Relationship with Christ or Worldview Change?

“For some people being Christian means bringing people into a relationship with Christ. To others it means bringing people into a world view. That’s a big difference.”

Dr. Barry Hankins
Baylor University Evangelical Historian

“But we have the mind of Christ.” (1st Corinthians 2:16)

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 2:5)

 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind… (Roman 12:2a)

Can you say “false dichotomy?” What does it mean to have a relationship with Christ that is absent a Christian Worldview?

I don’t know if Dr. Hankins really believes this himself or if he is just reflecting what some Evangelicals believe. Either way, one has to ask how people can die to self and live to Christ without a complete change in their worldview. Indeed, the very ideas of repentance and conversion mean the change of one’s worldview.

How can one go from living with self at the center of all things to the unseating of self and the owning of the Triune God as the center of all reality? How can one have a relationship with Christ unless their former worldview was completely obliterated — at least in principle?

How can one go from not embracing the trinity, God’s sovereignty, a Biblical anthropology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, teleology, etc. etc. etc. to embracing these truths and not have a worldview change?

Now granted a mature Christian worldview does not arise instantly in the freshly converted but all the same conversion means one is set on that path of worldview overhaul.

Honestly, I don’t even know what it means to be in a relationship with Jesus that is absent a worldview changed.

And frankly, anyone who insists that they are not interested in converts having a worldview change but are only interested in their having a relationship with Jesus are themselves likely not converted.

How do guys like Hankins (and their names are legion) get Ph.D’s?

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part II

Just as Machen, though sick with pneumonia was bound and determined to keep his word to travel to South Dakota to preach and support a new Presbyterian work there, so I have lifted myself up out of my post-operative open heart surgery rest and recovery regimen in order to answer the absolute inanities of R. Scott Clark and Keven DeYoung on the subject of Christian Nationalism. Aren’t you impressed?

There is nothing quite so as stirring and enlivening to one’s spirit and health has to have the opportunity to lance, like so many piece of vegetable and beef on a shish-kabob, the non-Christian musings of the highly functioning lobotomized clergy class.

R. Scott Clark notes the desire of DeYoung to have “some form of Christian Nationalism,” and then as the cheek to say that no one has ever answered his previous queries as to what it means to modify “nationalism” with “Christian.” Clark, ever the intellectual autistic that he is, insists that no one has ever given him a coherent response as to what it means to speak of “Christian” plumbing or “Christian” math. All I can say here is that if he has seen no coherent response to this it is because he is looking with his eyes shut. Here is my response to that question a couple years ago. It is not the first time I have answered this question for he who runs “The Heidelfog.”

Not Getting R. Scott Clark’s Inability to Get The Obvious

Also, if R. Scott Clark would read my book he would see that I provide an answer for him again in that book in the chapter titled, “Transformation of Culture.” So, either R. Scott Clark is lying when he says he has seen no coherent response to his queries about how math, softball, or nations can be Christian or else his worldview won’t allow him to see an answer that everyone else can easily see.

Clark then insists that he is not a defeatist. All I can do is offer that such a statement is a real knee-slapper. Everything that Clark contends for in terms of his R2K social order project guarantees that Christianity will return to the catacombs. As I argue in my book in the chapter “Militant Amillennialism” R2K’s eschatology requires defeat. Quoting from my book, I note,

“The R2K eschatology is what I call a militant amillennialism. The Amillennial eschatology does not allow for the victory of the Gospel and Biblical Christianity in space and time. In Amillennial eschatology the return of Christ is a return characterized by a church that is under assault and is greatly diminished in the world. Christ returns to rescue the Church much like the US Cavalry rides in to save an almost depleted Fort Custer as surrounded by the Indians ready to make their final push to take the Fort. The R2K Amillennialists really believe this and so it is baked into their eschatology. Because they do not believe that victory is possible they have developed a theology under the tutelage of men like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, D. G. Hart, and others that by definition does not allow for victory. By creating a common square that, by definition, can not ever be anything but common the R2K Amillennialist has created a self-fulfilled eschatology. Since by definition the public square cannot be anything but common the public square cannot see the triumph of Christ in space and time in the public square. The is militant Amillennialism.”

Clark next insists that all he is arguing for is a return to the American project which means the restoration of secular government while pursuing a desire to re-frame the classical Reformed distinction between nature and grace.

