John McCain says he’s strong in the “real Virginia,” meaning the southern part, and especially the western part, because those are the white areas. Most of northern Virginia is non-white, and there above it all is Robert E. Lee’s stolen home on that beautiful hill in Arlington, overlooking the multiracial sewer.

But there is one little town, Mendota, tucked away in the overwhelmingly white coal country of southwest Virginia, where R.C. Sproul Jr. is trying to grow a Little Zimbabwe. He led by example when he adopted a black boy, and his benighted congregation has followed the insufferable fool.

He writes:

Racial diversity is code language for racism. That is, the Bible says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Our calling isn’t to judge people for being white, nor for being black. Our calling, to borrow a phrase, is to judge men by the content of their character. We should be color blind, and the left is at least as color conscious as the most barbaric racists. If the left isn’t angry at you for not treating minorities as special, and if the “conservative” moonbats are not angry at you for not preferring your own racial “kin” to others, you’re doing it wrong. At Saint Peter Presbyterian Church we are likely the most racially diverse church within 500 miles, all right here in the rural south. We got that way, however, not by going out of our way to appeal to this demographic or that. We got that way by welcoming into our families precious blessings from all over the world via adoption. We don’t see Africans. We see Baileys and Cottrills and Sprouls. We don’t see Asians. We see Kisers and Brockmyres and Wellons. We don’t see racial strangers, but gracial family. In half a century we may well see a whole community that is coffee colored. For more on this I’d commend our back issue of Every Thought Captive magazine titled “Neither Jew nor Greek.”

That was the magazine issue inspired by Harry Seabrook and the old Little Geneva website. It included an “open letter” in which Sproul pleaded for Harry to repent of unspecified hatefulness, and in the midst of it told a brazen lie about Harry. It was for stunts like this that Sproul was defrocked from the ministry along with three other men. He told one family that they were basically prisoners under his discipleship until he chose to release them. He viciously and publicly mocked another with health problems for being lazy. It goes on and on. You can read about the sordid affair here.

With nowhere left to go, since no other church would take him (not even his famous father’s), Sproul drifted to Doug Wilson’s house of clowns called the CREC, which is like a clearinghouse of men who are unfit for ministry elsewhere. It was born when Wilson’s ego found it easier to steal a church away from its leadership than find himself in the position that Sproul later experienced. We’re talking about schismatics of the highest order.

After being defrocked, Sproul the Lesser tried to salvage his meal ticket by apologizing to one family he had bullied – an apology forced by his superiors. He never took it upon himself to apologize to the many others he had lied about and mistreated (a sizeable number), and the fact that he has still not done so is evidence of his insincerity and incompetence.

Worst of all, he is a race-mixing Yankee who has descended upon a lovely mountain town (population 300) with the stated intent of miscegenating it out of existence. Dr. Ken Talbot and the other men who stripped him of his authority to minister the gospel and encouraged him to take up a more suitable career now appear to be geniuses.

Prior to the early part of the 20th century, there was almost no fear that whites would seek to marry non-whites. If a woman married a foreigner she lost her American citizenship, but this was not true for men. The Cable Act of 1922 fixed this problem by stating that marrying into any race ineligible for citizenship, such the Oriental race, resulted in loss of American citizenship. (Whites were forbidden from marrying Japanese in 1909.) It also provided for restoration of citizenship in the case of divorce or death. In 1924 was the major immigration restriction that Jews later said prevented refuge from the “holocaust.” Then the Cable Act was repealed in 1936. In 1945, California prohibited marriage between whites and “Negroes, mulattos, Mongolians, and Malays.” Largely due to soldiers bringing home their “wives” from the war, California then repealed the ban on miscegenation in 1948, and the imperial government did the same in 1967. This was all very unpopular. A 1958 Gallup poll revealed 94% opposition to miscegenation. Now your pastor says we are duty-bound to condemn these sensible people as racists. (In 1995 we were given the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act, which made trans-racial adoptions easier, and which gave P.C. Fool Jr’s hate-church a reason to exist. We agree with the National Association of Black Social Workers that trans-racial adoption is tantamount to racial genocide.)

It’s helpful to draw a line backwards like this to see how events unfolded. “Racism,” the word invented by Communists, also changed with the times.

William F. Buckley’s son Christopher, in his final farewell to the conservatism his father promoted then neutered, gives us a new definition for racism. He says it is racist to vote for someone for racial reasons, and it is racist to not vote for racial reasons. In other words, any preference or aversion to any race, or allowing one’s judgment to be informed by a social construct and a totalizing narrative, is racist. Put more simply, you’re a racist if you believe race is real. This is precisely what Christopher Hitchens wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 18 of this year:

The number of subjective definitions of “racist” is almost infinite but the only objective definition of the word is “one who believes that there are human races.”

As Alain de Benoist writes in his book What is Racism?,

For Delacampagne, a racist is anyone who believes in the existence of races “even if one refuses to make value judgments concerning them or to establish a hierarchy among them.” This is a relatively recent position; it would not even have occurred to the most committed anti-racists several decades ago.

And here are more very new definitions for racism: 1) accusing a non-white race of pursuing its own interests at the expense of other races, regardless of the truthfulness of the claims; 2) desiring to achieve racial parity by putting controls in place to prevent a non-white race from pursuing its own interests at the expense of other races. Remember, there will be a quiz next Tuesday, and I’ll fail every one of you if you don’t do your homework. I know it’s hard to keep up with the new definitions for racism that roll in constantly, and it’s even harder for your pastor, being as attached to the Communist word as he is. These double standards are never resisted by our people because they lead to quite severe penalties. Thus there is reluctance to even discuss race, which is what psychologists call “strategic colorblindness.”

