Cambria Doesn’t Yield to Calvinist Speculators

“Kinism” is formally associated with Calvinist dogma, growing out of the Presbyterian cultural milieu of the early 90’s…and as such, its adherents have retained many of the proclivities so common among modern Presbyterians.

I have an off-the-cuff suspicion about Presbyterian church history that bears on this subject.

I believe (but can’t prove with relevant citations) that when the North won the war against the South, Northern religiosity was thought to have also defeated Southern religiosity.  The zealous, uncompromising love for abstract doctrines, so common among the puritans and their secular ancestors, slowly dominated the agrarian, medieval-minded southerners.  I say “dominated.” Maybe “infected” is a better word?

Kinists have retained some of these infected traits, while also wanting to hold an old European worldview.  But it seems difficult to get Calvinist dogma to mesh with antique-conservatism.

So that leads us to the topic of today’s blog post:  I routinely hear some Kinists express disagreement with  “Cambria Will Not Yield”.  All Kinists I know are fans of the blog of course, so I wont mention names here.  It’s not my intent to call anyone out.  But it is interesting that these objections keep cropping up.

There was an offending citation in Cambria’s most recent post that set off the discussion anew.

When it was objected that certain of Cambria’s statements in the post didn’t accord with Calvinist dogmatics and that the man might be “off his rocker”, I responded by noting that it’s hard to reconcile a characteristically Reformed penchant for doctrine with Mr. Cambria’s worldview.

“We can easily reconcile the two!” it was countered…. “we simply cut out all his false material!”

“That’s not reconciliation”, I replied… “that’s mere picking and choosing.”

———————-

I recount this (paraphrase) of the conversation to show what I mean about the tension among Kinists.  On the one hand, we want to hold on to the zeal for theological systems that our puritan forebears taught us; but, on the other hand, we want to hold to the conservative worldview that’s hostile to systematizers and rationalistic ideologies.

I think the two are compatible, as long as we’re careful about it.

Look at the South as a paradigm case.  Before the War, there were Christians of all denominations (even Presbyterians) who, nevertheless, still held to the antique-conservative worldview.  They meshed naturally and organically.  Even Calvinists believe God is incomprehensible, after all.  If only they stay consistent with that view, they’d be laid-back Southern-fried theologians instead of zealous ideologues who try fitting God into their tiny heads.

The key is loving a Person instead of loving a system of doctrines, but that’s very difficult to do in our modern age.

Dear Black People…

In response to the recent movie “Dear White People”, I decided to, in turn, reach out to the black community with a few helpful tips, bits of advice, and comments:

——————-

– The left lane is for PASSING!!! Not poking along!!!

– Just because she’s got blonde hair and blue eyes, does *not* mean she belongs to you or that you’re entitled to her.

– We whites have a healthy amount of introspection, so don’t be upset when we don’t shout a greeting at you from 20 feet away.

– If a white person breaks eye contact with you on the highway or in a parking lot, it doesn’t mean that you’ve dominated some impromptu masculinity contest.

–  You do *NOT* need to listen to blaring rap music while pumping your gas.

–  Also, your thoroughly annoying mega bass always exceeds your personal space thereby subtracting from the value of ours. (H/T Scott Ash).

–  The green light means go not wait till it turns yellow. (H/T R.W.).

–  We like sturdy, sensible boots and may wear them multiple days in a row. In fact, we may only have the one pair of footwear, except for our dress shoes or tennis shoes (used on their respective occasions). We do *not* need to wear different pairs of gaudy, colorful shoes everyday. Swapping shoes and outfits is what our women do, not our men. That’s not a part of our culture. Deal with it, please.

–  Please stop shouting at each other across the parking lot.  If you want to have a conversation with a friend, approach him or her until you’re close enough to communicate at a normal volume.  We don’t all need to be included in your conversation, however exciting it may be.

–  Just because white people are congregating somewhere, be it in a housing development, country club, or private school, doesn’t mean you have a right to hop in a car with Jesse Jackson and come crash our event.  We’d appreciate some privacy and a little breathing room please.

–  You can make various noises with your mouth?  An interesting skill, but doesn’t entitle you to fame or wealth.  Sorry.

