Here’s the backstory for those just coming in: Trevaris Tutt wrote an article for American Vision which would make Al or Jesse proud.
Tutt demands therein a more thorough communization of society, that Whites commit ourselves with gusto to our own dispossession and genocide, and the sacrifice of White posterity, to wash away the seemingly indelible socio-ethical maladies of Blacks. This he describes as the gospel itself.
Our retort to which was that Tutt’s was simply another gospel, contrary to Christianity, and predicated on the same ideological witches’ brew that defines the antichrist Left: moral relativism, cultural Marxism, Black Supremacy, etc. We met all his scapegoating of White Christians for the sins of the African with the truth — that according to Scripture, history, and contemporary observation, the Hammite is inheritor of very particular lineal curses. Which is to say that the chronic intemperance and violence that define Black degradation is not the fault of White people at large, but their own. And that Whites are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. Just the opposite, our Christian obligation is to stand on the truth.
Now, Trevaris himself may have the demeanor of a Keyes, Elder, or Sowell. Having never met the bloke, I can’t say. But upon reading my response he issued this very uncivil counter on Facebook:
Sometimes I have to battle the thoughts of wanting people like this to get off the internet and take them to the hood somewhere to say this … and they wonder why
Yes, this is the entirety of his retort. Encountering Whites who yet dare tell the truth about the racial implications of covenant theology, including the lineal curses of intemperance and violence, he defaults to those very behaviors: yes, as a rebuke of my daring to acknowledge the Black resolve that they are justified in murdering any White whom they suspect of not being pro-Black enough, he announced his desire to see me murdered by Blacks. Absent a hint of self-awareness, or the slightest inkling of irony, Trevaris, and those who offered so many ‘amens’ to his post, feel themselves morally justified in wishing my murder by Black hands.
Thus thoroughly proving my point. Yeah, that’ll learn me.
The thread which ensued therefrom is a free flow of consciousness among what are supposed to be Reformed Christians, a conclave of the wise. But nary a glimmer of Christian conscience shone through.
Most comments amounted to nothing more than a collective “Wow, just wow!” In fact, one bloke by the name of Nathan said literally that. But he would also go on to pronounce me “filth” with nary a thought to show where I had erred.
One Venchenza cites a portion from Dabney which explains, ‘The account which the Bible gives of the origin of slavery (Gen. ix. 25-27), is, that it came as the remedy for the depravity of the enslaved …’ (Discussions, Vol. IV, p. 250) She simply declares this evil without attempt of any refutation. Trevaris, among others, affirms her in that resolve.
Meantime, we’re left asking, “Where’s the lie, though?” Clearly the veracity of Dabney’s assessment is, to their minds, beside the point. They simply don’t care if the statement is orthodox, or true. They hate it. And that’s enough.
Enter Aaron, the first White man in the conversation. Looking to prove his PC bona fides, he denounces us as “racist,” “illogical,” “wicked,” and “wolves.” Choice words, those, considering ‘racism’ is such an incoherent concept. At present it has no functional definition that can comport with biblical categories of sin or penology. Never mind that it was coined by antichrists circa 1930 for the express purpose of indicting and replacing the whole social framework of Christendom: be it special love of one’s clan, community, country, culture, heritage, folk, or the symbols thereof, all these were previously conceived as high virtues to Christians, but cast as utmost evil by Marxists, atheists, Jews, and fellow travelers under this invective neologism, ‘racist.’ And pertaining only to White people. The wolves, Aaron, are those who crept in and by their gnostic agitation, declaring suddenly our flesh, and its care, evil.
Ron, the second White man on scene, makes a play on the title of my previous article, saying to Tutt, “I’d pick your cotton, but we’re several states apart.” Thus proving my point, too, that the worldview which Trevaris heralds demands at once that Whites assume the role of indentured lickspittles on the one hand, and miracle-working patricians on the other. To find this tenuous favor with Blacks, a White is expected to make of himself both the scapegoat on which they pour boundless wrath, and the sacrifice which purges their sins. For a White to do otherwise, as I have, treating Blacks by the bar of God’s law-word, according to truth that Christ alone is the true expiation of their sin, is a capital offense in their view.
