Alienism Embraced By The Reformed World As Infected By Arminianism

The Arminian, given his atomistic individualism, rejects the significance of his race and people, by claiming that God does not deal with nations. The Arminian  rejects the significance of his family/recent ancestors, by claiming a non-existent libertarian free will and so he finds it comparatively easy to reject the covenantal nature of salvation in a Godly covenantal line. We see thus that the Arminian’s libertarian free will combined with his atomistic individualism works in him a heightened ability to just disregard the boundaries that God has set for man. He has become just an individual, floating in a sea of multi-colored individuals, with no past, no special connection to kin, with each individual serving as their own god/means of redemption. Because of this the Arminian is especially prone to being an Alienist.

This is doubly true for the Arminian Baptist, who, because of his Baptist teaching. This is a Baptist upbringing that denies continuity in the way that God has structured salvation by cutting the NT off from the OT. In the OT it is undeniable that God works salvation in covenantal lines. When God says,

Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations…

Deuteronomy 7:9

And;

But from everlasting to everlasting the loving devotion of the LORD extends to those who fear Him, and His righteousness to their children’s children— / to those who keep His covenant and remember to obey His precepts.

Psalm 103:17-18

The Reformed believers has the expectation that God will be faithful to His promise to the God to us and to our seed. The Arminian Baptist on the other hand, as seen by their refusal to mark their children in Baptism with God’s mark of ownership, teaches their children, that the child must ask Jesus into their hearts, thus communicating that God does not work in covenantal/generational lines. By stripping the covenantal nature away from redemption what is communicated is that while the child may indeed belong to God as a result of their “sinner’s prayer,” he most certainly has not been irresistibly drawn by a God who works in family lines and keeps his covenant to a thousand generations. The covenantal continuity is gone. The sense that God works normatively (though not exclusively) in covenantal lines disappears.

As such the Arminian Baptist is more easily prone to Alienism. (Here the Reformed Baptist has major contradictions in their system since they also have aversion to covenantal continuity as seen in their agreement with Arminian Baptists to not baptize their children.) Alienism is that, until recently, that unspoken doctrine that teaches that there does not exist strong cords of attachments that bind the generations together by means of God’s covenantal faithfulness. Arminian Baptists especially, have trouble wrapping their heads around the Biblical doctrine of Kinism that is built upon the foundation of God’s covenantal/generational faithfulness. Alienism, consistent with the Arminian Baptist soil it grows out of, presupposes  that God does not work in covenantal lines. It presuppose discontinuity between the Old and New Testament.

It is a devilish system that had the accelerant of Dispensationalism poured on it. Dispensationalism was an accelerant because Dispensationalism is a system of radical discontinuity. I suppose we ought to be thankful that the mainline Dispensationalists were able to beat back the Bullingerite Dispensationalists. Still, while the Dispensationalists infected all of the denominations in the 20th century the slice of Christendom most infected were the Arminian Baptists.

However, no one has yet plumbed the depth of the infection of Arminian Dispensationalism on the body of Christ. I submit the unwillingness of many of the “conservative” “Reformed” denominations to see what their forefathers saw in terms of the covenantal unity of a particular race, ethnic group, and family is the result of Arminianism via Dispensationalism infecting the Reformed world. The Reformed have, whether by the influence of the Dispensational influence, or rather by the influence of Marxist categories (which have also been stridently Alienist) has resolved to make war on their Father’s Kinism. This has been repeatedly seen in the past few years but now it will be put on parade in the RPCNA trial of Rev. Sam Ketchum. The Reformed, by their recent pronouncements on race, recent booklet written against Kinists, and their resolve to put Ketchum on trial have put their Arminian, Dispensational, and/or Marxist bona fides on display and demonstrated all the anti-Christianity that exists in their putative Christianity.

I mean, just look at all the quotes from the Reformed Fathers from Church history as chronicled in the 2nd edition of the anthology “Who Is My Neighbor.” Just look at all the quotes from the early Church forward on this matter in the commpendium, “A Survey of Racialism in the Christian Sacred Tradition,” by Alexander Storen.