– PULL YOUR PANTS UP!  No one wants to see your underwear!

————————–

I’m sure the list of kind recommendations could continue.  To properly reciprocate the movie, we’d have to come up with at least two hours worth of advice to blacks.

I open the remainder to my readers.  Contributions welcome.

Post below!

The Walls of Old Dixie

I went to one of the most peaceful places I know of this afternoon.

I wont say exactly where, but it’s right off the Albemarle sound and there’s a full-sized replica of a Confederate steam-powered battle ship floating in the shallows.

Like most small Carolina towns, it has a majority black population so the downtown area (including the river-front with the battle ship) is deserted in the afternoons. (They care little for history or aesthetics and go to the commercial districts instead).  So most days there are only ducks, a soft breeze, and the distant chimes of the Episcopal church to keep one company.

There’s an extensive boardwalk stretching at least 100 yards along the river, ending in a large sheltered area protruding over the water. I made my way to one of the tables and sat to get a good view of the battleship while I smoked my Dominican.

But then I noticed, scrawled across one of the wooden railings, in what must have been a feminine hand, the following:

“We must secure a future for the white race and our white children.”

Looking around, I noticed other such sayings, peppered across the veranda.

I can’t describe to you all how happy this made me. I feel like all those who share my views are scattered throughout the country, miles away from me; but here, in my own backyard practically, was a passionate scribbling.

Who could have done it?!

I took out a marker and contributed my own message; a snippet of an Elizabeth Barrett Browning poem I use for these purposes:

“He moaned and struggled
as well might be
For the white child wanted
his liberty.”

Hopefully the other author will see it and be as encouraged by my words as I was of (hers?)

~ Deo Vindice ~

More Valuable Than Precious Jewels?

I realized there are two ways of winning the lottery…

The Powerball odds for winning a million dollars (which, after taxes and a new car will be about $600,000), is 1 in 5 million.  I repeat: I have a 1 in 5 million chance of winning.

If I do win, by my calculations (and planning), I suspect it would take me upwards of 8 more years of work and smart saving to retire comfortably as a millionaire.

But when doing my calculations, I realized something.

If I were able to find a good woman who would be willing to work hard and live on the bare minimum for five years or so, and if she’s able to make at least two-thousand dollars (after taxes) a month, and if she’d be willing to also work hard in the greenhouses as well as homeschool whatever children we end up having…her and I pooling our resources, could retire comfortably as millionaires in about 16 years, and that *without* winning any state lottery.

I figure it would be relatively easy to find a woman able to make 2,000 a month, but when I start factoring in all the other traits: she has to be Christian (so, that strikes out a large number), she has to be willing to homeschool (that strikes out many more), she has to have physical traits that I want to pass on to my children (she has to be moderately intelligent, and for God’s sake, a white woman), she has to be in good health and able to bear children, and she cannot be an argumentative harpy.

…what are the odds of finding a woman like that?

Probably no better than the 1 in 5 million odds of winning the powerball…

A good woman really is an invaluable economic asset.

Review: 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read

Benjamin Wiker is no neo-con, nor does his book belong to that class of trendy, neo-con hit-pieces put out by the likes of Hannity, Beck, Levin, or Limbaugh.  And for all the book’s merits (which are many), I have a serious criticism of Wiker that applies not just to him, but to all the would-be “conservatives” who follow in Russell Kirk’s footsteps.  But first, the good:

This book sat on my shelf far longer than it should have.  I thought it was a simplistic survey of ten books, so I put off reading it.  Actually, it’s a book-length introduction to the “conservative” worldview; Wiker uses different men (and two women) to make his points, preferring to contrast conservative thought with liberalism.

I’m not going through all the different topics and people covered by Wiker, but I was happy to see him include the likes of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Chesterton in his line up.  He also included Hilaire Belloc (who wrote: “The Servile State”).  Additionally, I was unfamiliar with Voegelin and thought Wiker’s chapter covering his work was very helpful.  He also covers F.A. Hayek, noting his Austrian economic influences and explaining away his atheism.  I also enjoyed Wiker’s scouring of Ayn Rand.  He points out how atrocious her personal life was, concluding that she was a pathological narcissist, whose contributions are ostensibly conservative, but fall tragically short of the mark.

