Drew Poplin Preaches 56 minute Sermon Against Kinism — What a Spectacle (I)

It boggles my mind that some young torpid clergy member would take 56 minutes to preach a sermon against Kinism and yet that is exactly what one Drew Poplin did in a RPCNA church in Durham, NC.

Below are from his posted notes.

“Defining the Term: Kinism is a heinous and heretical philosophy rooted in four general principles: (1) Race is narrowly defined and focused upon skin color and ancestral heritage rather than recognizing the reality of present societies; (2) Kinism holds to the permanence of race, following false evolutionary premises; (3) The belief that the intermarrying of races and peoples is immoral; (4) At the root of this is the abominable belief of white supremacy.”

Rev. Drew Poplin

1.) Kinists do not reduce race to the idea of skin color as if skin color is the only factor in race.  Kinists do recognize Ancestral heritage believing as they do in the simple reality of real live biological genetics. God has made peoples to differ and part of that difference is encoded in particular gene patterns that end up making up different races.

Now, as Poplin continues he says that Kinists don’t understand the differences between ethnicity and race but it is really Poplin who is playing the thick one here. Kinist’s understand that ethnicity exists and that different ethnic peoples exist as belonging to distinct races. We get it Drew, that there are Germanic, Anglos, Saxons who are distinctly ethnic peoples but we go on to say that a broader category exists wherein each of these fall and the broader category is called “race.” Germans, Anglos, and Saxons are ethnic groups who belong each to the broader category of White people just as Hutus, Ndebele, Shonas, and Zulus are particular ethnic peoples who belong to a shared race. And all of them Drew belong to the largest category of the human race.

2.) Poplin makes a false assertion when he insists that Kinists follow evolutionary philosophy. Sigh. Poplin seems not to realize that long before the rise of Darwin or Evolution people examined the issue of races. Shakespeare examined the theme in some of his plays. Shakespeare’s dates predate Darwins. The Early Church Fathers wrote about race. Here is just one example;

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:

Hey Drew … not everyone who believes in the reality of race is sniffing around the remains of the really dumb evolutionary theory. What other really dumb assertions do you want to toss from the Holy Desk Drew?

Indeed,  Drew, Kinists don’t even hold that race is permanent understanding that over enough generations one line can go from one race to another race. However, this also proves that race is real as that breeding has moved a line from one very real distinct race to another very real distinct race.

Are you following me Drew?

3.) Kinists agree with all the Church fathers prior to 1950 or so that interracial marriage is at the very least normatively unwise and can often be sinful and immoral. I could give you a gazillion quotes but here is one from Machen’s friend, defender and colleague Dr. Clarence MacCartney;

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
1879-1957

Does it give you any pause Drew that you are peaching from a pulpit a doctrine that no Church fathers, save possibly the heretical Anabaptists, taught or believed in? Any pause at all?

4.) Poplin again makes a dumb assertion when he ties Kinism with White supremacy. I know many non white people who are Kinists. Muhammed Ali (he was a famous black Boxer Drew) held Kinist principles, insisting that blacks should only marry blacks.

But, I will say it is true that Whites are supreme in some areas while clearly inferior in other areas. For example, I have concluded that modern day whites named Drew are vastly inferior at being Presbyterian clergy.

Refuting A Natural Law Fan Club Member

“A lot of nonsense and misunderstanding concerning natural revelation / law / theology could be spared if people would distinguish between different points of telos. Presupps tend to reduce the discussion to the soteriological telos. But there are many others to consider.”

Cody Justice
Natural Law Aficionado

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE
Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof
Article 4

I am a presuppositionalist. Over the years I have followed this argument carefully about Natural Law. I have read books on both sides. I am finishing up one now that Cody recommended to me some time ago. It has not changed my mind. Not even close.  Having said that, I am here to tell you that Presupps understand perfectly that

1.) That their opponents (The Natural Law club) do not themselves argue that Natural Law is of any service in relation to the soteriological telos. Indeed presupps acknowledge that there is the retaining of some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and of the discovering of some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.

