Sunday, November 22, 2015

Christ is Simply a Means to and End In the General Christian Pro-White Movement

So, I recently got caught up in a comments section type of "debate" if you want to call it that. I have, since I abandoned Facebook several years ago, sought to avoid online debates. They usually are never profitable, and I have better things to do with my time; like raising a family for the glory of God. Which, by the way, almost all pro-white advocates are absolutely NOT doing, or at best, are doing a very poor job at.

There are exceptions, of course, but not many that I have come across. Although a did recently meet a family in Tennessee that is pro-white, but they are advocates of Christian Identity doctrine, which I absolutely disagree with. But nevertheless, they are a very godly family. They were a breath of fresh air. They were actually concerned about matters of personal and community holiness and were appalled at the entire "Yeah! I'm drinking beer!!!"-- you know, those type of Christians who have more in common with the world than they do with other Christians.

Here are some links that go along with what I am writing here:

Let it be known, first of all, that I do not take anyone's side in this whole thing. I take the side of Christ, and of his word. Typically when I get involved in a debate, I take a clear side, but in this case, I see no way to do that. My guess is that it will be interpreted by some that I am "anti-white" which is what I think one side is falsely accusing the other of. On the other hand, I will get accused of being a "Judaizer" or whatever the opposite of anti-white is in this debate. I don't really care about anything but the truth of Christ.

Guys like Scott Terry and Matt Parrott are extremely valuable and have many great qualities; that I want to say off the bat. But I won't join in with them in condemning Todd Lewis. Neither will I utterly condemn Parrott or Terry (Scott Terry should know that I love him deeply; we know one another beyond the walls of the Internet and he knows I would lay down my life for him), though I think from the little I have heard of Todd Lewis, he is valuable as well.

To sum things up very shortly, because I don't care to get too detailed on this post, the debate is among Christians who are pro-white advocates in some sense. The issue is, should a pro-white Christian join in fellowship with white anti-Christs, to promote "the cause" of the pro-white movement? Myself, and some other contend that 2Corinthians 6:14-18 makes it utterly clear:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Of course, those who want to join with unbelievers in fellowship contend that they are doing nothing different than what would be, if a meteor were to be close to striking the earth, and everyone joining forces to stop it. Or they make arguments like, "you drive on roads built by unbelievers, so there!" These are extreme and very weak arguments. If that is the type of standard we have, then we might as well not have any standard at all. 

Here I am simply going to share a summary of my thoughts, as I expressed in the comments section of one of the blogs listed above. This will be a combination of two of the comments I made.

The sad fact is, it is the anti-Christ whites who are beginning to exclude the Christians, and not vice versa, as should be (2Corinthians 6:14-18).

I have been around the Kinist movement long enough, and have gotten to know several of them on a personal level well enough, to know that, at least for many of them (I won't put a number or percentage on it), they value fellowship with anti-Christ, pro-white people more than they do Christian anti-Kinists. This is evident in the fact that, with a few that I know, they would rather attend a conference of pro-white pagans than they would a Christ-exalting conference that isn't pro-white.

In addition, they are MUCH more critical of anti-white Christians than they are of anti-Christ alternate righters. It's just way too obvious. This ought to tell you off the bat that they put their “folk” above their “faith”, regardless of what order they use in their slogan.

Pro-white advocacy should be a very real concern in the Church, and put on a top priority. But it should be done apart from haters of Christ. Only when we trust the arm of the flesh do we think we NEED anti-Christs to help our cause.

But I realize all this gets confusing and messy because of Orthodox Christianity's view on what the church should be, and how much Christian authorities should be obeyed. I suppose, those who are pro-white and either Reformed or Orthodox, are simply being consistent with their doctrine. In their view, the church is merely a Sunday social club, instead of a living organism, designed to storm the gates of hell and impact every area of society and every detail of life.

And I am sick and tired of pro-white people using Christ as a means to and end.

May Jesus Christ be glorified and save our people. Amen.

Swiss Kinist


  1. Collaborating with non-Christians is a dilemma by itself, but that's not even the biggest problem with Tradyouth. The biggest problem is the obvious danger of syncretism that is present when participating in an organization that promotes "faith" in general and not faith in Jesus in particular. The logic seems to be "the guy who built my house is a non-Christian, therefore I can use my website to publish articles that promote Islam and paganism", which doesn't make any sense, as you pointed out.
    The saddest part is that Tradyouth has made it clear that they are fine with Muslims and pagans, that they want to respect homosexuals, that they respect Darwinism, etc., and yet still the neo-pagan fags at NPI tried to shun them, and the Christians responded by politely asking the neo-pagan fags to please reconsider and let them join in fellowship together. It's insane.

  2. Uggh... I keep trying to post here but stupid Blogger software is messing me up. I've always had trouble commenting on Blogger blogs.

    Anyway, I think you've got two main problems:

    1. I think it's best if we frame our religious disagreement as one between two different denominations. Only, I'm fond of framing my differences with the rest of Christendom as a divide between the Enlightenment / Rationalists and my position of Christian Romanticism.


    2. If you're going to call people sinners and try to get people to repent, you need to have specifics in mind. When, exactly, and where, did I commit a sin? If you say: "Scott...when you went to x,y, and z, and did a,b, and c, you were in sin..." then we'd have something to work with. Instead, you stick with ambiguous accusations and pseudo-psychoanalysis (I feel Scott believes this that or the other because he feels this way or that way about this or that...blah blah blah...) That sort of criticism strikes me as unmanly and better left for school kids. If you think I've done something terribly wrong, then out with it and tell me.


