Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part IV

Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.

Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.

Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;

1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.

So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”

2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.

3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.

4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order  than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.

5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ.  I have dissected that critique here;

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett

Pope Doug’s Gaslighting II

“So I really do sympathize with many young kinists who have been maneuvered into a bad and untenable spot by the constant drumbeat of identity politics. So I don’t despise that kind of kinist, not at all. I love every bone in their heads.”

Pope “Ditches” Doug

1.) Note Doug wants to insist that Kinists are guilty of identity politics. Are the Japanese in Japan guilty of identity politics? Are the Han people in China guilty of identity politics? Were white people in America practicing identity politics when they wrote in the constitution, “… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?

In other words, is it possible for white people to be for white people without be accused of practicing identity politics? Obviously it is but Doug has to throw that barb in, in order to suggest that Kinist are practicing Critical Race Theory.

2.) Don’t miss that Doug is calling young kinists bone-headed. He basically is saying that he loves them because, “dang it, they are young and can’t help but being led astray.”

Patronizing much Pope Doug?

Allow me to tag on here an account from a local Idahoan that has lived in Idaho much of their life. I am tagging this here because it gives a unique perspective. Keep in mind that the below is one person’s opinion and keep in mind that Doug doesn’t like people guessing at his motives. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make trying to figure out motives (what Doug calls Bulverism) automatically evil.

“Once upon a time, while my mother was growing up here, Idaho was a pretty obscure state (Idaho? Do people live in Idaho?) But during the 80s it became the area known for Richard Butler and his group. Things happened. A synagogue (that had recently moved here) was bombed (in retrospect I suspect that it was a ff) Idaho suddenly was portrayed as a haven for White supremacists. Adding insult to injury the population started being reported on as stupid, backwards rednecks (hilarious knowing my family’s history full of lawyers and professors). The richest (and most corrupt) man in town was a contemporary of my aunts and uncles. It’s an unspoken fact that he would resort to arson to get a property he wanted (his dad ran the newspaper). He despised the blue collar population and envisioned a wealthy resort town. So much so that he worked with the EPA and other government entities to shut down the local lumber mills and cripple the logging industry. Tried to annex my grandfather’s property because of the artesian well on it(lost that fight 😉). In collusion with Boise papers they cast a spell over the psyche of the state. They became embarrassed of who they were and desperately wanted to appear ‘sophisticated’ and ‘forward thinking'(I saw glimpses of that in my mom). It became a knee jerk reaction to repudiate anything ‘racist’. ‘We’re not like that!’ became their cry to the point of hysteria. It’s a sickness that has infected especially the generational Idahoans. It’s imperative that this is their message. They had an influx of liberal yuppies move in in the 90s that stoked and fanned the flames of this paranoia. These are the people that Wilson is surrounded by and is trying to placate. He fears the scorn.

There is though, a new thing they fear. The newcomers of the last 5 years (especially since covid) are not infected, more conservative and know that there’s nowhere else to run. I’ve seen them put more time, energy and money to battle the infection than any ‘local’. Wilson has chosen the losing side.

Of course, this is just my opinion and observation. But I’ve been here almost 25 years and spent my childhood summers here and remember the family stories.

Pope Doug’s Gaslighting I

“Incidentally, in trying to get those phrases (Christian Nationalism and Kinism) to be interchangeable, they (the WOKE crowd) have the same objective as the kinists do. Working arm in arm, they are.”

Pope Doug

1.) Once again, there can be no true nationalism of any stripe apart from Kinism. The only options Wilson has in denying Kinism to Christian Nationalism is either a civic Nationalism or a propositional Nationalism. There are no other choices and the skinny of the matter is that neither propositional nationalism or civic nationalism can be properly called nationalism if we are going to take the idea of “nation” etymologically.

2.) Now Wilson may be on to something when he suggests that the WOKE and the Kinists are both insisting a equivalency between Kinism and Christian Nationalism. HOWEVER, to suggest those two opposing poles are working arm and arm is utter gaslighting because the WOKE crowd wants to equate the two terms in order to discredit Christian Nationalism since they, with Wilson’s help, have equated Kinism with racism. On the other hand the Kinists insist that Kinism and Christian Nationalism are equivalents because of the etymology of the word nation. There is no nationalism apart from kin. So, Kinists are seeking to bring out the true meaning of Christian Nationalism while the WOKE crowd is seeking to discredit Christian Nationalism by suggesting that Kinism = Christian Nationalism and so, with Wilson’s contrivance, is all really about racism.

Voetius and His “Racial Malice”

The following was posted by one Rev. Michael Spangler on X. I am re-posting in here. I am pretty sure Pope Doug Wilson of the CREC would insist that the Reformed Father Voetius was guilty of racial malice for the counsel given below.

As an FYI… I do not believe that Romans 11 teaches a “future to us” conversion of the Jews. I believe that Jesus cursing of the Fig tree and Jesus parable of the fruitless tree preclude us from looking for a future national conversion of the Jews. Though I do allow that individual Jews will be converted but only as belonging to other peoples.

I use the phrase “Racial Malice” in the title to tweak Doug Wilson who has suggested that such thinking as exhibited in the list below is beyond the pale and is a case of “Racial Malice.”

Anyway… on with Voetius.