Indeed, it is not possible for those outside of Christ to have a worldview system that doesn’t incorporate some aspects of God’s natural revelation and natural law for a unbelieving worldview that would be completely absent of natural revelation and/or natural law would be one that brought instantaneous death. Van Til would speak of this content of God’s natural revelation/ natural law present in unbelieving worldviews as “stolen capital” as gained by filching from Christianity.

We only insist that the this stolen capital from Christianity is in service against Christianity as it exists within the worldview of the non-Christian in order to deface Christianity. For example, over the centuries many peoples have understood the distinctions between males and females (as is going into eclipse now among some Western peoples) but the understanding of those distinctions often made for marriages where the women (wives) were slaves of their husbands. Natural Law was accepted as to male and female differences but then put into the service of demeaning women. So, in such examples we see the truth of what Dordt says when it offers;

that fallen man is incapable of using it (Natural Light) aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

2.) Another thing that needs to be noted here is that nobody among the presupps deny that the heavens declare the handiwork of God or that the earth showeth forth His firmament (Ps. 19). Those among the presupps who reject Natural Law as a epistemological foundation for fallen man agree that Natural Revelation exists and that God is making Himself known in all creation. Our issue is not with the fact that God makes Himself known in nature. Our issue is that as fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and as fallen man has a mind that is at enmity with God, fallen man takes Natural Law in all its varied purposes (ends/goals) and twists them thereby becoming inexcusable before God.

3.) The fact that fallen man can still produce or apprehend beauty is accounted for by the fact of the common providence of God whereby God has not yet completely turned a people over to their sin. It is not that by means of Natural Law man is climbing to a higher state. It is, rather, that by God’s common providence fallen man has not yet fallen as far as he will fall if he does not repent.

4.) Presupps believe that the proper use of teleos for Natural Law in all things (not merely soteriology) can only be arrived at by reading Natural Law through the grid of special revelation. This is one reason why Scripture teaches; “In thy Light we see light.”  To hold a contrary view, such as is held by the Natural Law fan-club denies the noetic effects of the fall, which in turn denies the standard Reformed teaching of total depravity, which in turn overturns the whole of the Reformed faith. This explains why the presupps can get a wee bit exercised over this issue.

5.) An illustration that Van Til used here touched on signals and radio stations. CVT would say that indeed Natural Revelation / Natural Law is being sent, much as radio signals are being sent out. The problem is not with the radio signals. The problem is that fallen man is constantly pushing every button on the old Delco car radios in order to find a station that is not playing God’s signals.

So, Corey is plainly in error here, as are all the members of the Natural Law fan club.

From the Mailbag … Roger and Bret Continue Their Discussion On Kinism & Christendom

Pastor,

Thank you (and all) for your detailed responses. It warms my heart to know that there are real people, your friends, that are in community with each other and ready to risk it all to fight. It is especially helpful to know where to send money for support in the fight. I am sure that supporting a firearms group like the NRA or the one you mentioned will go a long way.

Note that I asked you about fighting for kinism, but you said fighting for Christendom in the title of your reply. Are these synonyms? What would you say to a Christian family that leaves a church where the pastor is more devoted to kinism than Christendom, if they are not synonyms?

Hello Roger,

Yes … they are synonyms.

One cannot contend for Christendom without contending for Kinism. Especially in our current context in the West where Christendom is being attacked via the means of attacking the family structure. Christianity is a faith that presupposes the family unit. Kinism is merely an extension of that presupposition carried out to each continuing concentric circle that ripples out from the family unit.

Since I hold that there is no such thing as Christendom (or Christianity for that matter) that has subtracted the centrality of family such as is found everywhere in Scripture, and since Kinism is merely another way of stating the doctrine of the Creator Creature distinction (an essential and primary truth without which the Christian faith cannot exist as the Christian faith) I would say to such a hypothetical family leaving such a hypothetical church having such a hypothetical pastor that they should rethink their understanding of Biblical Christianity.

Besides … this is surely a vastly hypothetical question since I am full of doubt that any Pastor exists who is more devoted to Kinism than Christendom. Indeed, since the WOKE assault that now servers as the point of the spear attacking Christianity, and Christendom it is simply the case that most Pastors are asleep at the switch.