In short (and this is my way of summing it up), Wiker says conservatives believe something like the following proposition:

“God and the universe, are too infinitely big for us to ever get a rational grasp of.” 

One result of the truth of this premise is that mankind is most happiest in intimate social settings.  We discover our world through the connections we make with others, most immediately, our families.  Moving outward, we have tribes, then cities.  This, says Aristotle, is the most basic human element.  As other “conservatives” in Wiker’s list note, once society moves beyond the township (or the state level), it gets too big to be effectively managed without tyranny…but all that sort of analysis is built on the above mentioned premise.

I’ve had to learn this premise the hard way.  I was reared in a Presbyterian tradition that values rational consistency and rigorously logical propositional relationships.  God, it always seemed to me, was put on the autopsy table and dissected for analysis.

The real body of Christ isn’t on any autopsy table though.  It’s in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father.  Along with a friend of mine, I’m coming to have very negative thoughts about Calvinism and the Calvinists.

Wiker’s section on the Jerusalem Bible was worthwhile for helping foster a religiosity based not on rationalization, but on a heart-felt appreciation for the characters in the narrative.  The Jerusalem Bible is translated from a literary perspective and helps the reader become immersed in Scripture as a story instead of as a polemical text, where the words are treated as raw data for building theological models.

——————————

This is all well and good, but what of my criticism?

Wiker constantly harps on Aristotle for his support of slavery and blindly praises Belloc for rejecting it, in both cases, without thorough analysis.  Further, Wiker completely ignores the major contributions to conservative thought offered by the Southern agrarians (though he briefly mentions Richard Weaver in the first chapter).  I don’t fault him for not covering the southerners, he only has so much space, after all; but, I suspect he’d have been more open to mentioning them had they not supported positions which would, had he mentioned them in a favorable light, hurt Wiker’s chances for publication.

And that gets me to my most pressing point:

Wiker, like most of the other paleo-conservatives, says a lot of great things, but never *ever* will he apply these to a particular people.  It’s as if, on Wiker’s view, any group of people, from the Aztecs to the Mau Muas, could be “conservative” if only they hold to a certain few social practices and habits.

In this, he stands with Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan, and all the other would-be conservatives who, nevertheless, are so dominated by the liberal elite, they can never admit to loving a particular people…white people.

Europeans are the great white elephants in all paleo-conservative living rooms…always present, but never mentioned.

I don’t want to be a “conservative” if I can’t conserve the people along with the habits.

Farther On

“Oh my brother, are you weary
Of the roughness of the way?
Does your strength begin to fail you
And your vigor to decay?

Farther on.  Still go farther.
Count the milestones, one by one.
Jesus will forsake you never.
It is better, farther on.”

Despite my rugged, handsome exterior (heh), I have a sensitive side.  And it’s this side of me that’s taken the most damage by those calling themselves Christians (especially the Calvinist variety).  I’ll explain:

This week, I’ve caused yet another row with a Calvinist community whom, until now, I thought I was in good standing with.  An older mestizo man, claiming to be a teacher in a Presbyterian church, in typical Calvinist fashion, was insulting and berating a poor non-Calvinist Christian.  He carried on like this for days.

I approached the man (in a Facebook group) and said he was embarrassing the name of Christ and that the more learned Christians ought to bear with the failings of others.

He was so offended a gringo dared correct him, he immediately dug into my background, discovered the word “Kinist” and went on a rampage against me.  The original discussion having been forgotten, he and numerous cronies, called me every vile name they could think of.

I’m a worm.  I’m Hell-bound.  I’m a coward.  I’m a racist.  I’m a supremacist.  I’m a liar.  And most tellingly, according to them, I’m “refuse”, not worthy of being spoken to.

In my Bible reading that night, I read 1 Corinthians and was reminded that the Apostle Paul was also considered “refuse” at one point.  The apostles were wretches of the Kingdom.  Fools for Christ.

