McAtee & Wilson Converse on Kinism … And You are Privy — Pt. I

The first thing I have to say regarding Doug Wilson’s nearly 4000 word response to me is to agree with DW’s observation that given our shared reading list one would think we should be arm and arm colleagues. Alas, that isn’t true. I would note however, that DW has said many things over the years that I would salute. His comment about how “R2K couldn’t build a taco stand let alone a civilization” was one of the all time truly great observations. DW’s refutation of all things R2K are observations that are significant. All, this to say that there likely is a great deal that Doug and I have in common. However, I remain convinced that DW has it significantly wrong when it comes to the issue of kinism, as well as his amber ale version of Federal Vision. Indeed, DW is so errant that on this subject of Kinism there is a gulf between us that no man can cross. It is not merely as matter of nuance though I understand why some would wish that to be the case.

Second, by way of preliminary observation allow me to note that my criticisms of DW come as from the Right. I only note this because Doug has, in the past, said that he is so far right that it is not possible to critique him as from the Right. The criticisms of DW from the kinist community expose the non-truth to that observation. Indeed, as I have said before, I am convinced the Doug is often holding down the right side of the left so that there is plenty of room as from the Right to critique DW. When I critique DW I a not punching right. I am punching left.

Allow me to say that I am glad for DW’s endorsement when he writes;

And the third reason (I am tackling this just now) is that because we are all living under the current regime of a crazed board of governors overseeing the current ESG Madhouse, kinism is looking more and more like a responsible option to more and more conservative Christians, and so I think that some warnings are in order.

1.) Yes, the very same kind of Kinism as articulated by Georgia Meloni, the new Prime Minister of Italy. I mention her because DW was all agog over her statement just as we Kinists were all agog over her statement. Kinists in our agog-ness are being consistent. Doug in his agog-ness is not being consistent.

2.) Kinism is indeed the only responsible option for genuinely conservative Christians. It is the only option left on the table. Quite contrary to DW’s preferred pluralistic classically liberal civic Nationalism, Kinism provides the only consistent ground from which to protest the international cosmopolitan cultural Marxist left.

DW writes,

For example, if you look at the tweet I have helpfully included off to the right here, from a gent named Jan Schlebusch (who elsewhere calls himself a kinist), you will immediately see the pressing need we have to disambiguate, as Wikipedia would put it. There is no way to defend Western culture (which has been a major aspect of my calling in life), without incurring the charge of racism. This is a standard tactic of the Left. And in my experience, there have been many conservative Christians who would have joined in with this effort earlier if there hadn’t been all these darn kinists out there doing their level best to make the charge seem plausible.

BLM responds,

First, the whole purpose of my response is to help DW disambiguate. A laudable goal to be sure.

As to the paragraph above this requires the “to whom” question? To whom has the charge of “racism” against Kinists been plausible? Certainly, the charge is plausible to all the Normies and Murican Bears out there who have ingested the cultural Marxist narrative. I and my mates have dealt with scads of CREC type normies who have hurled the charge of “racism” at me and my Kinist mates, and that quite without any justification. So, allow me to challenge DW to consider that the problem has not been with Kinists but rather the problem is CREC type normies influenced by a cultural Marxist narrative that allows them to shriek “RACISTS… RACISTS at the battle hardened Kinists.

And so as to this anecdotally based charge that the Kinists have been responsible for otherwise solid conservatives not joining the battle to save Western Civilization I say… BUNK! Otherwise solid conservatives who have not joined the Kinists are not really solid conservatives but are just those who are holding down the right side of the cultural Marxist left, or like DW are trying to promote their weak sauce version of a pluralistic classically liberal civic Nationalism. These otherwise solid conservatives I have found to be knee jerk reactionaries that shriek in horror at the Kinist explanation that God made peoples to be distinct and that regeneration does not destroy nature with the result that all Christians sing along with that classic hymn, “We Are The World.”

And allow me to say here that as long as DW keeps trashing Kinism he is frustrating his own work in fighting for Western Civilization. DW wants the fruit (Christian Civilization) without accepting the root (Christian Kinism).

DW writes,

So when the commies are wrecking the place, which they are, you don’t get to say that all the white people who cooked up the destructo-plans in the first place are doing their evil deeds in spite of their noble skin color, and that all the darker-skinned groups that have been enlisted as patsies in the cause are doing it because of the color of their skin. How convenient for the thesis. What my net don’t catch ain’t fish.

BLM responds,

1.) DW mentions in this piece that he does not believe in race and here again above we catch DW talking about evil “white people.”

2.) DW’s statement above indicates, once again, that DW thinks only white people are kinist. That is NOT true as my several non-white Kinists friends will attest to.

3.) DW keeps repeating the mistaken idea that race is only about melanin levels. Race is not merely about skin color.