We would note here that when Clark tells us that he desires to return to the American project what he is telling us is that he desire to return to the vision of the Enlightenment crowd numbered among the founding fathers. This is a vision that affirms neutrality as seen in the insistence that the State (as well as the national institutions) remains neutral when it comes to the issue of religion. Clark continues to not understand, and no power short of conversion can make him understand, that neutrality is a myth. Jesus Himself said that “he does not gather with me scatters.” Jesus Himself said that, “he who is not with me is against me.” Jesus Himself said, “You cannot serve two Masters.” Clark desires to serve Jesus as Master while having a neutral state that does not serve Jesus as Master.  This is not only not Christianity that Clark is pushing this is anti-Christianity. Let it be said clearly that there is no such thing as a secular State/Government if by secular you mean a State/Government that is ruling apart from a standpoint of religion and ruling apart from some god or god concept. Clark’s idea of secular is the idea that Roger Williams (He of Anabaptist fame) instantiated in Rhode Island. R. Scott Clark as more in common with Roger Williams than he does John Calvin.

Clark next invokes the sainted Abraham Kuyper. Clark would be better served reading Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker’s critiques of Kuyper on this score. After Clark is finished reading Hoedemaker he can then buy a copy of Wm. T. Cavanaugh’s, “The Myth of Religious Violence.” From that work he can learn that all his chicken little screaming about violence from Christian magistrates is just so much hooey.

Clark then offers a real eye-popper when he writes;

 “As a historian, I am endlessly puzzled by the desire, expressed by Wolfe and others, for a return to a state-church. What do they imagine the outcome will be? They claim that they will get it right this time, though virtually all other attempts before them have failed. This reminds me very much of the Marxist claim that we should give that another run because the right people have not tried it yet.”

I too am a historian, though I never earned a terminal degree in the field. (If Clark is an example of a Historian with a terminal degree I thank God I never went on to get the terminal degree.) History was one of my under-grad degrees. I took all the historiography courses. I examined the different schools of history. I read the heavy hitters. So, as a historian I am endlessly puzzled by Clark’s inability to see that a state-church is an inescapable category. Our nation is covered with state-churches, supported with state-funds, manned by state-educated state-Priests. Somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of American children (ages K-12) attend these state-churches being indoctrinated thoroughly with the state religion. Yet, Clark is so jejune that he can suggest that we, in America, do not have a state-Church. It is amazing. Clark complains that too many people are like Marxists and yet the man can’t see that our state-Church pushes some one form or another of Marxism.

R. Scott Clark’s Christianity is completely novel. No Reformed person before Meredith Kline thought anything like this. As Dr. Stephen Wolfe has written regarding R2K;

“Van Drunen (Clark belongs to this school of thought), for example, resolves the ‘contradictions’ of traditional two kingdoms theology with a theological system that affirms post WW II norms of secularism, multiculturalism, and anti-nationalism. His political theology might rightly be called ‘post WW II consensus theology,’ and I suspect that historians, looking back at it, will conclude that his theology is highly historically conditioned.”

Van Drunen, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Sean Michael Lucas, Matthew Tuininga, David T. Gordon, and countless others are spewing a “theology” that is perhaps 80 years old at best. It is completely novel and it is a theology that none of the Reformers or their descendants would recognize as Reformed. Yet, despite the truth of that these posers are all over the place screaming that they alone are orthodox. Jesus refused to turn stone into bread but these highly educated dunces have gladly complied.

 

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part I

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

WLC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” 

Or

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Or

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie,  directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part I

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

LC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Or

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Or

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie, directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

 

 

A Flurry of Wilmot Robertson & Friends Quotes

Back in 2016 I read Wilmot Robertson’s “The Dispossessed Majority.” Below are some quotes from Robertson along with some of those who shared his convictions. Before anybody informs me, I am well aware that Robertson likely was not a Christian. However, just as the Hebrew’s plundered the Egyptians so I often read outside of the believing community in order to plunder and I do so reinterpreting their mistakes due to my Biblical grid. These are only a smattering of the quotes that could be pulled.

1.) In 1970, Lindbergh published his Wartime journals, in which he insisted that his noninterventionist views had been fundamentally correct and that the US had actually lost WW II, since it had merely destroyed a lesser menace to help establish a greater one. He particularly stressed the irreparable genetic loss suffered during the war by the Northern European peoples. Lindbergh’s written word repeated, and did not modify his 1941 accusation that Zionists had been a major force in involving the US in WW II

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin apparently shared some of Lindbergh’s views as to the origin of the conflict. According to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy. Prime Minster Chamberlin told him, “America and the World Zionists had forced England into war.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

Also recorded in

Herbert Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed”

2.) Wilmot Robertson, in his book, “The Dispossessed Majority” was explaining anarcho-tyranny long before Sam Francis started writing about it. Robertson doesn’t use the phrase but it is clearly what he is articulating. Robertson called it, “The Adulteration of the Law.”

