“How Stupid Can One Be,” is not Supposed to be a Challenge — Rev. Uri Brito

“Kinism is a fundamental denial of God’s redemptive plan to restructure the world under the culture of resurrection and ascension. It wishes to return to a pre-AD 70 universe where race and lineage prevailed instead of the new creation in Messiah Jesus.”

Rev. Uriesou Brito
Yet Another CREC Retard

One wonders whose ear these guys are pulling this waxy substance from.

1.) Note here the matter vs. spirit kind of Manicheanism/Gnosticism. Pre-Ad 70 material world bad. Post-AD 70 new creation (spiritual) world good. Apparently, when Jesus brings in the new creation the new creation is no longer corporeal so that race and lineage are real realities.

2.) Someone might want to tell Rev. U Brito that race and lineage do not go away simply because someone or some people group are redeemed. When the Sawi people, by God’s grace were visited with Redemption as brought to them by the Herald of God’s Gospel, Don Richardson, the Sawi people did not cease being Sawi. They became the Sawi people living now in a Sawi culture that was shaped by the resurrection and ascension.

For Pete’s sake is Rev. UB going to gainsay the great Augustine?

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

Is Rev. UB wiser than Calvin?

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

One wonders what Rev. UB does with Jesus being the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah?” Were the inspired writers of Scripture also denying God’s plan to restructure the world redemptively? Frankly, this is so dorky, so lamebrained, so chuckleheaded that one begins to run out of synonyms for “stupid.”

3.) The problem that Rev. UB has (as well as these other lunkheads) is that his anthropology really sucks eggs. Does man, upon regeneration, becomes something other than who God has created him to be corporeally? Once again we see the denial the grace restores nature, in favor of a doctrine that grace destroys nature.

4.) Notice the antithesis the Rev. UB has introduced. Rev. UB’s antithesis is  race and lineage vs. new creation as if new creation erases race and lineage, as if race and lineage are wicked and new creation is righteous because it eliminates race and lineage. It is maddening enough to cause a bald man to go get hair implants so he can tear it out.

5.) What does Rev. UB do with all those passages in the OT (Isaiah 2 & Micah 4 to just name two) that talk explicitly about all the nations streaming to the Mountain of the Lord?

6.) Everything said by Rev. UB said above is completely out of his nether regions. It has absolutely no roots or grounding in Scripture. It is the height of desperation and frankly, it is a gross mishandling of the Word of God.

These chaps are going to be awfully disappointed at how corporeal the new heavens and the new earth is going to be.

 

Recovering All the Past Doug, or only Part of It?

” There is no way for America to recover herself without recognizing the actual sources of the actual legacy we actually squandered. That legacy came from somewhere, and all the wishing in the world won’t transform it into something that will have come from somewhere else. Subtle uses of the subjunctive can’t alter the past. And our past is a covenanted past. Our past is a Christian past. Our past is the source of the good gifts we are now using in the pursuit of our debauchery.”

Doug Wilson
The Prodigal Son & Christian Nationalism
21 August 2023

I can only add an AMEN to what Doug says above even though it doesn’t cover all the territory needed to be covered.

Our past is also a White Anglo Saxon Protestant past and there is no way Doug can lead in the recovery he calls for until Doug repents of not recognizing that source of our past that he is contributing to in squandering by railing against Kinists.

Oh sure, Doug will agree with the necessity of recovering our Protestant past but he will give a “hard pass” to the need to recover our White Anglo-Saxon roots. This is what Kinists are calling for but Doug is a leading voice in denouncing this attempt by Kinists to recover our past that we have squandered. By doing so, Doug demonstrates he has a Gnostic streak running through him and that he has more in common with Moanin’ Owen Strychnine than he does with Dr. Stephen Wolfe.