4.) This may be a convenient thesis but I would love for DW to quote a Kinist saying it. No kinist believes that white people do evil despite their skin color nor that non-white people do evil because of their melanin levels.

5.) However, having said that, we cannot negate the reality of what just voting trends tell us. When it comes to minority voting patterns, in terms of percentile, they overwhelmingly vote for candidates who are carrying the cultural Marxist banner. This is not universally true but as it is generally true we can observe that the pattern means something. It means that they have been enlisted as patsies in the Cultural Marxist cause.

There will be more on this subject later.

DW writes,

So rather than say that kinists were Christian nationalists before it was cool, I would prefer to say that kinists were playing the role of a dog in the manger—not really enjoying their brand of conservatism, and by their fringe behavior preventing others from wanting to join them. Schlebusch is skeptical of our motives, but I can still state them plainly. Conservative Christians aren’t worth a cultural dime if they aren’t routinely accused of being racists, and conservative Christians aren’t worth a cultural dime if the accusation has any merit or substance.

BLM responds,

DW accuses me and my mates of playing the role of a dog in a manger. I accuse the CREC types as playing the role of pig enjoying their slop, who by their brand of “conservatism,” and by their mainline normie behavior, prevent true conservatives from actually conserving the things that matter most. The CREC types, all the while insisting that they are putting out the 5 alarm fire that is Christian civilization are in point of fact helping the arsonist cultural Marxists burn the whole thing down by their pointing and spluttering at the Kinists, who in their lights should be arrested, for trying to put out the fire.

Allow me to say boldly that Kinism as a movement cannot be accused with merit or substance as being racist. This is not to say that there might be a few folks who self identify as kinist who are off the reservation saying wild things, but as a movement Kinists are worth far more than a cultural dime since accusations of “racism” against them have no merit or substance.

The accusations against Kinism as “racist” only has substance if one presupposes the worldview of Cultural Marxism. In the cultural Marxist worldview Kinists are racist every time and all the time and we are damned proud of it. We wear it as a well earned badge of honor. Evil people calling us evil names keeps us warm at night.

I get by with a little help from my friends — Rev. JS Lowther on Gnostic Nations

“The supposed ‘nation’ of which modern Christianity, to which group the authors of the book listed above (Torba & Isker’s ‘Christian Nationalism’) belong, is a ‘gnostical nation’ a ‘quasi-nation’.

The supposed ‘nation’ which ignores boarders of race, is no different than a gnostical religion which must ignore the boarders of doctrine and religion.

It has struck me, in the same way, that we know what a ‘brother’ really is in generative terms (2 or more male siblings of the same father and mother), and by that natural truth we then apply the concept of ‘brotherhood’ to non-natural spheres of life, albeit: military, sports or work and so on. Eventually the concept of brotherhood is estranged from the meaning of ‘brother.’ In the modern Christian sense, we have suppressed the consciousness of a natural brotherhood and nationhood from the pulpit and pen in its entirety in order to establish an idealistic quasi-spiritual brotherhood and nationhood devoid of all natural boundaries. Interestingly enough, this gnostical establishment looks no different than the world’s model of a ‘united brotherhood of man’, and for the same ends.

To the modern church a brotherhood and nationhood of non-natural relativity has become the primary meaning of the words ‘brother’ and ‘nation’ , though the fact remains that without the former natural meaning, which we all know, there is no basis to rest the later meaning upon.

Thus, the meaning of ‘brother’ and ‘brotherhood’, ‘nation and nationhood’ becomes in need of mental maintenance from an external force, the terms are now in our consciences a sociological struggle between the quasi meaning and the nature meaning; This struggle of definition and identification will be maintained by a tyranny, they will oppress in order to impose an illegitimate definition upon our minds and emotions, pummeling our conscience into submission- because it rebels against the falsehood of the claim by nature.

A ‘Christian nation’, without natural ethnic and racial cohesion will be a tyranny; and such a tyranny will push for amalgamation as a means to form a hybrid ‘nation’ in order to bring the natural in conformity to the quasi.”

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

It used to be Called Freedom of Association

“We would all agree that the traveler is and should be free not to buy. He can pass a motel he doesn’t like in town, if he doesn’t like the color, or he doesn’t like the name. He can stop and go in and when he sees the owner he can decide he doesn’t like him because he doesn’t like his mustache, or his accent, or his prices, or his race, or his customers. He can turn around and walk out for any reason, or for no reason at all. Why not? He’s a free man. So is the owner of the property. And if the traveler is free not to buy because he doesn’t like the owner’s mustache, accent, prices, race, other customers, or for any or no reason, the owner of the property ought to have the same freedom. That’s simple justice. The wonder is that it can be questioned.”