3.) 1965 Hart-Celler Renounced what had made America Great. It wasn’t huddled masses of every culture, creed and religion. The tide had finally turned. Talmudist were behind the Hart-Celler initiative.

Enoch Powell Grasped this truth in 1968 in his “Rivers of Blood Speech”. Few Listened.

Wilmot Robertson wrote a large book about the problem in 1971 called “The Dispossessed Majority”. Few read it.

Jean Raspail wrote of the impact of a “Borderless Babel” where people were guilt ridden by the word, “Racist” in his “The Camp of the Saints” in 1973. People were simply outraged.

Even Madison Grant was writing about the passing of “The Great Race” over 100 Years ago ( 1916 ).

The conversation is not new. We’ve only begun to see the implications of what we’ve gladly given up in Christ. It’s not pretty.Even Thomas Boston went all prophetic on this subject,

“There is not a natural man, but would contribute, to the utmost of his power, to the building of another tower of Babel, to hem it in. On these grounds I declare every un-renewed man an enemy to God.”

Thomas Boston
Human Nature in its Fourfold State

Early 1700s

Christ bearing peoples who give up their proclamation that Christ is the only way and that all the cultures and peoples of the world in their cultures and peoples must acknowledge that fact or else be guilty of “conspiring against His Crown rights” ( Psalms 2 ) are Alienists. To be at war with Kinism is to be at war with Jesus Christ.

4.) “The kind of learning that prepares a people to prevail and endure must be primed by centuries of common history and millennia of common ancestry. Desegregation kills it by destroying its binding force–the homogeneity of teacher and pupil. The disappearance of this vital bond from the American classroom may prove to be the greatest educational tragedy of all.”

Wilmot Robertson
The Dispossessed Majority

Think of public schools as spiritual kidnapping or Spiritual abandonment when done willingly by parents.

5.) “It is obvious that the chief result of a general confiscation of firearms would be the disarming of white Protestants. It is equally obvious that this is precisely the goal of the gun control lobby. If the Majority is disarmed, nothing will stand between us and the criminal but a massive, mushrooming police bureaucracy. Many of our cities have already shown signs of becoming the Praetorian Guard of the liberal-minority coalition.”

Wilmot Robertson
“Gun Control” (1975)5.) “As Communism waned and Zionism took its place as the dominant vehicle of Jewish Messianic politics in the latter part of the 20th century, the suspicion would grow that the Jews were interested in integration for every group but itself. The corollary to that belief was that Jewish organizations could attack both ‘black,’ and ‘white’ nationalists groups as ‘racist,’ at the same time that Israel promoted the same sort of apartheid.”

E. Michael Jones

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit — pg. 813-814

“The only allegations of racial differences which do not provoke a bitter reaction from the intellectual establishment are those proposing the superiority of the Jew.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority — pg. 23

6.) (Those) “who stubbornly go on believing that a set of highly sophisticated institutions developed by and for a particular people at a particular point in time and space is operational for all peoples under all circumstances” (are delusional).

Wilmot Robertson
The Dispossessed Majority7.) “The kind of learning that prepares a people to prevail and endure must be primed by centuries of common history and millennia of common ancestry. Desegregation kills it by destroying its binding force–the homogeneity of teacher and pupil. The disappearance of this vital bond from the American classroom may prove to be the greatest educational tragedy of all.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

8.) “The best hope for the survival of the white race in America is the peaceful fragmentation of the nation into ethnostates, separate and independent states based on geography and on the racial and cultural homogeneity of the various population groups. The Melting Pot failed because the ingredients refused to dissolve. A mosaic, defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as “an artificial patchwork,” has not succeeded because the individual pieces were seldom defined geographically, and their political and cultural autonomy was undercut by the integrationist tendencies of big government, the pernicious influence of the national media, particularly network television, and the rabid antiwhite racial leveling preached in the Halls of Academe. For more on this subject, see Chapter 39 and the author’s book, The Ethnostate, Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920.”

Wilmot Robertson
Dispossessed Majority Wilmot Robertson (Kindle Locations 1052-1058).

9.) “The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.

Samuel Francis