Let Doug be consistent and call for the recovering the legacy of America’s White Anglo Saxon Protestant Christian past. I mean, not even Doug’s subtle usage of the subjunctive can alter the past.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” VII

“We encounter the Gospel when we experience the places made spiritually significant by our Christian loved ones.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 179

 

“The instrumentalities of the family are chosen and ordained of God as the most efficient of all means of grace—more truly and efficaciously means of saving grace than all other ordinances of the church” (p. 693)

R. L. Dabney

The Reformed are sticklers for advocating that the only means of grace are Word and Sacrament. However, I must say that I appreciate what Wolfe and before him Dabney were communicating. There can be no doubt that place and people having been ornamented by the Gospel can indeed evoke in us a great depth of thankfulness to God for bringing those Christian people and those grounds which are now hallowed in our thinking into our lives.

II.) “Those who exhibit a preference for foreigners have disordered loves — a condition we can call xenophilia, or the love of foreigners. Its conjoined condition is what Roger Scruton called ‘oikophobia,’ or the fear of home and familiarity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 150 / FN 37

Here we discover that the modern Christian Church, exceptions notwithstanding, is now a institution characterized by xenophilia. The contemporary White Church in the West is all hot to trot to have minorities in their midst seemingly thinking that to have such means that they are “really holy now.” What else can this be called except xenophilia?

On this same score, Scruton was exactly right with his label “oikophobia.” White Christians in our mega-churches are characterized by their hatred of their own ethnic people. Indeed, it has gotten so bad that it really is the case now that the stranger and alien are so loved and there is such fear of racial kin that the stranger and alien are in point of fact the new kin for these whom Wolfe and Scruton are describing. If that observation is indeed true it teaches us that “Kinism” is an inescapable categoriy.

III.) “Non-Christians living among us are entitled to justice, peace, and safety, but they are not entitled to political equality, nor do they have the right to deny the people of God their right to order civil institutions to God and their complete good.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 346

 

That will make the R2K crowd pee their pants.

IV.) “Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I agree 100% but I would bet my retirement fund that 90% of conservative clergy would viciously disagree with that quote.

Dr. Wolfe’s point here is, I believe, that people from different cultures, races, and/or classes can indeed be one in Christ but still not be able to have formal ecclesial unity. As an obvious example, imagine a group of Reformed Hmong people here in the states trying to establish formal ecclesial unity with a group of Reformed Mexicans. The very real spiritual unity would not overcome the very real cultural differences. This reality is not to diminish the reality that each people are indeed Christian through and through. It is merely to recognize that cultures and peoples differ enough to make the kind of difference that would not allow formal ecclesial unity.

V.) “It is time to recognize that the theonomists were right about the direction of Reformed political theology as it manifested itself in the late 20th century up to today.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 270

Damn straight we were right and we continue to be right about the futility of Dr. Wolfe’s natural law project.

Here is one of my conclusion on Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Wolfe, as a Natural Law theorist, is giving a rejoinder to the Natural Law theorists who are R2K. This discussion is a in house discussion between those who champion Natural Law.
Presuppositionalists will be dissatisfied with both parties, though as it pertains to the contest between Wolfe’s theories and R2K’s theories we are clearly praying that Wolfe wins out.

McAtee Interacts with Jon Harris (Friend) & Owen Strachan (Foe) On Kinism

I.) “Andrew (Torba) I pray you understand the true biblical gospel, which has nothing to do with your kinist message of ethnic preservation and propagation. I say this in love: you are promoting a false gospel.”

Dr. Rev. Owen Strachan

Baptist Idiot (Tautology alert)

1.) There is a category confusion here that has gained a wide-spread footing and that is to reduce Christianity to “the gospel.” The gospel is at the heart of Biblical Christianity inasmuch as it answers the question, “How shall I be saved.” However it is Biblical Christianity as a whole that provides the answer to another question that arises for those who have been united to Christ and so redeemed by the Gospel and that question that Biblical Christianity answers is “How shall we then live.”

I add this because it is true, in a sense, that the Gospel, narrowly considered, doesn’t have anything to do with ethnic preservation and propagation unless, of course, one observes that the Gospel can’t be preached to white people who have experienced genocide.  Further, because this is true it is quite possible for someone who follows the model of Biblical Christianity in preserving and propagating their people to still advocate for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, as is customary for these blithering idiots (with apologies to all blithering idiots for suggesting that y’all are as bad as these people), they are confusing categories.

