connected to a myriad of covenantal contexts the more individualism we will have. The idea that the more any of us are “free” from these attachments the more we will know true freedom smells of brimstone and tastes of sulfur.

Are the kinists wrong here? To suggest they are is a denial of historic biblical Christianity. Again, I say, the kinists see a connection to all this and a world and church that applauds trans-racial adoptions, and polyglot marriages as normative, as well as a putatively multi-cultural/multi-racial/multi-faithism New World social order.

Christians need to be listening to the kinists, which is just another way of saying that “Christians” need to be listening to the Christians.

XIV.) That the forces of the New World Order have a vested interest in destroying community, as a means of atomizing man so that he willingly embraces the total state.

If you could take a course on the decline of the family as a community in the West in the 20th century you likely would be shocked at the full-on assault that has been waged against the family. With everything from the invention of the automobile (boudoirs on wheels freeing young women from the oversight of parents) to women’s suffrage (delimiting the authority of the man as the head of the home), to the advertising crusade to normalize women smoking cigarettes (women are just like men), to Rosie the Riveter (women working under male covenant heads not their husbands), to women routinely attending university away from home, to the rise of the pill, to the death inheritance taxation, to abortion, to women retaining their maiden names as combined with their married name, to placing children in government schools what has been seen is one constant assault by the state on the family and the Communist pursuit, stated in its Manifesto, to eliminate the family.

If it had happened all at once there would have been blood in the streets but because it has happened slowly and incrementally we have kept adjusting to each new outrage.

It is all done so that we would come to love the state who hates God and us with a rabid viciousness. The monster state labors to support every proposal from hyper-individualism that comes down the pike because the more of this kind of individualism that exists the more the state grows like the blob who ate San Francisco.

XV.) That multiculturalism is destructive of community and leads to isolation, alienation or loss of identity and a prevailing sense of loneliness. That a man who no longer identifies with his community will not expend his labor or capital in its maintenance, improvement, or in service of its future existence.

The 3multis is destructive as stated above because the price of man gaining hyper-individual “freedom” is becoming “Mr. nowhere man, living in a nowhere land, making all his plans for nobody.” The atomized individual is, to be sure, free, but he is free only to be by himself, alienated, lonely, possessing an identity that is the identity of only one and so not shared with anyone else.

And here we see the rise of the 25-year-old male still occupying his single mother’s basement honing his video game skills, only possibly interested in girls for the easy score they might be as well as the bitchy female who like the female Praying Mantis devours her mate after finishing coupling with him. Both the male and female versions of “free” individuals are disconnected not only from their communities but also from their past and their future. There is no thought for a future worthy of investing in because in their hyper-atomization they have also been cut off from their past just as they were cut off from their community. All that is left is a kind of perpetual nihilistic existentialism (sometimes called Postmodernism)  that would embarrass Nietzsche and frighten Camus. Laboring for the maintenance of a yet future existence of my community? What ficking community are you talking about?

 

XVI.) That all men are equal only in the sense that we have a common origin and federal head in Adam. That we are equal before God’s Law in the sense that it applies to all men; recognizing that in points it applies unequal treatment to the sexes, to believers than to unbelievers, to the native than to the alien. That men are unequal in almost every other way, whether it be in talents, intelligence, character, strength, appearance, etc. That these inequalities are inherent in man, and not the result of differences in their environment or upbringing. That Christians, the native-born, and property owners, have a greater claim to wielding power, whether that be holding a position of leadership, voting, land ownership, or freedom of movement. That hierarchy is the natural and proper structure of human society.

Kinists HATE with a torched passion anything that smells of the modern notion of egalitarianism. Kinists just relaxingly bathe and leisurely soak in the hatred of those who love egalitarianism. We see egalitarianism as an example of that first sin wherein the creature was told that she would become like God if she only would take and eat. By merely eating the very real fruit of the very real tree the very real Eve, the first practitioner of Luciferian egalitarianism believed that God and man would become equal (i.e.  — the same).

Kinists believe as the statement gives that all men ontologically have the same sinful nature because they all have fallen Adam as their common father. Kinists believe that God’s law applies to all men just in the way God says men are responsible to God’s law.

Kinists believe that God delights in the differences and distinctions that He has ordained and that any work that seeks to eliminate those inherent distinctions and differences proclaims one as at war with God. Modern man is at war with God. If we had any IQ left we would delight in these differences. After all, who desires to be just another comrade clone in just another grey Mao suit, greeting one another with the same ubiquitous leveler greeting of “Citoyen,” or the Anabaptist “Brother?”

Kinists believe in hierarchy and patriarchy defined biblically. We don’t want wives who know Kung Fu so well that they can single-handedly wipe out the army of Genghis Khan. We don’t want to cuddle up at night with reincarnated Old West characters like Calamity Jane. Kinists believe men and women have Biblically ordained roles and while we understand that everything can be overdone we hardly are concerned about masculinity or femininity in this culture being overdone.

Kinists are at war with this latest intensified incarnation of 1789 Paris, 1865 DC, 1918 Moscow, 1949 Peking and whatever the capital’s name is of timeless Hell.

Are Kinists the last Christian thinking men left standing?