Since Christianity has as an essential aspect to its reality what Kinism is championing your question is like asking “what if the Pastor at the Church is more devoted to the incarnation or to the penal substitutionary doctrine of the Atonement than to Christendom.” You see the implicit contradiction here don’t you? You have presented what is called a “false dichotomy.” How can a Pastor be faulted for being more devoted to a cardinal doctrine of Christianity without which Christianity can not be Christianity than he is to Christianity itself?

As to time spent on this one doctrinal aspect of Christianity Luther is reputed to have said;

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”

Guess where that one point is now Roger? That one point is the point that Kinism is engaged in. If the Church loses here Christendom goes into declension (something R2K desires very much) and it is back to the catacombs while living in Dark chaos and old night. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the enemy will have been successful in a short term victory.

In Athanasius’ time the issue that was being attacked was the deity of Jesus Christ. In Augustine’s day the issue that was being attacked was whether or not man had Libertarian free will. In Luther’s day the issue was both Justification by faith alone and the what was the epistemological ground for the Church — Scripture or Tradition. Today the issue is also twofold

1.) Creator-Creature distinction and the means of attack is by attack the doctrines of Scripture that have been shorthanded to be called “Kinism.” (Which is merely Christianity 101).

2.) Theonomy or Autonomy. (These two issues are implied in one another just as the two issues at the time of the Reformation were implied in each other.)

Of course, as has been more than hinted at in the original response, most Christians seem not to have the capacity to understand the implications and consequences of this issue. Just as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther were the minority voices at their time so Kinists are the minority voices today.

But as Rushdoony said …

“History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”

R.J. Rushdoony

Blessings Roger as you consider all this,

Bret

p.s. — FWIW The NRA is counter-productive to securing the 2nd amendment. If you want to secure the 2nd amendment don’t send your money there.

p.p.s.  – If you really want to dig into this I can offer a few books that may help turn some lights on. Let me know.

From The Mailbag; Pastor, How Should I Fight In This War For Christendom?

This morning I received a comment from a reader that raised such a good question that I believed it worthy of being placed as its own post. The question came in response to the post “The Storm is Breaking.” For the answer to mailed in question I turned to my friends. God, out of sheer and pure grace has condescended to me by giving me a host of wise and Christian friends who, for the most part, share the Biblical and Christian Worldview. The answers to the question raised by Roger were so excellent I decided to run their answers to his question followed by a short synopsis of my own.

Some of these men I know better than others. Many of them I would go to war with. Many of them have had my back over the years. Many of them I have pastored …. baptized their children …. officiated their weddings. Most of them I would trust with my life. These are good and wise men and I trust you’ll consider with great profit their offerings.

You will find a variety of responses to the question with different shades of emphasis but as the question is not an easy one we should not be surprised to find different shades. However with these different shades one might conclude with Frodo Baggins;

 ‘Go not to the Elves for counsel for they will answer both no and yes.’ 

Thank you Roger for asking the question. May the Lord Christ give you wisdom and self-honesty in your arriving at an answer.

Pastor,

“Could you please be a little more specific about those who are striving for personal peace and happiness versus those willing to fight for kinism? I know about the clergy, but I have a very high position in DC, my kids are all married and have wonderful Christian families, and we live in a large home in a nice neighborhood. No one here knows I am a kinist, and because I know the clergy would not approve of my views, my wife and I just watch your church online every Sunday.

I feel convicted that I need to fight, but I also don’t want to lose everything God has blessed me with. I also don’t know what fighting would look like.”

Roger

Joel Franks offered as an answer;

If he is afraid to lose “what God has blessed him with” by standing on biblical beliefs that are contrary to the world and satanic Humanism then I really wouldn’t consider these “blessings” to begin with.
Doing what God has asked often times lands those hot water, granted he could definitely be more nuanced on his approach as the way he is saying seems like he is ready to go dull mask off in an obnoxious manner. Granted they most likely take it that way regardless of his approach.