2.) Still, to take this as Strachan obviously intends it, we would counter with the observation that it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that one ignores the ongoing attempted genocide of your people because of Strachan’s version of LUV.  It would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant that we LUV our children enough to turn a blind eye to their being replaced. it would be a strange true gospel if that gospel meant  that we LUV God enough to ignore the 6th commandment. Strachan would have us believe that the true gospel once embraced is a ethnocide pact.

3.) Moanin’ Owen is fundamentally opposed to the Gospel in its broadest sense. You see, Jesus told the disciples to baptize and disciple the nations (not merely individuals), which cannot happen if those nations cease to exist. The true Gospel is about the reconciliation of the nations to God, not deeming the existence and health of nations as irrelevant, such as Strychnine Strachan would have it.

II.) “Real talk: You go against inter-ethnic marriage, you go against God.”

Rev. Dr. Owen Strychnine Strachan

Pssst…. someone tell Moanin’ Owen that Ezra (ch. 9) and Nehemiah (13) are two books in the Bible and he might want to consult before tweeting such abject stupidity.

III.)“So, if someone is going to use what I just said to try to say I am a Kinist or something they just have no clue what they are talking about.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter
The Shadow that Follow Liberalism

55:00 mark

 

I have a real problem here with this. Jon is communicating here as if there is something wrong with being called a Kinist. Jon is acting as if it would be the worst thing in the world to be (gasp) a “Kinist. This mindset keeps Kinists behind the 8 ball in the minds of the people he is influencing.

Now, if Jon doesn’t think that there is any problem with Kinism then he wouldn’t care about being called a “Kinist.” But Jon is afraid of being called a Kinist and he wants people to not dare call him a Kinist. This suggest that somehow being a Kinist is out of bounds for Jon and that is to give in to the idiots out there who are shrieking about the presence of Kinists in the Church.

The funny thing is, is that from what I hear Jon saying in this podcast (“The Shadow that follows Liberalism”)  it moves me to conclude that the man is indeed what is called a weak “weak Kinist.” When people name Jon Harris as a Kinist they are exactly correct even if Jon is repulsed.

Bottom line? I don’t think Jon has any idea what Kinism is except as he has heard it described from its enemies.

IV.) “Know, that culture is linked to lineage, at least on a mass scale.”

Jon Harris
Conversations that Matter

The Shadow That Follows Liberalism — 102:15

The problem here is that one can NOT get to a mass scale apart from individuals of a particular lineage maintaining their particular lineage by not marrying inter-racially.

IMO, Jon, desires to say that “Kinists like” convictions are right on a mass scale but wrong on a micro scale and this does not follow. One can not get to the mass apart from the micro.

And I note this as one who understands that advocacy for legal definitions of purity of lineage are stupid and counter-productive. I say this as someone who understands that inter-racial marriages are going to happen. However, inter-racial marriages should be discouraged if we want to keep a Anglo-Protestant culture as Jon says he desires. Inter-racial marriage may not be sin, but it is normatively unwise.

On the whole I consider Jon to be friend to the cause to crush WOKE, but I think the man is still simmering and has not yet come to full boil. Time will tell.

Sey, Not Allowed To Have The Final Say

The attacks against the biblical doctrine of Kinism continue and it is past apparent that people (Alienists) are getting desperate. We saw that previously in some of the really inane things Rev. Toby Sumpter said that we interacted with on Iron Ink. Not to be outdone by Rev. Sumpter a new contestant steps forward to see if he can out stupid Rev. Sumpter in his claims. Frankly, we have now arrived at the point where Kinists don’t have any need to refute the things that are being written because the depth of torpidity that the Alienists are reaching are making such large craters of stupidity that the Kinists can just point and roll their eyes. Indeed, there is a old political principle that states that if your opponent is blowing himself up, shut up and get out of the way.

However, having said that, as a Kinist, I have to understand that many people might look at an argument and have a instinct that there is something wrong while not being able to put their finger exactly on the problem. So, with that in mind we turn to a recent column by one Samuel Sey. I don’t know much about Sey except he is some kind of African married to a white woman and I only know that because Sey goes out of his way to tell everyone that in his column, which can be found here;

Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism

We are not going to look at all Sey says, choosing instead to point out the really really dumb stuff;

Samuel Sey writes (hereinafter SS)

“Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.”