“One Nation Under God, Indivisible…”

In the pledge of Allegiance the phrase “Under God,” was inserted by Congress in 1954. It should have required people asking; “Which God… Whose God.” How wise was it then, or is it now, to Pledge Allegiance using the phrase “Under God,” when nobody knows which God we are under? All of this reminds me of the President Eisenhower quote from 1953 (the year before the Pledge was changed by Congress);

“In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. Of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men being created equal.”

Given this quote Christian Americans should have never ever said the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Even then Christians should have raised a storm. Pledging Allegiance to a God that straddles that which precludes the possibility of being straddled was a non-Christian pledge.  If Jesus was right that we cannot serve two Masters then how is it that the God that allegiance was being pledged to was a God who was both the Jewish God and the Christian God? The fact that little Jewish boys and girls and little Christian boys and girls were together “pledging allegiance to the flag of one nation under God” should have tripped somebody’s wires, given the fact that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians have absolutely nothing in common with one another.  In point of fact, they hate one another with each being committed to the total destruction of the other. Yet, to this day, especially in homeschooling communities Christians will insist on “pledging their allegiance to the flag.”

But that isn’t the only problem, though it is the largest problem. Just before invoking God in the pledge there is the phrase, “One nation.” The whole phrase goes; “One nation, under God.” This is just historically ignorant. These united States were never formed as one nation. That was never the intent of the founders. To the contrary, what the founders envisioned was that America would be nation containing nations. There could be no unity of “one nation” without the attendant diversity of “many nations.” The many nations in one nation was communicated chiefly by the vertical checks and balances. The states were sovereign nations who had delegated very specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government. In all other matters, except for those delegated and enumerated powers the States retained their sovereignty as states (nations). So, when we pledge allegiance to “One nation, under God,” we have not only the problem of not being in agreement as to what God we are under (a major consideration to the end of unity if there ever was a major consideration) but we also have the problem of pledging that we are one nation — something that many of the fathers never intended. None of the Father’s envisioned the unitary pagan Nation State that we currently are expected to “pledge allegiance.” Then when you add the phrase “indivisible” the pledge becomes downright knee slapping humorous.  There is nowhere in the US Constitution that states that these united State were ever intended to be indivisible. That whole idea was fobbed on us by the tyrant Lincoln who made the nation “indivisible” at the end of a bayonet.

Americans in the middle of the 20th century were sold a bill of goods regarding these united States. We were even then not “under God,” as the Presidential phrase “Judeo-Christian” revealed. We were even then not one nation as considered in light of our lawful founding document. We were even then not a nation that was indivisible. Yet, the elite used the Pledge to knit together a civic religion that, praise God, is beginning to fall apart given the importation of the third world into America carrying along with them their false gods. It is becoming more and more glaringly obvious that a nation cannot be a nation as it exists under a multitude of different and competing gods. If we can’t rid ourselves of the foreign invasion, then it is my prayer that a secession movement will be successful to the end of eliminating the idolatry of the civic religion that we are all now living under so that perhaps someday we can once again perhaps be one Christian people under God.

Marchin’ Lootin’ King Day … A Truly Unique American Holiday

Soon after its 1994 release, I read, “The Martin Luther King, Jr., Plagiarism Story,” by Theodore Pappas.Pappas’ manuscript was rejected 40 times from 40 publishers in 40 months before it was finally published. When it was finally published it was sell well received that it had a first edition sell out.

Nobody wanted to hear the truth about Marchin’ Lootin’ King and that explains why Pappas’ manuscript was consistently rejected. The Left so owned the publishing world that Pappas was rejected over and over again for the simple crime of telling the truth.

And what was the scandalous truth?