I’m no apostle though.  I can’t help being greatly discouraged by all of these insults.  I’ve devoted my entire academic life to defending the Kingdom, doing apologetics, and trying to aid struggling Christians against the attacks of Satan’s hoard of demonic intellectuals.  I have so much to share with these people – and they throw it all back in my face.

When so many people who claim the title “Christian” tell me I’m Hell-bound, I can’t help wondering (in my lowest moments) if maybe they’re right?  What if I really am a wretch, bound for Hell?  What if their utopian, negro-worshiping religion is really God’s religion?  Can so many be wrong and so few right?  Is the path really so narrow?

—————————-

On top of being rejected by the Church, there’s the daily humiliations and trials a white man has to face in Satania – all of which are represented abundantly in my life.

I could easily deal with all of it if it weren’t for the oppressive loneliness.  And it’s not just loneliness, it’s ostracization.  It’s being an outlaw…or more properly: an outcast.

Thank God for the internet, where I can reach out to the like minded, read their material, and realize that we’re all going through similar struggles.

I think of you all – those who read this blog…and am constantly uplifted.  I think on Christ.  I read the old European literature.  I find solitary and beautiful places to go and pour out my heart to the King of Wretches.

And it’s then I know I’m right and the whole world (excepting a small number of us) is wrong.  It’s then I clearly see these “Reformed” folk as spittle-flinging zealots, foaming in their rage and adamant in their hatred for the God who made Himself one with a particular people.

Let God be true and *every* man a liar.

We few are going…farther and farther on.  Not even the grave will stop us.  We’re eternal; beings of glory.  Ours is the spirit, the water, and the blood!

“At my grave I’ll still be singing. 
Though you weep for one last go.
Sing it as we once did sing it. 
It is better…farther on.” 

I Have Had It!

(sung to the tune of “The Marine’s Hymn”)

From the Halls of Academia,
To an Indian tepee,
We lie about European history,
In our books, in class, and on TV.
First to fight for diversity and perversion,
And to keep our liberal records clean,
We are proud to claim the title,
The ‘Culturally Diverse Academic Deans’.

————————————-

I have HAD it, readers!

I have finally reached that point where I am no longer willing to continue slogging through the asinine wasteland that is American education.

The military decided to pay my tuition and gave me a living wage as long as I stayed enrolled and maintained a certain grade point average.  The bar for this deal is fairly low; the average veteran needs only a 2.8 GPA to maintain his benefits.  I’ve kept a 4.0 consistently.  All A’s.

But no…I’ve had it.

I’m at the breaking point now.  I’m so sick of this “education” game.  The military can’t even *PAY* me to attend anymore.  I quit!

Americans teach all subjects the same way.  Learn to play the game in one class and you’ll find you’re adept at it in all.  It’s an unmanly, feminine method which stresses memorization over learning broad conceptual relationships.  All classes, regardless of subject matter, operate in the same way.

Item:  Spanish.

Instead of learning *why* the language operates as is does, we’re expected to memorize long lists of phrases and vocabulary.  And we’re supposed to remember where the accent marks go.  We’re not to know anything about verb conjugation or Spanish grammar, instead, we’re simply supposed to remember that ‘yo soy’ and ‘nosotros son’ have their respective meanings that correlate (roughly) to English use of similar vocabulary.  It’s maddening.  How do you say “KEEP YOUR FISH PLATTER!!  I WANT TO LEARN HOW TO BAIT MY HOOK!!” en Espanol?

Item: Mathematics.

In every class, there’s always a feminist, fresh out of highschool, whom I find completely insufferable.  In *EVERY* case she equates crass memorization with intelligence.  She’s smart because when teacher utters sentence “A”, she religiously scribbles sentence “A” then mindlessly repeats sentence “A” minutes later in response to the teacher’s pandering. And oh is she smug about it.

But she’s only memorizing operations.  She’s memorizing motions and movements.  She has no idea why the rules operate as they do.  She has no notion of what axioms are or why the universe displays such brilliant symmetry.  No.  She’s a trained monkey who thinks she’ll one day govern our pagan democracy (“girl-power” don-cha-know?)