Voetius believed in the future conversion of the Jews, and wanted Christians, and Christian governments, to pray and labor for it.

Therefore he wisely warned against eight “political means, which serve more for the perverting, rather than the converting of the Jews.”

They are:

1. Granting them civil privileges and immunities.

2. Allowing them to associate too freely with Christians in society.

3. Granting them any degrees or authority, in government, in business, in medicine, in academics.

4. Allowing their divinations, or kaballistic-magical superstitions.

5. Allowing them unjust divorce and polygamy.

6. Allowing their practice of usury.

7. Allowing the public exercise of the Jewish religion, including the publishing of works teaching their Talmudic blasphemies.

8. Harshness and injustice toward them.

Voetius,
De Judaismo, in Selectae disputationes, vol. 2, pp. 109–110.

Chit Chatting w/ an Alienist on the Wisdom of Inter-Racial Marriage

Dear Rachel Bentley Ramey ….

Clearly all humans are humans but that does not mean that within the one human race there does not exist distinctions among races and ethnicity. The Holy Spirit understood this as expressed in Roman 9:3

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

Silly Holy Spirit. Didn’t he know that there is only one race… the human race?

RBR wrote,

Except…I actually do believe this. If a Christian man and a Christian woman are both at a proper stage of life *to marry*, there’s no biblical barrier to their marrying *each other*. And such has been commonly accepted throughout most of history; it’s far from a novel position.)

BLM responds,

55 y/o Christian women marrying 18 y/o Christian men does have a proper barrier. Marriage is about finding the right helpmeet — one who can join in the work of exercising Dominion for Jesus Christ — as a reflected image of one another (hence helpmeet). Plus, as 55 y/o Christian women would not be Biblical for a 18 y/o Christian man since they could not obey God’s requirement to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Marriage has as one purpose to support the community from which it arises. Inter-racial marriages normatively cannot do that. Indeed, the only community that inter-racial marriage supports is a multi-cultural cosmopolitan community. Now we can pretend that is not true that inter-racial marriages do not normatively support the community wherein it is located but we have only to lift our eyes to see how our social order is fracturing. One reason for that (not the only reason) is the proliferation of unequally yoked inter-racial marriages.

And I promise you… what you are suggesting is indeed novel when looking at world history. Marriages in stable communities throughout world history were the union of two people who shared the same religion, culture, race, language, and history. Denying that is just silly.

I do think there is a one and many reality about mankind. Man is one and yet there are clearly racial and ethnic distinctions. It is why God could say in Acts 17

26 From one man (Unity) he made all the nations (Distinctions among the Unity), that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

So, we see here your argument about there being only one race (the human race) and therefore there are no races of men is not accurate. Indeed, it is only in the last 50 years or so wherein we have found arguments popular that “there there is only one race,” or, “race is a social construct.”

You’ll not be surprised to hear me say that it is you I find unable to think in proper categories. But, as that is not uncommon in the West you should not be too upset by that.

Your counter examples of Rahab, Zipporah, and Ruth do not work but I am not inclined to run through that all again in detail.

Here are some links/thoughts though

Concerning Rahab

Concerning Ruth

Ruth was not an ethnic Moabite, she was an Israelite. For over 200 years Ruben, Gad and half of Manasseh occupied all the territory north of the Arnon to MT Hermon. Part of that territory was once Moab’s but the Amorites under King Sihon took it. Moab tried to take it back and for about 18 years succeeded, at least in that area. Israel fought back and it’s during this time that Naomi’s sons died. Boaz, a righteous Jew, followed the Torah’s steps as Kinsmen Redeemer. As per the Deut. 23:3 prohibition, Boaz could not have redeemed Ruth had she been a true Moabite. Just as a Puerto Rican living in New York City is an American so Ruth living in the land of Moab was still Israelite. Boaz redeemed a fellow Israelite when he served as Naomi and Ruth’s Kinsmen Redeemer. Ruth was a Moabite Israelite, which like many had done in Israel, may have worshiped the local deities but after her husband died chose to repent returning to Judah’s territory with Naomi.

RBR wrote:

Inter-ethnic couples are presented with the added challenge of having to deal with bigots like you. Their divorce rate might be lower if you didn’t make yourself an extra enemy.

BLM

Right… so given those extra challenges that you recognize it is a lack of wisdom to press ahead with marriage in the teeth of all that. Clearly, you’re bigotry against me is acceptable so I’m not sure what the problem is with bigotry in general as long as one is bigoted towards the proper things. You are bigoted against Kinists — a bigotry which is errant. I am bigoted against marriages about to be unwisely contracted. I am bigoted against people entering into marriages unwisely.

In my defense though I’m also bigoted against marriages contracted between people coming form vastly different classes, vastly different cultures, and those who have a vastly different health status. Call me silly, but I think those entering into marriage should have as much in common as possible and I am bigoted against marriages about to be contracted that find the differences to be significant and doubtless abiding.

I’ll just note that your comment about melanin is irrelevant since since race is not merely a matter of melanin just as gender is not merely a matter of plumbing.

You are an Alienist. Alienism requires us to ignore all the implications and deductions that we find throughout scripture is favor of pursuing a cafe-latte world where all colors bleed into one.

The Alienists tried that once before.

It was called Babel.

Cheers,