The truth was that King was a Doctor the way that a guy named Seuss was a Doctor. Pappas demonstrably proved that King was a liar and a cheat as seen in his repeated plagiarism on his thesis papers. King lifted whole paragraphs from books of previous writers. This was later admitted by the University granting the degree but the University refused to revoke the degree. King had become everybody’s token and once one is a token one can’t be touched.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Below the tip was the fact that King was a known whoremonger. One of his chief lieutenants (Ralph Abernathy) wrote of King’s extramarital affairs, including the reporting of King having sex with two women the night before he was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn., as well as having a fight with a third hooker that left her the loser of the fight. King was faithful to his wife, Coretta Scott King the way that Bill Clinton was faithful to Hillary.

King was a wretch of a man… both in his behavior and in his convictions. His Christianity was all smoke. He read the supernatural out of the Scripture. Did not believe in the virgin Birth, the resurrection, or any other miracle explaining them as happening outside history though impacting history.

King was in favor of the destruction of his own people. The last person that Blacks should esteem is Marchin’ Lootin’ King given his support for the legalizing of abortion — a legalizing which has disproportionately ravaged the Black community. King was given, by Margaret Sanger the “Margaret Sanger Award” in 1966 and wrote the words that King’s wife uttered in accepting the prize in Marchin’ Lootin’ King’s name;

“Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions.”

Yet, despite all this known by the powers that be, still those that hate Christ and the White race were able to shove him into the American pantheon, where, by his presence, King contradicts everything that it had previously meant to be a virtuous American. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) did his best to stop this monstrosity but the “great” “Conservative” Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law making the third Monday of every January a anti-Christ holiday known as “Marchin’ Lootin’ King day.” In this act alone Ronnie Reagan should be abominated along with King.

The lifting of the King to the American pantheon was the confirmation of the most recent revamping of the US Constitution. The first revamping was under the Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. The second revamping was a collected effort of the Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt administrations. With Marchin’ Lootin’ King the US constitution is remade again and King becomes the Saint of the Civil Rights movement that accounts for the third revamping of the US Constitution. The US constitution with King and the civil rights movement makes the white man the enemy of the Federal State. What was established in principle with the civil rights movement has evolved into its inevitable outcome of set asides, quotas, which itself has evolved into DEI and WOKEISM. Without Marchin’ Lootin’ King as supported by the Bagel apparatus of the Leftist media as well as all the might of the Federal Government (beginning with Eisenhower) the Marxist Civil Rights revolution never revamps the American Constitution.

King’s pantheon status introduced contradiction into the American mythos. King could not be numbered among the heroes without there being a necessity to push other previous heroes out of the pantheon of America’s hero greats. Since the apotheosis of Marchin’ Lootin’ King, the contradiction has forced others to be demoted. All of them white men. From George Washington to the Spanish conquistador Don Juan de Oñate to Robert E. Lee to Christopher Columbus to Juan Ponce de Leon, etc. the previous monuments to America’s heroes have either been extensively vandalized or have been torn down. People don’t realize this, but all this has been done to make room for Marchin’ Lootin’ King and his Marxist grifters and rabble. Once King was apotheosized all other heroes must be seen as shameful.

King’s holiday is a day of mourning for base Americans. It is a day of mourning for epistemologically self-conscious Blacks. It is a day of mourning for all Biblical Christians because the Marxism that drove the Civil Rights movement has been in the saddle since the success of King. Marxism is the avowed enemy of Biblical Christianity. One of the really sad things is that since the success of the Civil Rights Movement and Marchin’ Lootin’ King the conservative Reformed/Evangelical Church has reinterpreted the Christian faith through the lens of Marxism. This was most clearly seen when conservative Evangelical and Reformed types came together to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Marchin’ Lootin’ King’s 50th anniversary marking his death. In that conference Reformed leaders reiterated over and over again how this vile man was a Saint of God.

This holiday is especially heinous because it is the one holiday of the year where we are especially lectured by the elite in the fields of journalism, Government, and corporate America about the glories of its founder and his mission/vision. We are harangued and lectured how we need to “complete the vision of King.” We are told endlessly about how racist America remains. We are chided for not advancing far enough fast enough. You can bet today you will read article and columns connecting the sainted King with the poor persecuted immigrants being arrested by wicked evil white ICE agents. On holidays like Columbus day we get all kinds of gobbledygook language about it really being “indigenous people day.” On Independence Day we get columns and articles about how wicked our white founders were. On Christmas we get columns and articles about how Jesus isn’t really who the Scriptures say He is. However on Marchin’ Lootin’ King day we get “all hail the power of Martin’s name, let angels prostrate fall.”

