By Colby Malsbury

That which is old sure becomes new again in a flash, doesn’t it?

How long have we Kinists been arguing the merits of theonomic race-based nationhood on social media? Fifteen years, minimum? We blew up the message boards. We got the 30 day exiles on Facebook. We became nonentities via the tender mercies of the Twitter algorithm. And yet, ever since the days of Trump the response from Team Church has been to declare the science is settled and ignore us, hoping that we’ll go away and they can get back to holding coffee klatches at important conferences and discuss exclusive psalmody to death.

And then….all of a sudden, ‘Christian nationalism’ becomes a trending hashtag again, and we’re back in the fray. But this time, we have a good track record of steadfastness to stand upon to bolster our street cred. Tenacity is a fine, fine thing, though Team Church prefers to call it ‘stiffneckedness’.

Oh, how they wish that time and tide would make an exception and stop for them, because they’re special. But no go. The double whammy of tomes on the subject of CN by Andrew Torba and Stephen Wolfe has begun to dominate all Christian conversation and forced the gnostics of R2K to re-enter the temporal kingdom for a spell in a pathetic attempt at refutation of this “radical” development. Let us pass over the fact that both books are quite lacking in Reformed theology: Torba’s making the fatal assumption that Enlightenment-era civic nationalism is naturally compatible with orthodox Christianity, and Wolfe’s presupposing natural law as the basis for all national achievement. Beggars can’t be choosers, and we will take any shifting of the Overton window rightward that we can get.

Typical of the backlash – and I’m being almost criminally generous in that categorization – is a rejoinder from the insipid folks over at Lamb’s Reign – Ham’s Reign would be more apropos, given that crew’s propensity towards humiliating Caucasian debasement – entitled ‘Who’s Building the Bricks of Nationalism?’ , written by one ‘Sam Powell’ – no relation to Tribal Theocrat’s own Enos Powell, thankfully. I have no desire whatsoever to dox a fresh face, so suffice it to say that based on his Facebook profile, he appears to be 100% representative of the current-year church: a twee and beta-male “Reformed” pastor whose wall contains vacuous posts of interests more suited to a housewife taking a spa day: Epsom salt pedicures, cat memes, high scores in Wordle, the whole kitnkaboodle. Oh, and he also has stock photos of segregationist protests from the 1960s on display with disparaging commentary attached. I guess I could quit writing now, but I’m kind of committed at this stage of the game.

With the preliminaries out of the way, what exactly is his bag, then?

Well, y’see, the construction of buildings of any kind is racist and, hence, idolatrous.

That’s it. That’s the bag.

You say that’s an absurd oversimplification of his views? Oh, I agree that it’s absurd all right, but it’s no oversimplification.

Powell is one of those liberation theologians who maintain that no civilization has ever existed that wasn’t built upon a foundation of indentured servitude – sorry, I mean ‘slavery’. No doubt he’d have a conniption if I didn’t use the proper buzzword. And since all ‘slavery’ is inherently wicked, ipso facto it follows that all civilizations must be equally wicked and only merit destruction. Christian nationalism, desiring to restore the tenets of Western Christian civilization, must be destroyed first and foremost, owing to its hypocritical nature. Only then can true global regeneration take place.

Sounds almost Tolstoyan in its vision. Well….if Tolstoy had a Jewish surname, lived in a Moscow suburb, and sat in the Soviet Presidium, anyway.

Powell bases his entire presupposition on the fact that bricks were used in the creation of the Tower of Babel, and the opening chapters of Exodus discuss in detail how the Israelite slaves were forced to make bricks for Pharoah in order to do their part in facilitating Egyptian suzerainty. This supposedly proves all national endeavors are nothing short of vainglorious folly. What it really proves is how adept Powell is at jumping the shark.

Granted, brick is only rarely mentioned in the Bible, and whenever it is it has negative connotations, as symbolic of fallen man’s presuming to improve upon God’s ordained order. Hence why brick was forbidden in use in the raising up of altars, for example. But to hastily conclude that the vainglory on display in Babel and Egypt was rank nationalism is laughable. In what theological universe has Babel ever been considered a nationalist endeavor? If anything, God’s scattering of the globalist multitude via His creation of language families ushered in the tribal groupings that would ultimately lead to nation building. Nay, the sin common to both Nimrod and Pharoah was their own personal presumptions to stand in God’s stead and build ungainly homages to themselves – hence the symbolism of the bricks in both cases. Perhaps someone ought to let Rev. Powell know that a maniac does not require clearly defined borders and a host of subjects under him to engage in such blasphemy.

We aren’t so fortunate. Powell goes on to “prove” his case by citing Isaiah 14:12-15 as an anti-nationalist text. This requires some creative tweaking – or twerking – on his part, and so he sees bold to proclaim ‘Lucifer’ to be Babylon rather than Satan. Not the king of Babylon, mind you – which would place his views in accordance with those of Luther and Calvin – but the state itself. Give him credit for consistency, at least: never have I seen an individual theology so determined to relegate the individual sinner to the back of the bus, that the internationalist agenda can shine forth in ‘glory’. But his sleight of hand is necessary for him to be able to claim that the passage deals with an empire so steeped in dominion determination that it attempts to overthrow the very throne of the most High itself. Stretch Armstrong, call your office. Even a cursory reading of Matthew Henry’s commentary on the text refutes this interpretation thoroughly:

The destruction of Babylon, and the death of its proud monarch…Babylon abounded in riches. The king of Babylon having the absolute command of so much wealth, by the help of it ruled the nations. This refers especially to the people of the Jews; and it filled up the measure of the king of Babylon’s sins. Tyrants sacrifice their true interest to their lusts and passions. It is gracious ambition to covet to be like the Most Holy, for he has said, Be ye holy, for I am holy; but it is sinful ambition to aim to be like the Most High, for he has said, He who exalts himself shall be abased. The devil thus drew our first parents to sin. Utter ruin should be brought upon him. Those that will not cease to sin, God will make to cease. He should be slain, and go down to the grave; this is the common fate of tyrants.