I hope his kids are on the same page as him on this
Aaron Jagt answered;

It’s hard to give advice without knowing more. A high position in DC could mean a lot of different things. I guess generally if you’re involved in politics pretty much everyone keeps to the politically correct line to some extent, but I don’t think I’d be able to do that myself.

 Phillip Jagt (Aaron’s Brother) answered,

Throwing yourself into a fire to destroy yourself isn’t “fighting”. Being wise and use what leverage you have to influence what God has given you to influence. That is fighting. I would take the route of being an authority in something, and promoting your values to those who pay attention and want to listen. Don’t share your thoughts to those who will not listen in good faith. We are not all called to public teaching. Play the long game. Be stable.”

Didn’t Daniel face similar situations? He always, always stood firm on his faith. Even in today’s world that is something to be imitated and followed. A certain caution must go along, but one has to be willing to give up everything for Christ, even as we all do from day to day. We all face choices like this, whether it is keeping pronouns out of your corporate email, or just standing against it in the board room, we all have to face it at one time or another.
Jason M answered;

I hope what he is not saying is that what he has is of much more value than us peasants. I hope he is not saying we should do the fighting because we have less to lose.

 Jason Von Laban II answered;

It is a simple answer. The only way to strive for personal peace and fight for God is to do His will. Doing His will means following His laws.

 Mark Chambers answered,

All, that is ‘ALL’ who live Godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. Wisdom has a place in this but not fear. At least not fear of mankind.
Isa 8:13 “It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.

You don’t have to kick doors down, God opens doors. You only need to walk through them. But you do have to walk.

John 9:4 “We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
And it’s getting darker every day
Dr. Robert M. Shivers wrote,

Well, I have a lot at stake in the world. I am well known and prominent in oil and gas technical work, I do consulting for other companies, I deal with (((financial institutions))) trying to secure funding for capital projects and in addition I have a nice house in an exclusive, respectable neighborhood in town. No one would have trouble finding my home address or office address. In other words, I’m an easily identifiable target.

Yet, I don’t use a pseudonym to post on FB and I’m prone to Luther-esque intemperate language when dealing with idiots and arrogance. One used to be able to find the comment at bottom searching for my name on google
I might have sympathy with a young man struggling to establish his career and support his family while working in a hostile environment, but men who are established need to find the courage to be outspoken and take a stand.

****************************************************************************

“I find it bizarre, on a Kafkaesque level, that people who live in a society where perversion is the norm, where the institution of holy marriage is mocked, where life in the womb is subject to industrial-scale genocide, and where the government enslaves future generations to permanent indebtedness, feel free to level moral critiques against orthodox Bible-believing Christians in the 19th century South, some of whom had slaves. I tell you what Mr. 21st Century American Evangelical, I had rather stand as a Southern slave-holder before the Judgement Seat of Christ than as one of the useless contemporary Christians who watched their country sink into perdition, impotent to do anything about it, and yet point the blue finger of censoriousness towards our grandparent’s grandparents.” – R M Shivers
 Matthew Davis answered;

We are not in a position for full frontal assault type warfare. Guerilla tactics are needed. Infiltrators and spies within are needed to chip away at the foundations that have been built by the enemy. Philiip has it right in his comment.

My “wise beyond her years daughter” Laurajane Steinhauser answered;

There is more than one position in warfare. We must never deny Christ and if Roger ever was outed for kinism I believe that would count as standing by his Christian principles.

That said it takes charging Generals with their bayonets out as well as spies who exist undercover to help win wars. Imo this is a heart matter. Are you keeping your cover because you love more the blessings then he who blessed you or are you keeping your cover because you can in your position do more for King Christ being in the role that is more Machiavellian in nature.

Only he can answer that truthfully.

Cody Justice answered;

If he is affluent, he should become a financier for those who are already fighting. There will be no counter revolution apart from a full purse.

If he is not affluent but knows others who are, he should direct them accordingly. Finances are crucial to secure anti-fragility.