In all seriousness, the King celebration is, in reality, a humiliation ritual for white Americans who know their history and who haven’t become mind numbed normies.

With the success of King, the halo of sanctity unto the end of special rights/privilege now finds not only the Black man ensconced in a safety zone of untouchable status but also now all minorities, all women, and all sexual perverts. This is the constituency of the Democratic party that the Republican party will not touch.

Don’t get me wrong. I could see celebrating a day set aside for a Black man like Booker T. Washington who emphasized the need for the Black man to pursue vocational education as an opportunity for economic security which would be more valuable to the Black man than social advantages, higher education, or political office. Washington’s speech was highlighted by his statement;

 “In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.”

Washington was loudly applauded by his audience in Atlanta and yet he was seen as a Uncle Tom by his own people who had determined that they would rather follow a man like W. E. Dubois, and later King who marketed grievance like the ADL markets Jewish oppression.

So, mark yet another Marchin’ Lootin’ King day. The deity lives on in America and the posterity of those that built America continue to serve those who would replace that posterity.

Eucharist As A Means of Grace … It’s Meaning & Frequency (Receptionism)

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 20:7 – On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them intending to depart on the next day and prolonged his speech until midnight.

I Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

In these passages we see the controlling dynamic of worship. In that early Church we read of how the Church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” That phrase reminds us that the Word preached was central to worship. The Apostle reinforces that in I Cor. Where he writes about his assignment to preach the Gospel. In the Acts passage the other central dynamic of worship is contained in the phrase “breaking of bread,” which many scholars believe is a reference to communion.

The two of these together – The Word preached & the Sacraments administered have long been considered and called, among the Reformed as the “Means of grace.” So, as Reformed folks we affirm the fact that there exist two (some say three) means of Grace. These are Word and Sacrament, with some also insisting that prayer is a means of grace. By the phrase “means of grace” what we mean is that we hold to the conviction that God convinces us of His favor, and grows us in the faith (sanctification) by way of His gathering us to attend on the Word preached and the sacraments received. We also recognize that there is only one place where these means of God’s grace are to be found and that is in God’s church. Hungry Christians — Christians who desire to be showered with grace therefore gather on the Lord’s Day where the Word is proclaimed by those set aside and ordained to the end of being God’s spokesman to speak grace and administer the sacraments and to pray.

Thus far we have only said what our Heidelberg Catechism teaches in LD 38. We are taught:

That, especially on the day of rest,
I diligently attend the church of God2
to hear God’s Word,3
to use the sacraments,4
to call publicly upon the LORD,5
and to give Christian offerings for the poor.6

I submit to you that one reason that the importance of attending Worship is that we are no longer convinced that it is in Christian Worship alone where we find God’s favor conveyed to us in a unique and promised way in the Word preached and the sacrament administered.

So, as we have said one reality that we find as we gather week by week is the means of grace — that is the Word proclaimed. In older language it was the goal of the minister to “preach Christ into his people.” This was the passion of the clergy. To help God’s people by putting Christ on display. To provide to God’s people solace, encouragement, and steel via the preaching of the Word. To not let them leave without reminding them of God’s favor in Christ and God’s standard established by Christ. To bless them with God’s blessing so they might be better able to navigate the rough waters of life.

Alas, the Word preached as fallen on hard times as we have increasingly become a people who are controlled by the image, unlike our forefathers who were word oriented. Because we have been mesmerized by moving images coming at us with rapidity we seldom have the patience to follow the careful argumentation that used to be characteristic of the pulpit — a careful argumentation that required the listener to follow points, sub-points, and sub sub points of a sermon that resulted in a thorough understanding of subjects preached on. In such a way the means of grace that was the Word proclaimed formed and shaped generations. The Word proclaimed … this preaching Christ into God’s people resulted in the health of individuals, families, churches, and social orders. This preaching Christ into God’s people yielded the byproduct of wholeness and holiness into a culture. Christian cultures started with the Preaching of God’s Word. A people convinced of God’s favor were set free to live to the glory of God in all their living and it all started with the means of grace God appointed for worship.