    On another point, let's talk via phone. Tonight if you'd like! I'd love to clear the air here. You can get a much better understanding of my emotions and attitudes via the phone than you can via text.

    Call me! I don't think I have your number. Or, better yet, let's skype! (I'd really prefer to Skype actually, but I can't remember if you have Skpe or not - on a related note, I think your Skype account may have been hacked because I keep getting random links from your account and when I click them, my virus software blocks them).

    Call me! It's a full moon, I have a great cigar, and I'm in the mood for conversation! If we Skype, you can even bring your friends like Pulaski along. It's about time we had a small Christian virtual conference.

  3. Hans thanks for your level headed position in all this, despite our disagreements.

    God bless.

  4. "Pro-white advocacy should be a very real concern in the Church, and put on a top priority. But it should be done apart from haters of Christ."

    That's a hollow hope since, a) ”a very real concern" for "pro-white advocacy" is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, b) the "top priority" of the song sung in Revelation 5:9 is gloriously Gospel-based, and absolutely inter-ethnic (cf. Rev. 7:9), and c) "haters of Christ" are ‘natural men’ who “receive not the things of the Spirit of God (2 Corinth. 2:14),” and are bound to be drawn to the carnal appeal of "pro-white advocacy.”

    1. Tell that to Apostle Paul:

      "That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

      For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" --Romans 9:2,3

      The NT Church is multi-national, meaning, that the nations remain separate, yet, they are all still part of the body of Christ. The very word depicted "nations" is telling enough. Nation = Ethnos.

      Thus claiming being pro-white is a "carnal appeal", you condemn not only Apostle Paul, but all of our Christian forefathers.

    2. But what the Apostle Paul tells you in Romans 9:2,3 doesn’t proof-text an fleshly ideology of inviolable ethnicity. Continue reading the chapter, and you’ll find Paul saying, “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed (v.8).” And he tells Galatian gentiles: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (Galatians 4:28).”

      So, when Paul recites his tribal. ethnic, cultic credentials in Philippians 3:4-7 he, obviously, is not opening a door to the merits of philo-Semitism _or_ ‘pro-whiteness’. He says, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ…(v.8).”

      Non-Christian “white advocates,” naturally, love this kind of “dung.” An ethno-nationalist ideology that tries to cover itself in scripture is attempting to gild that “dung.”

    3. Stating that the qualifications for being in the kingdom of God, doesn't have to do with your physical lineage, does not equal that race is not important. If it were not important at all, then Paul's statement regarding his love for his own kin is meaningless.

      When Paul states "dung" he is referring to the pride that he has in anything, other than Christ. I don't have pride (the bad kind of pride) that I am a man, yet I value God ordained distinctions between men and women. I don't have pride in "marriage" (when compared with Christ) per se, but that doesn't mean I don't value my own marriage more than I value yours.

      I love my family more than I love yours. I love my grandparents more than I love yours. I love my great grandparents more than I love yours. And I love my own people (generations beyond) more than I love yours. If you were consistent you would say the same.

  5. Paul's statement regarding his “great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart” for his “kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:3-5),” is spoken with a view to their relationship with Christ Jesus. It’s not the proof-text basis for kinist ideology; it’s a forthright statement about their need of the Gospel of Christ. That’s why Paul immediately goes on to say, “…They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed (v.8).” What is truly "meaningless" is a fleshly, race-based love for one’s “kinsmen” that competes with love for the Lord Jesus.

    Philippians 3:3-7 clearly names the fleshly source of Paul’s “pride” in “what things were gain to me (v.7).” It wasn’t “pride” in general, but a specific experience related to his Israelite nationality, his tribal identity, his Hebrew status, and the zeal and ‘blamelessness’ that accompanied it. He never mentions “pride,” or calls pride “dung.” He has plainly identified his ethnic-tribal-cultic ‘achievements’, and thrown _them_ into the privy.

    If your love for your family, your grandparents,your great grandparents, etc., is being conflated with your love for the Lord Jesus, then that ‘ancestral’ love is a Godless, empty, meaningless gesture—it is, according to Paul, “dung.”

    “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs (John 21:15).”

    Those who insist upon feeding His sheep from an ideological trough filled with ethnic-national-tribal junk food (which feeds on itself), are poisoning His people.

  6. You said all those words, essentially to say that if you love your family more than Christ, your love is Godless, empty, etc.

    No one is arguing that kin love is supposed to be greater than love for Christ. But what we Kinists do argue is that love for your own kin should be greater than love for non-kin.

    "Those who insist upon feeding His sheep from an ideological trough filled with ethnic-national-tribal junk food (which feeds on itself), are poisoning His people."

    I suppose you also believe that Paul was poisoning Timothy here in this scripture:

    "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." -- 1Timothy 5:8

    His own, is referring to family members. The statement is meaningless if taking care of kin was to be equal to taking care of non-kin.

    And you ought to be far more concerned with the real problems in the church, than to bother trying to change someone like me, who is completely committed to the word of God. I stand with my Christian forefathers on this issue, and you stand with Cultural Marxists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Don't waste my time, or yours. Go fight the real enemy.