‘Tyrants’, Rev. Powell. Not ‘nations’. Certainly not ‘nations’ in the pre-Enlightenment, pre-bureaucratic, pre-civic sense of the term. The two terms are not synonymous. Said tyrants follow in the footsteps of their great god Lucifer, the false morning star, of whom Satan fits this descriptor nicely. Or are we prepared to call the likes of David tyrants, as well? But no – Powell blandly states that ‘Isaiah is speaking about the spirit that drives Babylon, and every kingdom of this earth.’ And those of an R2K bent wonder why the postmillennial worldview is dying under their lofty watch. Well, can’t fix stupid. Moving on.

The remainder of this piece degenerates into little more than a series of woke talking points about how everything white men attempt to build is steeped in wretchedness because they don’t “do the work” themselves, but rely on slaves for everything. It’s akin to scrolling through what Netflix has to offer for your viewing pleasure on a Saturday night. Thus we are treated to a plethora of sneering and jeering comments about Puritan pretensions to build the national ‘City on the Hill’ in the new world. “Obviously”, only non-whites contributed to that great striding, and let’s just overlook the fact that the really brutal tasks such as swamp-draining were left to indentured whites from Ireland and the Scottish Highlands, as black slaves were considered far too valuable to engage in such drudgery. One can also positively hear the cackle of glee in Powell’s voice as he describes Dabney’s post-war lamentation that the amount of menial labor he now had to take on left him much less time for writing. Of course, widespread Union destruction of all Virginia properties might have also played some small role in such a sad state of affairs, but as that doesn’t fit Powell’s thematic narrative he fails to bring the point up.

Powell further demonstrates his historical illiteracy by adding: ‘In our own state, the California Indians were enslaved to harvest the crops and build the cities. The adobe houses weren’t going to build themselves.’ No kidding? Which California Indians, Rev? Are you certain they weren’t in the habit of enslaving weaker tribes themselves to further their own pet projects? For that matter, isn’t referring to them as ‘Indians’ in the first place sooooo Columbus-centric and ethno-patriarchal, and aren’t you guilty of the exact same slave mentality you hoot at your fellow whites to repent of? As for the adobe houses not building themselves – does that apply with equal fervor to the exact same style of architecture found in Mexico, where slavery was gradually abolished from the country’s secession from Spain in 1821, until its final prohibition in 1837 – the era when many of your aforementioned crops were planted and adobe houses constructed?

Or am I just being a counterrevolutionary naysayer and wrecker again, and have no place in the Comintern…er, commonwealth of Christian peoples?

So is this just another whine-and-cheese party that is slated to go on until the reparation checks start arriving in the mail? Oh, no. For Powell does offer a solution. Namely, that we all humble ourselves as Abraham did and live out our lives in tents unless and until God decrees that He will build a non-exploitative city or two for us. Typical R2K “thinking” – that the specific promises God made to Israel regarding their inhabiting Canaan as “a land for which ye did not labor, and cities which ye built not” constitutes a universalist Christian credo to be rigidly adhered to in all places and epochs. What, then, of God’s strict command to Israel in Jer. 29:5 to “Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them” as they prepared to enter their period of chastisement in Babylon? Or what of vs. 6 when He admonished them to “Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished” – all so that the nation of Israel might not only survive, but thrive? Powell’s understanding of nationalism as limited to a political structure is every bit as facile as his understanding of work being limited to the digging of ditches and hewing of stone. Coordination, organization, and above all telos enters not one iota into that materialist and minuscule brain of his.

Dare I ask why he doesn’t take the principled lead and inspire his congregation by giving his own house away to poor blacks and go live in a pup tent in the Mojave himself? Oh, right – it’s a little hard to get power and wi-fi hooked up out there, and then how could he proudly post his daily Wordle score for all to gaze at and wonder?

In short, Powell and his puerile piece are the perfect representation of the cognitive dissonance that constitutes Woke Churchianity. It’s painfully obvious that in the innermost part of his soul he doesn’t believe a word of the garbage he’s spewing. The whole thing was written so that the likes of Joel McDurmon would give him a shout-out that he can brag about in a TikTok vid, and for no more substantial reason. A wretched hireling, nothing more, and hardly worth a mention if he and his like didn’t have the full backing of Team Church to keep him from going to work at McDonald’s, and dropping more patties than not on the floor.

A friend of mine summed it up best, not in the least by bringing up the example of another charlatan, albeit this one a touch more on the right of the societal fence he fervently straddles:

“or, as Doug Wilson might put it, “I have more in common with a miserable slave forced to produce a quotidien tally of bricks in the 2nd millennium BC than I do with the unbelieving brick layer who is installing the hearth in my outdoor kitchen.”