DON’T ASK ME TO MEMORIZE the formula for finding the area of a triangle!  TEACH me how to derive the formula on my own and show me why the formula succeeds as it does!

Should I carry on with all my other “Items”?  It’s the same story in every subject.  They’ve even managed to turn British Literature into this same format of idiocy.

I’m done with it.  I’m done with all of it.

What good will a slip of paper from a bunch of pagans do me in this life anyway?

“I’m a bona-fide Plantation Worker, A-yea-up!  This here piece of paper proves it!  I vaccinate my kids, pour toxic chemicals down their throats, shop at Wal-Mart, and spend my every waking moment parked in front of a television!”

Unplugging might just be the biggest revolutionary act I can perform at this point in my life.

I’m off to Newport News to work with my hands.

Academia can burn along with the rest of the plantation.

Dr. Bahnsen’s Economic Argument Against Alienism

Most all modern Reformed theories of state and society are (unbeknownst to the Evangelicals) premised on neo-Marxist presuppositions.  While their emotional motivations are grounded in the civil-rights era, these anti-tribalists premise their intellectual objections to tribalism and ethnic-based social orders on a desire to implement a state-sponsored, fiat order, where men arbitrarily associate with each other, not in terms of Godly family units, but rather, in terms of allegiance to propositions (like laws, constitutions, and ideologies).  In his critique of Marxist theories of man, Dr. Bahnsen gets into an interesting discussion with Dr. Kickasola and in the course of their discussion, criticizes this anti-Christian position.  Starting at 26 min. in to lecture 23 of his “Philosophy of Christianity” series:

———————————

Kickasola:  Why is communism, especially Chinese communism, so anti-family?  Why do they divide the children from parents and so forth?  Because there’s nothing inherent in communism that would demand that.  In fact, communism would accentuate the family?  Then I realized: if the biggest sin is private property in the sense of domain (which comes from the Clan), we, daddy, mommy, kids, inherently own something … then if I can get rid of the family, then private property would vanish.

Bahnsen:  You’re exactly right.  Private property and the family go hand in hand in Marx.  The only way to break the hold of the family, and therefore private property, is to have the state do the education and raising of the children.

Kickasola:  But I don’t know if the Marxist considers the family intrensically evil.  It’s private property that seems to be evil.  So they say the family has to go.  In other words, they see the dispensing of the family as an act of mercy …

Bahnsen:  Well, I don’t know how many Marxists you’ve talked to.  It may be true that the ones you’ve run into have not felt that way, but Marxist philosophy says family is inherently evil.  The family essentially breaks up society into units that consider themselves owners of particular property and inheritances as you’ve mentioned it.   The idea that the parents own the children and can control the children apart from the state, is essentially the claim that the state doesn’t have the ultimate power that it must have in terms of Marxist dialectic of history, so that eventually there’ll be no state at all.

We all have to become one large family, to put it another way.  As long as we perpetuate individual families we’ll never have this “communal” society that we’re looking for.

Kickasola:  So precisely, the sin is not ownership, but rather private property?

Bahnsen:  Oh yes.  Oh yeah.  The ultimate sin is private property.

Helping Whipps Understand Kinism

A few months back, a “presuppositionalist” blogger named Joshua Whipps wrote a “slam” article against me, implying (and I loosely paraphrase): that I’m an evil racist everyone should avoid.

His comments were apparently sparked by my “Van Tillian Fire” blog, where I offered a few criticisms of his arguments against pop-apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Now, unfortunately, I published my criticisms a day after he published an asinine (and badly-written) article defending a neo-Marxist view of “race”. He basically accused me of publishing my criticisms as an underhanded tactic of getting him back for that “race” article … because, don’t-cha-know, us evil racists simply cannot stand to have an article written that denies racial realism.

As a matter of fact, I had been talking to people about posting my article (and its clever title) months before I actually did and can easily prove (should I be inclined) that I had these criticisms of Whipps long before he published his article on race; I agree the timing of my posting was awkward, but it’s simply not true that I posted my criticisms of Whipps as a way to get revenge on him for writing that article.