Either way, though, be he an ‘ally’ or an ‘oppressor’ such as myself, the toll for Whites is always the same — blood sacrifice. In one way or another, by the PC soteriology championed here by Tutt & co., all Whites must be bled for Black healing and sustenance.
Another White man by the name of Joseph pokes in to condemn me on the grounds that “any other dividing line [than salvation status] that becomes anything more than an interesting observation of differences is a violation of the 2nd commandment and human decency.”
Trouble is, though he intends to defend Tutt, his rebuke condemns Tutt no less than me. Because Tutt’s entire position is that Black people have racial interests unique to them which grants them the right to extort and enslave Whites, and even to terrorize and kill those Whites who will not sacrifice their ancestors, posterity, and civilization on the altar of Black interests.
Moreover, that Joseph aims this rebuke exclusively at me (the White) while ignoring Tutt’s much more aggressive (Black) racialism proves that Joseph violates his own principle against meaningful distinction. He defends Black Supremacy against any White who dares object, or even notice. Any White who bucks against Black Supremacy is, to Joseph’s estimation, below ‘human decency.’ So even if I agreed with Joseph’s standard, I’d have no choice but to declare him void of human decency too. Hmm, perhaps he isn’t wrong about everything.
Joseph also chides me for my “pseudo 1612 English,” declaring my vocabulary some sort of malady of heart; meaning, evidence of reprobation. Which, to be honest, I find uproariously funny. You heard it here first, folks: lucid Anglo-Saxon diction is a one-way ticket to hell. I guess it’s rather unavoidable if you mean to elevate ebonics to the tongue of angels.
Andre, a Black given over to miscegenation, delivers a familiar canard: that if they can “obliterate the foundational lie that there is such a thing as biological race, the commenters [sic] whole system crumbles.”
This only proves how unfamiliar these folks are with the matters at issue. First, the dilemma he imagines to saddle me with is called “Loki’s wager” or the “fallacy of the beard.” In essence, any apparent overlap or blurring at the edges of what are otherwise distinct categories does not invalidate the reality or meaningfulness of said categories in the least. The oscillating demarcation between land and sea in no way invalidates either.
More importantly, though, the Scripture takes for granted everywhere the reality of biological race; else there is no significance in the blessings on Shem, Japheth, Abraham, or David; nor any meaningfulness to identities like Cushites or Galatians, or even to the ubiquitous references to ethnos and genos in text; nor any significance to the royal genealogies of the gospels. To anathematize race is a direct attack on the incarnation, not to mention the Great Commission, which calls for discipleship of the nations (ethne) as nationalities (Matt. 28:18-20).
But presupposing Boasian-Marxist anthropology, Andre & co. are ultimately channeling that eldest heresy — Gnosticism — which denied the goodness of kin distinctions like clan, tribe, nation, and peoplehood, and with them, Christ’s coming in the flesh. Spurning the hypostatic union, they proclaim by alternative a deracinated monophysite Christ and the Monad. The latter being but another name for Satan.
But if the gospel stands (and it does), then biological race is firmly established.
Andre’s argument too, if granted, indicts Trevaris no less than me, because he believes Blacks to be a real people with metaphysical import attached to that identity, not merely an accident of environmentalism working over otherwise indifferentiable mass.
Once again, to overlook this foundational assumption in Tutt’s thought while condemning me for the same thing bespeaks Andre’s own recognition of race as well. For he has determined to favor Tutt on the basis of the inverted PC racial hierarchy of Black Supremacy. Simply put, to Andre’s reckoning, racialism is good and wholesome for Trevaris, but evil for me. Because I’m White.
Of special note, too, is Nate’s commentary:
I think you are correct in your OP thoughts, Trevaris. Take these men to stand, face to face, with any black people (not just in the hood) and they would likely back off their position like it was on fire. I have known many racist idiots in my day (including me, pre-Christ) and to a man, they are cowards that lack the conviction to stand by their hatred in the face of those they hate.
An astounding statement. Nate endorses Tutt’s default apologetic — Black intimidation and the threat of murder. Just ruminate on that a moment.