C. Farris Bryant
Florida Governor — 1961-1965

This is the argument for Freedom of Association that Americans no longer embrace. It is the simplest of logic and yet Freedom of Association is now seen as “bigoted.”

Responding To R. Scott Clark’s Vicious Attack on Bahnsen & Theonomy

Over at the “HIDEOUSBLOG” Dr. R. Scott Clark demonstrates (yet again) that he is stupid. If you search engine “R. Scott Clark Hideousblog” you will find the site. The column title is; “Stemming Another Rising Tide Of Theonomy: Hebrews 7:11–14 (1): Background.” I am not going to link it here because the thought of Iron Ink giving HideousBlog traffic makes me ill.

Herein follows the list of Clark’s errors;

1.)   “no Republican was going to win the White House that year” (1976 election).

I only include this rather off hand comment by Clark in order to demonstrate that the man doesn’t know what he is talking about. If Clark can be wrong here, in such an obvious manner, then it gives support to the idea that Clark doesn’t know what he is talking about in any number of any other “factual” accounts he gives.

Briefly put, Republican chances in 1976 were good. Ford ended up losing in the closest Presidential race of the 20th century at that time, save one. Many experts believe that if Reagan had received the nomination that Republicans would have indeed won. Failing that if Ford would have just run more to the right he might have pulled out Ohio and won. Clark is just in gross error here, as he continues to be throughout this piece. For Pete’s sake Ford won 27 states, the most states ever carried by a losing candidate.

2.) “Still, Bahnsen’s book, which advocated the (future) reimposition of the Mosaic judicial laws, went off like a bombshell, provoking reviews and responses in Christianity Today and a volume of essays by the faculty of Westminster Seminary.”

Throughout the history of Westminster Seminary the faculty had never, to that time, put out of a volume of essays denouncing anything. Never a joint volume denouncing Dispensationalism. Never a joint volume denouncing the sexual revolution. Never a joint volume denouncing liberalism in the Church. Only upon Greg Bahnsen’s publication advocating respecting God’s Law did the Westminster faculty determine that they had to put out a joint volume of essays in order to squash Bahnsen. That volume of essays has since been torn from limb to limb and scattered to the wind as it has been exposed as to how shallow and errant it is.

While we are on it, a good booklet to get that overturns Westminster’s and Clark’s silly hostility to Bahnsen’s theonomy is “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession” by Martin Foulner.

3.) “His (Bahnsen’s) argument was shocking to the consciences of many American evangelical Christians for a variety of reasons. First, many American evangelicals had been reared in Dispensational fundamentalism. As strict as they might have been in their piety and personal morality, theologically and practically they were antinomian. The Old Testament was thought generally to belong to previous “dispensations” in history and thus not even the Ten Commandments were thought to be “for today,” let alone the Mosaic judicial laws.”

Yeah, antinomian Dispensationalism was and is kind of like Clark’s antinomian R2K buddy, David Van Drunen writing,

“Scripture is the sacred text given to God’s covenant people whom he has redeemed from sin. . . . Given its character, therefore, Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.”

DAVID VAN DRUNEN

Even antinomian R. Scott Clark reveals his antinomian slip by writing;

 

“It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table.”

Heidelblog, October 27, 2008

So, per antinomian R2K Clark Magistrates should not be concerned to create and then enforce blasphemy laws, laws supporting the sabbath (old “blue laws”), and laws against perjury?  Antinomian anyone?

Yes, Bahnsen and all Biblical Christians oppose both Dispensationalism and R2K on these matters. Theonomists do believe that God’s law applies in the common realm today.

It’s not a wonder Clark hates theonomists so. It is the same hatred that the Dispensationalists have for theonomists. Wait … could that mean that R2K is really just “Reformed Dispensationalism?” Some have thought and said so.

4.)   Nevertheless, Bahnsen argued for the “abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail.” Specifically, what was at issue was the abiding validity of the Mosaic judicial laws. This is what he intended by “theonomy.”

First, Bahnsen went out of his way to demonstrate that general equity remained. There were OT Judicial laws that were no longer in force such as building a fence around the roof of one’s house, though Bahnsen pointed out that as a principle that law remained in force with the idea that since it was about protecting people from harm (since the ancients entertained on their roofs) therefore building fences around swimming pools would be an example of how the general equity of the law remained.

Second, what the libertine Clark and his R2K buddies desire is to throw out the whole law, including, as we saw above, the 10 commandments. R2K says incest may be OK since incest was a OT judicial law only for OT Israel. R2K says that bestiality is OK since bestiality was a OT judicial law. R2K says that public square blasphemy is ok since the forbidding of that is OT judicial law.