Bret responds,

1.) Well, yes, if one traces the descent of the sons of Europe back far enough they will find that they are descendants of a common father, just as when one traces the descent of the sons of Africa back far enough will discover that they are descendants of a different common father. As such, they are indeed “kin.”

2.)  Kinists believe, not only that white people should be preserved but also that all races should be preserved. However, since it is the white race that is being pursued that it might be replaced, white Kinists perhaps spend a wee bit more of time saying, “excuse me, but I quite desire my people to continue as a people. I mean, I don’t want to be pushy or anything like that, but I’d prefer very much if my people did not experience genocide.”

That genocide is on the table can be seen from quotes like this;

“My concern is doing away with Whiteness. Whiteness is a form of racial oppression. Sure the suggestion is that is somehow possible to separate Whiteness from oppression and it is not. There can be no White Race without the phenomena of the White supremacies. In the same way if you abolish racial oppression you do away with Whiteness. Treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The task is to bring these minorities together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of Whiteness to reproduce itself.”

Noel Ignatiev
Harvard Professor

3.) It is true that Kinists believe that white should have communities that uniquely belong to them, just as Israel belongs to the Jews, just as China belong to the Han people, just as Zimbabwe belongs largely to the Shona people. So, color Kinists guilty that we desire our own Christian communities, with our own Christian cultures, speaking our own language, having our own Christian history, customs and habits.

4.) From this it naturally follows that Kinists are not excited by a immigration policy that has as its core goal, to change the community. This is the goal of the current so called US immigration policy.

5.) Finally, it is true that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage as a general rule because Kinists realize that if inter-racial marriage is pursued as a matter of policy the results is genocide of white people. Did I mention that Kinists are opposed to experiencing genocide?

6.) Another reason that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage is because Kinists understand that strong marriages, like strong communities, are begun and maintained when the people entering into marriages have as much in common as possible and since Kinists understand that there is, normatively speaking, a strong continuity between race and culture, therefore Kinists, desiring that marriages be strong, discourage inter-racial marriage due to the differences that the prospective bride and groom will bring into the marriage. Kinists perfectly understand that some inter-racial marriages will exist and we will do our best to support these marriages, however we will not encourage them for our children. None of this is controversial in the least as our Christian Fathers understood this principle and we simply agree with our Fathers as against the current Babel zeitgeist;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS);

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

“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

So, Kinists do think that inter-racial is almost always unwise and even often sin and we are not ashamed in the least to stake out that position, since in staking out such a position has the felicitous outcome of perhaps saving people from getting into a unhappy marriage.

SS writes,

 However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory. 

Bret responds,

Actually, this is not a point that is in SS’s interest to push lest soft Kinists conclude that if their weak (soft) Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of CRT then they might as well go ahead and become hard Kinists.

SS writes,

These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think. 

Bret responds,

Be afraid SS. Be very afraid because our numbers are growing and momentum is on our side.

SS writes accusing Dr. Stephen Wolfe of Kinism, (if only)

“While intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves…there is a difference between something being sinful absolutely and something being sinful relatively. Interethnic marriage can be sinful relatively and absolutely.”

“People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance…What I am saying is that in-group solidarity and right of difference along ethnic lines are necessary for the complete good for each and all.”

In the book, he also positively quotes white nationalist Sam Francis. If you’re unfamiliar with him, American Renaissance (a white supremacist website) said “Francis was the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.”

Sey now quotes Andrew Torba,

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Bret responds,

I like those quotes SS. Keep them coming.

SS writes,

Like all racists, Kinists are fundamentally foolish. God ordains ethnicity, but he didn’t create all ethnicities in the Garden of Eden. Meaning, my Akan ethnicity or Fanti tribe didn’t exist in the Garden. My race existed in Adam and Eve, but my ethnicity didn’t. Humanity—the human race—was created in the Garden, but our ethnicities were ordained by God over time.

Bret responds,

1.) Given how dumb SS is, I take it as a badge of honor to be called fundamentally foolish. Thank you Samuel.