Today our preaching, exceptions notwithstanding, is more image oriented than it is word oriented. More sensational, and so more shallow and considerably briefer — attention spans being what they are.

The result of all this is a Christian who is malnourished and comparatively stunted in growth compared to previous generations.

Yet here we are and the cure for this decline is the Means of grace. The cure is the Word rightly proclaimed and the sacraments properly administered as taught in Acts 2 and elsewhere through Scripture.

We have emphasized thus far the Word preached but the Sacraments administered were also the means of grace. The Fathers here used to say that in the Sacraments we don’t get a better Christ but we may well get Christ better. Preachers fail… stumble in preaching the word … but in the Table and the Font there Christ is revealed in such a way that is more difficult for the preacher to confound. When we come to the table we are reminded that Christ is our sufficiency… that Christ is our answer to God’s previous just wrath that justly was upon us. When we come to the table we are remind that God is for us for the sake of our benevolent champion Elder Brother, Jesus Christ. How can we not find ourselves lost in wonder, love, and praise when we are reminded both in Baptism and the Eucharist that despite the truth we see about ourselves – sinners that we are – still we are received in the beloved Christ and being received we don’t have to be burdened with the silly attempt to work off our sins by some kind of penance system dictated to us by a tyrant church?

Historically, when the Reformed church talked and wrote about Word and Sacrament – the means of Grace – and the relationship between the two our theologians would teach us that the Sacrament, being a symbol, depended upon the Word for explanation. So, the Word preached was given pride of place because in order to understand what the drama of the Sacraments were teaching we needed the Word to provide the context of the drama that is the Sacraments.

So, historically, the Reformed adjudicated that the proclamation of the Word to be absolutely essential to Worship, while the administration of the Sacraments was reflexively essential. The Word that is the whole counsel of God from justification to sanctification can stand alone, while the Sacraments lean upon the Word and their meaning from it. Our Father’s styled the Eucharist as; as “visible sermon.”

So, both Word and Sacrament are together means of grace.

That brings us to the issue of frequency of the Eucharist. Clearly, if the Word Preached is absolutely essential then you’d expect that you would need to hear it preached every time God gathers us for worship. However, if the Sacraments are only reflexively essential than the argument might be made that they are not necessary week in and out. And this is the way that some argue, and while we might not insist that the frequency of the table is not a hill to die on, we still have some observations here.

First, we would say that if one is convinced that the Sacraments rightly administered is a Means of Grace then why would one not want to have the opportunity to avail themselves of that Means of Grace God has set aside in order to shower His people with His blessings of favor? Why would we with neglect a frequent pursuit of the Eucharist where God promises to meet with His people.

We have to understand that when we come to the table that what we do here is not first and foremost our performative act. When we come to the Table we understand that before it is about our faith act in reception it is about what God is doing. As in the Word preached where God is the one speaking so in the Sacraments God is the one feeding us with life eternal. If it was only about our doing … our remembrance then perhaps attending the Lord’s table once quarterly or once a year would be acceptable. However, keep in mind what our Catechism teaches us about the Supper. We are taught that the effect of the Eucharist is;

to be united more and more to his sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.2

The HC cites John 6 here,

55 For My flesh is [a]food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

This passage indicates that the Catechists saw that the Eucharist as more than a mere memorial and teaches the Calvin doctrine of receptionism. This understanding of the Sacrament taught that the bread and wine do not change physically, thus distinguishing it from a RC or Lutheran understanding. However, at the same time we confess that in the bread and wine Christ is spiritually present so that when we eat in faith as given to us by the Holy Spirit’s power we to partake in the body and blood of Christ. The emphasis is that the body of Christ is spiritually present to the believer during the Eucharist. This understanding distinguished the Eucharist from a Zwinglian (Baptist) bare memorial understanding as if all that happens in the table is between our ears. In this understanding the Eucharist is a visible sign that is more than a sign since the sign has the reality in the sign.