So, yes, Bahnsen taught the abiding validity of God’s law. And R2K teaches the abiding eclipse of God’s law. Now, dear reader,

“Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region where Escondido is, or the gods of the R2K-ites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

5.) “Major mainstream media outlets are paying attention to the new locus of the theonomy movement, to Moscow, Idaho, and to the plans of theonomic-reconstructionist church to Christianize Moscow and, from there, the rest of the world. “

First, I could only wish that Moscow, Idaho was theonomic the way Bahnsen was theonomic. Clark needs to keep in mind that Wilson himself has said that he is NOT Rushdoony 2.0 but that he is trying to be Rushdoony 0.5. Wilson is no theonomist. Wilson, like Clark, is just another version of an Elmer Gantry cult trying to rope in the rubes. Imagine how petrified Clark would be if Wilson were really a theonomist.

Second, notice Scott’s problem with the very idea of anything being “Christianized.” Scott is miffed because someone — anyone might want to see some small social-order potentially Christianized. Scott’s R2K infection driven fever prevents him from ever entertaining the thought that even his own family might be Christian someday — never mind a whole city or even country. Scott has taken dark oaths of allegiance per his militant R2K eschatological amillennialism that he is duty bound to stop the Christianization of anything because that is not possible. Good grief, Clark is the one who has said that the disappearance of Christendom is a good thing.

6.)  Further, apparently ignorant of the classical and traditional Christian usage of the term “general equity” (natural law)…

Maybe Scott would be kind enough to list all of the theologians who exactly equated “general equity” with natural law. I would find that interesting.

7.) History has not been a strong suit of the theonomists

Says the guy who makes stupid history claims about the 1976 election.

8.) “After all, this argument is really about the progress of revelation and redemption. Were the specifically Israelite laws temporary or not? With the church universal, the confessional Protestant traditions have said that they are.”

Again, I refer the reader to Martin Foulner’s “Theonomy & The Westminster Confession,” in order to give the lie to Clark’s assertions.

9.) Several of the Anabaptists postulated a future glory age on the earth when Christians shall have conquered their enemies.

Here Scott just tells us that he hates postmillennialism and tries to suggest that theonomists are really Anabaptist. Yeah … right … the postmill theonomists see the world they are seeking to conquer by the Spirit of Christ as for Christ as evil (that “the world is evil” is classical Anabaptist thought) refuse to baptize their children (like the Anabaptists), and believe in the community of goods (like the Anabaptists). Scott is just throwing cow dung against the wall here to see if it will stick. Any smear will do. Of course, being antinomian he can get away with that without coming under any conviction.

10.) The Reformed biblical theologians recognized that the Mosaic theocratic-state was intentionally temporary. They recognized that it was intended to point to the New Covenant and to Christ. They recognized and repeatedly said that the judicial and ceremonial laws were part and parcel of the types and shadows which have been fulfilled by Christ.

Hey, Scott, was Martin Bucer a Reformed Biblical Theologian?

“But since no one can desire an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over His people that follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.

Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Dt. 13:6-10, and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lv. 24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15:32-36); who rebelliously despise authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Dt. 21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of supreme tribunal (Dt. 17:8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lv. 24:17, Dt. 19:11-13), adultery (Lv. 20:10), rape (Dt. 22:20-25), kidnapping (Dt. 24:17); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Dt. 19:16-21).”

Martin Bucer
16th century Magisterial Reformer
The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties

Hey, Scott, was John Calvin a Reformed Biblical Theologian?

…“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

And again, in a treatise against pacifistic Anabaptists who maintained a doctrine of the spirituality of the Church which abrogated the binding authority of the case law Calvin wrote,

“They (the Anabaptists) will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until his coming, I will admit to them that in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not without reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people. That such is the case, it is written of the Levitical priesthood that it had to come to an end and be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:12ff) Where is it written that the same is true of the external order? It is true that the scepter and government were to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, but that the government was to cease is manifestly contrary to Scripture.”

John Calvin
Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, pp. 78-79

 

11.) “Thus, it is no surprise that Bahnsen’s biblical exegesis in Theonomy is spectacularly unpersuasive. His interpretation of Matthew 5:17–20 has been dismantled more than once.”

I’m just wondering here. If Bahnsen’s work on Matthew 5:17-20 has been dismantled more than once than why is it that almost 30 years after his death Clark still is spilling cyber ink trying to refute theonomy?

Oh, and by the by, if Bahnsen’s work on Mt. 5 doesn’t satisfy you then maybe B. B. Warfield’s work on the same text promoting the same end as Bahnsen will satisfy.

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/does-theonomy-have-a-fatal-flaw

Finally, I would only note that Clark repeatedly accuses Bahnsen and theonomy of being guilty of the sin of Judaizing. I am sure that rabid antinomians find Judaizing everywhere.