(Here Bret inserts commentary)

Roger, there are a number of organizations that you can support in this contest. Before I recommend a few of those I would say that if you are part of a Church that is WOKE/Politically Correct you need to quit supporting that Church with your tithes and offerings because the modern visible Church is either warring against the Church invisible and the Lord Christ or they are Absent Without Leave. Very few Churches right now are engaged in this conflict. There is no sense if funding the enemy.

There are a few organizations I might recommend. First, I would recommend the Pactum Institute as headed by Dr. Adi Schlebusch. This the 21st century version of the Chalcedon Institute. (Full disclosure — I am one of the research fellows with the Pactum Institute.)

Another organization in this war that fights on a slightly different front is the Michigan Firearms Organization. These chaps are fighting for the retention of our 2nd Amendment rights. (Full disclosure — I have close personal contacts who are involved in this organization.)

Another organization is Charlotte Christ the King Reformed Church where I serve as Pastor. Like all Churches we end up having more month than money at the end of every month.

Finally, there is Iron Ink, where we always find God faithful in a host of ways including via the gifts of His people to the needs here.

If you want to find out how to support any of these organizations just let me know.

 Conrad Long answered;
I appreciate the commenters remembering our Father Daniel, and willingness to lose everything in Christ’s service and gain eternity as Daniel served in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar and later Belshezzar.

However, I think we would do well to remember Obadiah as well, who secretly served in Ahab’s administration and by his secret work saved the lives of many prophets, including Elijah if I recall correctly.

I think a critical aspect which is often neglected is that God wants us to be tactical. You must be ready to be self-sacrificing in a banzai charge if that is what is called for, but you must also be ready to be self-sacrificing by continuing to hold your position and do other important work, recon, admin, logistics, etc. Even if people call you a POG and say you’re not in the fight.

This sort of thing requires a great deal of wisdom and specific context. What is the outlook for each of your potential courses of action? Do a Christ-centered cost-benefit analysis.

 Dan Brannan answered;
The old question, “What’s a man to do?” is answered, “Everything he can, as opportunity allows.”

If he holds high position in DC, he has opportunity to influence policy-makers and policy. He is also uniquely positioned to be a whistleblower or embedded journo, arguing our position concerning inside baseball on the Hill.

But he has to accept that fighting is not optional, and everything can be taken from him.

Lester Holden answered;

___

Bret closes;

These are my friends Roger. Many of them bear the scars from this fight. Many of them have been put on National Lists by Bagel organizations, many have been harassed by the FEDS, many have experienced the attempt of cancel culture.  Many have been threatened with their livelihoods. Others I know not named here have even been imprisoned. I pray that the Lord Christ will give you wisdom in how to approach all of this honorably and as a disciple of our Liege Lord Jesus Christ.

Statutes To Satan Are All The Rage On State-Property Everywhere

It seems that displays/statues  honoring Satan on or around State grounds of various state capitals is becoming all the rage these days. This season both New Hampshire and Minnesota had such displays for the eager public to witness. Previously, as we know, Iowa had a display before it was demolished by a ardent supporter of all things Christian. It seems Illinois in the past has also been a part of this Ba’al Zebub hit parade.

In Minnesota the State House removed its statue honoring Satan during this Christmas season but leaves a similar Satanic symbols up on the State House grounds as seen by a Hanukkah menorah remaining on display on the Capitol grounds. The New Hampshire displays seems to have gone through several different incarnations as it has had to be repaired after several visitations by different citizens of New Hampshire who apparently thought of themselves as the 2nd coming of Gideon. May the Lord Christ raise up many more such men.

On the surface displays honoring old Slewfoot is seen as a bad thing but, as I am one to always find the silver lining in every cloud I see all of this Satan pooping on State grounds potentially a good thing if people will just think through the implications. You see, the argument that these followers of the “Lord of the Flies” have been making is “that since there is freedom of religion, we, as Satanist ass-kissers have a right to ‘Hail Satan’ on the state grounds as much as the Jesus Worshipers have a right to their nativity scenes.” Frankly, this reasoning is sound if we grant the premise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion as those are currently understood by our brain dead overlords, thanks to the brain dead doctrine of incorporation given to us by the brain dead Supreme Court, courtesy the brain dead 14th amendment given to us by the brain dead US Congress. But I repeat myself.