2.) If God has ordained races/ethnicities our knowing how it happened doesn’t matter. The fact that God ordained races/ethnicities is all I need. Thanks SS for making that point.

3.) Not to state the obvious SS, but you do realize that what you are promoting is precisely what was being promoted at the Tower of Babel right?

SS writes,

Therefore, since our ethnicities didn’t exist at some point in the past—we shouldn’t attempt to preserve them in the future. The purpose of ethnicity isn’t to preserve our image, it’s to preserve the image of God. He will do whatever he wants with our ethnicities for his glory (Rev. 5:9-10)

Bret responds,

1.) I think that first sentence above was cribbed by SS from Nimrod as he sought to build Babel.

2.) Unless, SS thinks that the Kinists thought world will lead to the extinction of the human race, I’m pretty sure that the image of God is going to be preserved in the Kinist world.

3.) Revelation 5 is completely irrelevant to this argument as Kinists believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations will be present in the new Jerusalem.

4.) It is true that God will do whatever he desires with our races/ethnicities. But as God made His mind known about this project to sink the world into one latte colored world where raceS/ethnicitieS don’t exist, Kinists are on solid ground in rejecting this aspect of the New World Order agenda that SS is pursuing.

SS writes,

So although I want my pre-born son to look just like me, just like the average Akan or Fanti person—I want him to look more like Christ. That’s why I married a godly woman, though she has a different ethnicity so that we can raise a godly son.

Bret responds,

Non-sequitur.

1.) Presumably godly women existed among the Akan and Fanti people that SS could have married, thus not contributing to the “Christian” version of the New World Order agenda.

2.)   Is SS arguing that a mixed-race child is automatically going to look more like Christ than a child from the union of two Akan/Fanti people?

3.) Is SS arguing that the issue of godly white women is more likely to be godly than the issue of godly Fanti/Akan women?

4.) Does SS realize that he could have had a son who would have looked both like him and like Christ? He did not have to decide between the two.

5.) Understand that there is a confusion of categories going on here. When we look like our parents that is genetic coding. When we look like Christ that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SS quote Sam Francis,

“At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge.”

Bret responds,

I agree 100%. If we do not embrace what Francis offers above we will at best experience replacement and at worse we will experience genocide. Only the insane use arguments putatively drawn from Scripture to support their replacement or genocide.

SS writes,

But we’re not called to repay evil for evil, racism for racism, Kinism for critical race theory.

Bret responds,

The evil is NOT found in racial/ethnic unity as that is shaped and influenced by Biblical Christianity. That kind of racial/ethnic unity will understand that there is a need to do good to the whole household of faith regardless of race/ethnicity.

The evil found in racial/ethnic unity is found when it is shaped and influenced by  CRT, Cultural Marxist categories. So, the unity that Christian whites have to find, per Francis, is a unity that is founded upon Christ having as its primary purpose to thoroughly crush the WOKE agenda that the minority community has been, unfortunately, sucked into supporting. The very same agenda that Sey is supporting, with some kind of “Christian” patina covering the same agenda.

Let me say it plainly… Sey, is doing the devil’s work, perhaps with the best of intentions, by being an advocate of the WOKE agenda.

SS says,

Sin is sin, on the right or the left. Kinism is just as evil as critical race theory. So Kinists are not our allies. They’re just as opposed to Biblical views on race as critical race theorists.

Bret responds,

As we have seen, “I don’t think so.”

SS writes,

Brothers and sisters, our primary goal as Christians isn’t to destroy woke ideology. No, our primary goal is to destroy every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God—from conservatives or leftists (2 Corinthians 3-6). 

 Therefore our primary goal isn’t to win elections, our primary goal is to win souls. We can’t be faithful to God by embracing or tolerating any form of racism.

Bret responds,

1.) Yet, another really dumb statement. Our primary goal as Christians is glorifying God by destroying every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God, which both CRT, and Samuel Sey’s opinions are.

2.) Since Kinists are racists in the way that God requires, then we can not be both Christian and tolerate the utter torpidity of one Samuel Sey.

3.) Our primary goal is not to win souls. Our primary goal is to speak the truth and let God worry about what souls are or are not saved in that context.