And by the way, both Whipps *and* Sye have (effectively) damned me to Hell and advocated for the breaking of all bonds of fellowship with me. (If they don’t think I’m Hell bound, then I invite them to give either Scriptural or Confessional support for suggesting I be rejected from fellowship with believers).

Both have made very public statements about their opinion of me.  So if I was intent on getting “revenge”, wouldn’t it make sense for me to criticize both Whipps *and* Sye?

———————–

Anyway – what of Whipps’ article on race?

He claims to have kept up with my blogging material for years now, but I find that hard to believe since he (for some reason) thinks writing a post rejecting racial realism somehow does damage to my “Kinist” position.

While the reality of “race” is an interesting and important topic, it’s only tangentially related to “Kinism”. Whatever sort of genotypical or phenotypical realities may be true of tribal groups, the important thing about them (as far as we Kinists are concerned) is that they have an inherent dignity that not only should be respected, but should be celebrated!

On our view, God meant for humanity in general (as well as the new humanity in Christ more particularly) to express a unity amongst diversity that is reflective of His nature.

This directs Kinist commentary towards entire social structures. The “United States” for example, is an Enlightenment inspired / humanistic social order and does *not* formally respect tribal distinctions.  Rather, it seeks to merge all tribal groups together under an umbrella of abstract allegiance to man-made propositions (ie: the constitution).

This is clearly an un-Biblical state of affairs and fosters an unhealthy mixing of all the tribal groups in a way that “blends out” their uniqueness in favor of a “melting pot” view, which seeks to unite men together in an arbitrary, fiat way.

The family (and by extension: the tribe) is the foundational, God-ordained social order for man…and those Christians who seek to destroy this system by advocating for an anti-tribalist system, are working contrary to the Kingdom.

When will Christians like Whipps give up their allegiance to Satanic political theories and become truly self-conscious of their own presuppositions with respect to society and political theory?

For someone who supposed to be an authority on presuppositionalism, Whipps shows an unfortunately typical aversion to self-consciously examining his presuppositions in these  areas.

We can only have Marx or Moses.

Chooseth this day which you’ll serve.

To Learn About the Stars

1. What year are you? (1st year of college, high school senior, returning adult student, etc.)

I’m not really sure what “year” I am; my path towards an associates degree has wound through a dark forest of part-time jobs and piece-meal credit hours.  By my calculations, this should be my last semester, accepting I’m able to snag a math class during the summer.

2. What is your life’s ambition? (biology degree, stay-at-home parent, undecided, etc.)

My ambitions transcend the American plantation so it’s hard to define myself in terms of a “career”.  “Oh..lookah me, massa..I’m a gunna be a cotton pickah…” That is to say – I’ll probably wind up getting a useless degree in the humanities.  Probably philosophy.  Or worse, I might major in “classics” and spend my time trying to impress the ladies with snippets of Latin…which wont work because the ladies want guys with jobs.  (As a side note, what does that say about the state of Western Civilization?  Those who read Homer, Horace, or Plato will have to do so in public libraries and go back to their box under the bridge when they’re done).  But I don’t want to end on a cynical note, so a modest organic farm, a yard full of kids (and dogs), a beautiful wife, a front-porch with a view of the sunset, maybe I can manage to publish a novel or two…I think that’s my ambition.  And despite the state of the modern West, it doesn’t seem unobtainable.

(Did I mention I’d like to build a silo-sized telescope and teach my as-of-yet hypothetical children about the stars?  This class will come in handy for that, I’m sure).

3. Why are you taking this class? (to fulfill a science requirement, just interested in astronomy, GI bill, etc.)

Ten long years in the Navy, as a photographer, earned me just enough GI Bill benefits to cover an associates degree.  I hear President Obama’s trying to push through a bill giving one to students for free.  Whatever the merits of that plan (or, …er… non-merits)… if I had to spend 10 years to get mine, everyone should!  Anything free gets so saturated in society it becomes worthless.

But why am I taking *this* class and not some other science (like physics or chemistry)?  Maybe it’s because it’s being offered in — (which is more convenient for me)?  Or maybe it’s because my head has been in the clouds for so long, I feel more at home up there and might get a better grade in the end?