Let’s just say it plainly, without horns or teeth; “The idea of freedom of religion and freedom of speech is skubala.” First of all there is the reality that such ideas are a myth. For example, I do not have freedom of religion because my religion and my God insists that I am not to live with any other Gods before my God. Freedom of religion for everyone means I do not have freedom of my religion to limit other religions as those other religions are now limiting my religion from recognizing that there is no God but God for both myself and for the social order. The God of the Bible is not the God in the Bible when He has to share time in the public square with statues (or even nods) to Allah, to the god of the Talmud, or to Satan. This is not freedom of religion. This is freedom of polytheism in the public square and it is all supported by the State which by inviting all the gods into the public square is therefore proclaiming, by way of policy, that the God of the Bible is not the true God. Freedom of religion is a myth. What we currently have is freedom only for the religion of polytheism/pluralism.

This idea of “freedom of religion” once worked here because the context of freedom of religion was a freedom of Christianity as it existed as among the various different expressions of Christianity. However, with the passage of time freedom for various different expressions of Christianity has become freedom of explicitly Satanic statues in the public square as exalting everyone from Satan to his subalterns Allah, the demon Talmud god, and the flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m sure that soon to come we will have statues honoring Vishnu, Buddha, and some porn queen Goddess. Can’t leave anyone out, you know.

So, we see that “Freedom of Religion” is a myth. By having all the gods in the public square any religion that insists only its religion should be honored as THE religion is ruled out of bounds. This means that the one religion that embraces all religions is the only religion allowed. That is decidedly NOT freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a myth.

Second, the God that is ruling over all gods and so demanding its religion be adhered to by all is the State God. In the State we now live and move and have our being. The State decides how far any of the gods can proceed in the public square and that means that the state is now god over the various other gods. The state determines if the god of the heathen Mormons will be allowed to sanction polygamy for his adherents. The state determines if the god of some Indian tribe can smoke peyote for its religious services as their god requires. The state tells the Christian God that He will not be honored by requiring shopkeepers to close their doors on Sunday. On and on it goes. Not only if freedom of religion a myth but its also the case that the religion we are required to follow is Statism. Everything inside the state and nothing outside the state.

So, lets me done with the idea that somehow we, unlike other countries, have “Freedom of Religion.” We not only do not, it is not possible for such a thing to exist. Since there is no neutrality there will never be a social order where Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech exists.

Because this is true as Christians we should advocate a return to an explicitly Christian Nation, much as existed during our beginnings when State Constitutions would require belief in the Trinity in order to serve as magistrate or belief in God’s Word being inspired, or belief in Jesus Christ or sundry other expressions that were present in the various early and original state constitutions.

Something else to keep in mind here is that the existence of a plurality of faiths in a social order (multi-faithism) will always eventually bring about multiculturalism since faith(religion) drives culture. And since multifaithism and multiculturalism (which is synonymous with pluralism) really is given over to the pursuit of a unitary faith and a unitary culture (a singular undivided statist faith and culture) what has to be in existence at the same time in all pluralistic arrangements is multi-racialism, which is likewise committed to creating a singular undivided race/ethnicity. Just as in ancient Rome where you could serve any God you liked so long as that God served the One Emperor and One Empire so today you can have any religion (faith), any culture, or any ethnicity as long as they are not distinct and serve the State. Distinct faiths, religions, and ethnicities are a mirage. It’s like Henry Ford selling cars along ago…. “You can get the Model-T in any color you like as long as it is black.” So today you can have any faith, culture, or ethnicity you want as long as it isn’t distinct and serves the State. To use an analogy, the state is a giant blender and everything that is distinct goes into the state and gets blended together. If you refuse to be blended you are at best marginalized and at worst sent to the gallows.

So, as Christians let’s be done with not only statues to Satan but also statues to all Satanic gods and let’s once again be a distinctly White Christian culture and nation.