He even confesses that this method of conversion works entirely by fear of Black savagery. So, according to Nate, savagery and the alteration of Christian theology under the duress thereof is the movement of the Spirit. What a salvation he offers! Recant what you and our Christian fathers all knew to be the truth, or into the cannibal’s pot you go! Glory!
Nate may have been converted, but I daresay it is a conversion only by the fear of men, and to another gospel entirely.
But at length, the wizard steps out from behind the curtain: Joel McDurmon himself stops in to provoke Trevaris :
Even Dabney at least played coy at the curse of Ham argument. This is straight sick, but at least, Trevaris, you are forcing these sickos to reveal themselves more than normal. The byproduct is that in the meantime they also expose some of the latent connections between certain strains and certain arguments of “conservatism” and the old racist arguments, covert tactics, pretense of morality, etc. The more these guys speak, the more they give rope to hang the whole criminal contingent.
I say keep doing what you are doing. Don’t be discouraged by the fringe elements getting even uglier. Their reaction will be to our benefit in the long run; but if they learnt to shut up and sit quietly, they will eventually die out. Either way, the truth wins.
Let me first dispel his a fortiori cavil: Dabney was in no wise coy on the condition of Hamites. And to suggest that he was an outlier on the subject, or that I have said anything beyond the normative view in Christian history on this subject, is categorically false. In fact, I have taken a milder position on Ham than Matthew Henry, Cotton Mather, St. Augustine, and many other great exegetes besides. The scalawag knows this, but he banks on the intellectual laziness of the mob he incites.
To this end, the majority of his commentary is but a slurry of emotive jargon punctuated by gloating references to our genocide. I confess, I was even a little taken aback to see him consoling Trevaris by reminding him of their common hope — the mass lynching of White Christians. I guess Bojidar’s daydreams of mass exterminations of anti-Marxists has really rubbed off on him. They and those who follow their spirit were well identified by Orwell as “the streamlined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets.”
So he goads poor Trevaris to ignore the inarguable truths I’ve presented as ‘the old racist arguments, covert tactics, and pretense of morality.’ Imagine that — telling Blacks the truth that their pandemic sins aren’t caused by the existence of White people and cannot be cleansed by the sacrifice of White people, is now a ‘pretense of morality.’ Incredible.
Meantime, over against the ‘pretense of morality,’ McDurmon encourages Trevaris to focus on how good it feels to imagine White Christians dead and dying. His apologetic is the same which Solomon found so grievous as to merit his first rebuke:
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
~ Prov. 1:11-16
In the case of McD and the other scalawags inciting Black revanchism, Solomon’s conclusion of the matter holds especially true: “And they lay in wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.” (Prov. 1:18)
But Joel let slip one kernel of truth which proves decisive: ‘if they learnt to shut up and sit quietly, they will eventually die out.’
About that he is right. If White Christians so fear Black violence that they are willing to entirely invert the Christian faith or fall silent on account of that terror, we most certainly shall die out. For the vengeance of the covenant is then upon us (Deut. 24; Lev. 26).
This is the very thing that has happened over the last few decades: as the acolytes of this PC version of Christianity testify, they used to see things as their Christian fathers did, but Blacks and others simply intimidated them into recanting the old faith, and adopting a new one. One which sacrifices their own children to satiate African bloodlust.
Yes, Joel is right about that, at least: looking into the eyes of death, many of our people have blinked. And in direct proportion to Whites’ coerced recantation of the faith, our people pass away, and for their cowardice, they are reviled all the more by those they hoped to appease. It is no coincidence that as Whites turn to this PC new gospel, the heathen coalition of the aggrieved grows only more vengeful.
Little girl explains why she hates being white pic.twitter.com/5FgAF7nurs
— WhiteIdentityPolitix (@whitereddit) July 21, 2017
But cowards do not inherit the Kingdom (Rev. 21:8). For those who break in this way have not persevered to the end (Rev. 3:11). And the recompense of their treason to God and their people shall fall on their own heads.
Save sackloth and ashes, Joel and his ilk have certainly bought themselves a most bitter end. All for the fear of men and approval of the world. Ichabod.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