All of this begins to explain why the Heidelberg Catechism continues on in LD 28;

Therefore, although Christ is in heaven3 and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones,4 and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.5

So… to enlarge on what we said a few minutes ago, we quote from Scottish Reformer Robert Bruce;

Therefore I say, we get no other thing in the Sacrament than we get in the Word. Content yourself with this. But if this is so, the Sacrament is not superfluous.

Would you understand then, what new thing you get, what other things you get? I will tell you. Even if you get the same thing which you get in the Word, yet you get that same thing better. What is this “better”? You get a better grip of the same thing in the Sacrament than you got by the hearing of the Word. That same thing which you possess by the hearing of the Word, you now possess more fully. God has more room in your soul, through your receiving of the Sacrament, than he could otherwise have by your hearing of the Word only. What then, you ask, is the new thing we get? We get Christ better than we did before. We get the thing which we had more fully, that is, with a surer apprehension than we had before. We get a better grip of Christ now, for by the Sacrament my faith is nourished, the bounds of my soul are enlarged, and so where I had but a little grip of Christ before, as it were, between my finger and my thumb, now I get him in my whole hand, and indeed the more my faith grows, the better grip I get of Christ Jesus. Thus the Sacrament is very necessary, if only for the reason that we get Christ better, and get a firmer grasp of him by the Sacrament than we could have before.

Robert Bruce
The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper

So, we have wandered somewhat from where this section started. We started with the issue of frequency of the Table, and where we have traveled in the last few minutes I trust you’ll see why some would choose, like John Knox did do, to want the Table whenever the Word was preached. Calvin himself, though he didn’t exactly get his wish in Geneva, desired to have the table in every worship service.

Now, let us round off by considering a possible objection that is commonly heard when increasing the frequency of taking the table. Often the objection is this;

“If you have the table too often it will become common… routine, and cease to be special or precious.”

Well, first we would say here that if this line of reasoning was true we would think the same thing about commonly and routinely coming for worship. We might well say the same of the Sermon. If we took this logic into marriage husbands might reason …”Well, I don’t want to kiss my wife too often lest it becomes routine or common.”

Still, we admit that the human heart, being what it is, could well begin to treat the Eucharist as routine and common. However, if that happens might the problem not be the frequency of the sacrament but rather a frequency of undisciplined minds as well as the failure of the pulpit in the Word being proclaimed?

We want to round off by saying again, that we are not going to think ourselves superior to others who don’t take the table weekly. We understand that the Scriptures are not unmistakably clear on the issue of frequency. Good men disagree on this subject. We also might well conclude after a period of weekly communion that for whatever reason weekly communion isn’t working.

Let us though end with a passage that many have considered one which strongly points in the direction of weekly Eucharist;

Acts 20:7 – On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them intending to depart on the next day and prolonged his speech until midnight.

If the phrase “break bread” here is a reference to the Eucharist then this passage would prove the issue. However, while that phrase might well refer to the Lord’s Supper it might also refer to a common meal shared by that fellowship.

 

 

Rev. Joe Spurgeon On Whites Being Replaced; Right Message – Wrong Messenger

Stick with me here. The irony comes at the end.

Rev. Joe Spurgeon (RJS) writes;

“Everyone wants to talk about demographics change but very few are willing to tell the truth about where much of the blame lies.”

Bret responds,

The issue here that Joe is bringing to our attention is the problem the West is having with demographic change. When you peel this back, that problem is that the West (and the US) is becoming less white. That Joe is focusing on White people not replacing themselves is seen in the multiple times he uses the word “White.”

RJS writes;

White Americans do not have a replacement level birth rate. The total fertility rate for white women in the United States sits well below 2.1 children per woman. That means the population is shrinking on its own, before immigration is even part of the equation.

Bret responds,

Here Joe brings out the failure of white people to replace themselves. Clearly Joe thinks this is a bad thing. I agree with Joe that it is a bad thing.

RJS writes,

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of white babies are aborted every year. Roughly a quarter of all abortions in the United States are performed on white women. That is an entire generation being erased before it ever sees daylight.

Bret responds,

Joe once again focuses on the white babies aborted. Joe is clearly zeroing in the collapse of White America. I agree with Joe that this is horrid.

As an aside… it is interesting that though America, demographically, remains 61% white, only 25% of abortions in these united States are done by white people. That means the abortion industry thrives off of the minority community.

RSJ writes,

Add to this the widespread use of birth control (which is itself abortifacient). Millions of white women are on the pill alone, intentionally preventing conception for years at a time. Children are delayed, downsized, or avoided altogether in the name of convenience, autonomy, or lifestyle preservation.

Bret responds,

Again, I completely agree with Joe here.

Joe writes,

A people that kills its children in the womb and refuses to have enough children to replace itself will not survive.

Bret responds,

Keep in mind that the “people” that Joe has been talking about is white people. It is white people who will not survive because they are not replacing themselves. This is the demographic change that Joe wrote of in his opening salvo.

Joe writes,

This is not primarily something being done to white Americans. It is something white Americans are doing to themselves.

Bret responds,

Note again… it is white Americans that Joe’s whole piece is about. Again, I agree with what Joe says here.

RJS writes,

A civilization cannot be sustained on abortion, sterility, and self hatred. If a people wants to endure, it must choose life, marriage, and fruitfulness again.

Bret responds,

Joe talks about (white) people wanting to endure. Joe talks about the need for white people to choose life, marriage, and fruitfulness. I agree.

The kicker here is that Joe writes all this as a white man who has not replaced himself. Joe hasn’t aborted his children. Joe did choose life and Joe did choose fruitfulness. However, what Joe did not choose was the very thing he is lecturing white people on … Joe did not choose replacement. Joe as a white man has not replaced himself. Joe married a non-caucasian woman and had many children who can not be considered replacements for Joe.

So, Joe complains (rightfully) that white people have sinned in not replacing themselves… Joe complains (rightfully) about demographic change, and yet Joe has four fingers pointing back at him as Rev. Joe points at white people for the sin of not replacing themselves.

So, I am to understand that a man who married a non-White woman is now lecturing other white people on their sin of not replacing themselves because of inadequate birthrates?

I want to make something clear here. I get why some people might marry outside their race. I get that there are going to be situations where that happens. I am glad for Joe that he has a radiant wife and many children. Further, I’m confident that all those children are Christian children.

What I don’t get is how such a guy can have the stones to complain that their race of origin is not replacing itself, when in point of fact, Joe has contributed to the demographic change that he is lamenting. If it is sin for white people to pursue death by not replacing themselves then that has to include not only abortion, and abortifacients as causes of white people not replacing themselves, but it must also include, as causative, large numbers of the population marrying outside their race and having non-white children.

The truth that has to be added to all the truth that Rev. Joe Spurgeon brought is that if Whites want to halt the demographic change in these united States they have to cease with interracial marriage because interracial marriage as well as abortion and abortifacients contributes to the demographic change here that Joe rightly laments.

Bottom line here … Joe has given us the right message, but he is the wrong messenger.

Addendum

1.) Someone has argued that white miscegenation compared to white abortion is akin to comparing the Himalayas to a molehill. I concur that abortion and abortifacients are a far larger problem however, consider that 17% of all new marriages in the US are interracial and by 2050, it is projected that 1 in 5 newlyweds in the US will have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, indicating a continued rise in interracial relationships.

So… the Himalayas to molehill analogy doesn’t really work.

2.) Also on this matter we have to consider that one abortion kills one white child, while marrying outside one’s race prohibits many potential white children being birthed.

3.) Dan Brannan notes on this subject;

Both miscegenation and abortion remove a member of the nation. But one (miscegenation) also adds a member of an outgroup in amongst us. One (abortion) is murder of an individual. The other (miscegenation) is essentially murder of the nation.