Working our way backwards, we see that the meaning of this Communist word is always undergoing revision. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Dictionaries are always behind the times, much like the financial analyst who can look at his charts and tell you what has happened in the stock market but who doesn’t have a clue about what will happen. You can see that simply acknowledging the reality of race was, until recently, not enough to be branded with the dreaded r-word. The previous definition dealt with superiority. And how do Kinists stack up to this old definition? If I may presume to speak for all, I think we would partially agree with the first part and mostly disagree with the second part. There is no question that obedience to God’s law changes behavior, even if it does not change predilections. An alcoholic can be compelled to remain sober without ever losing his weakness for drink. But racial differences that lead to the superiority of one race does not even make sense. Is there one animal or plant that is superior to all others? We would simply say that the white race, made whole by its Christian faith, has produced the greatest civilization and the greatest beauty the world has ever known. But can we call this “superiority” when whites seem to possess innately self-destructive tendencies? As Sam Dickson says, you don’t need to teach an amoeba to prefer life to death. More importantly, we would gladly trade any fantasies of superiority for the chance to pursue our destiny free of parasites. The white race needs a good wormer. And here is where we run into another difficulty: the non-racist must never identify any threat to his people, no matter how real. I think you can see why: If he were to identify the threats faced by his people, he would have to admit that he actually has a people. He is only allowed to defend his immediate family with a shotgun (not sawed-off); it is racist for him to believe that he has any wider loyalties since we all came from Adam.

Going back a decade or two further, we know that “racism,” so to speak, was regarded as nothing so effeminate as what is found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, but rather was a desire to inflict harm or death on those of another race. This is why the media used to bombard viewers with images of the KKK and burning crosses and skinheads and nooses. Such symbols and organizations implied the persistent threat of violence. This worked for the most part because of success in the emasculation of wider loyalties – with one exception, the megastate. I recall the widespread indoctrination against militias and barter organizations even when I was a child. The public gradually reached the consensus that there could be no rival to the Almighty State. A man could protect the area between his doors and windows but could do no more. (Now even that right is under assault.) The state, meanwhile, consumed all power and inflicted violence and carnage at will, calling a steady stream of our young men to ascend the stairs to the Aztec altar and be sacrificed.

And going back to the beginning of this unfortunate word, we know that it was the invention of Communists in the 1930s to agitate race warfare, just as class warfare had been agitated with varying degrees of success. (It’s also very telling that Ayn Rand considered individualism and laissez-faire capitalism to be the only antidotes to racism. In arguing for God-given liberty without a God, her Objectivism was just the flip side of the coin of Communism.)

Now your pastor uses the word “racism” freely. But what does he mean by it? What does he oppose, and how is his opposition biblically justified? For that matter, what does he affirm? Does he find greater agreement with our godly fathers or with Christ-haters? We Kinists can be accused of all sorts of things, but it can never be said that we have not explained our position very clearly. Our opponents must do the same, if they can.

Christ-haters and pluralists are united in their bold stand against ol’ debbil racism.

“Actually so great is the provision made in the law to ensure that men should admit [allow] no unlawful matings, that it ordains that even cattle are not to be crossed with others of a different species. No Jewish [Judean] shepherd will allow a he-goat to mount a ewe or a ram a she-goat, or a bull a mare, or if he does he will be punished as an offender against the decree of nature, who is careful to preserve the primary species without adulteration [mongrelization].” ~ Philo, The Special Laws, III:46, translated by F.H. Colson

“And because, with a view to the persistence of the race, you were endowed with generative organs, do not run after mongrelization and other non-pure forms of mixing, but only that which is a lawful means of propagating the race of man.” ~ Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better, 102

“A member of the priestly order must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives and producing a number of witnesses. And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judea, but where there is a Jewish [Judean] colony, there too a strict account is kept by the priests of their marriages… A statement is drawn up by them and sent to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more remote ancestors, together with the names of the witnesses… [T]hey also pass scrutiny upon the remaining women, and disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners.” ~ Josephus, Contra Apion, 1:7, translated by Thackeray

“Beware, my son, of all immorality. First of all, take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. So now, my son, love your brethren, and in your heart do not disdain your brethren and the sons and daughters of your people by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them.” ~ Tobit 4:12-13

Or perhaps the words of the noseless prophet, Michael Jackson, would be more to the liking of your pastor:

We are all a part of God’s great big family, and the truth, you know love is all we need. We are the world. We are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let’s start giving. There’s a choice we’re making, we’re saving our own lives. It’s true we’ll make a better day, just you and me… See, it’s not about races, just places, faces, where your blood comes from is where your space is. I’ve seen the light get duller. I’m not going to spend my life being a color.

Unless you consider a sickly orange tone to be a color.

There’s a show on the TLC network called Jon and Kate Plus 8. It’s about a brain-damaged white woman who married a Korean man, took fertility drugs, and downloaded eight strange-looking children. Kate came to the sad realization of what she had done during her first pregnancy, when her “mother-in-law” told her that her children would not look like her because the Korean genes would dominate. And sure enough, the children don’t look like her, which brings to mind the words of Horace, in praise of the Roman Republic (Ode 4.5.21):

The pure home is not mongrelized by illicit sexual intercourse.
Law and custom have driven out forbidden mongrelization.
Mothers are praised for the resemblance of their offspring.
Vengeance closely follows guilt.

Notice the third line of that verse. Physical resemblance is important because it implies chastity. The woman who totes around a little Obamination on her hip is immediately assumed to be a whore, and any whore (like Stanley Ann Dunham, who the Right Reverend James Manning calls “the trashiest thing since the Staten Island landfill”) in this position will tell you that she draws stares wherever she goes, even in this supposedly “enlightened” age. We all know what goes through the minds of those who stare.

So anyway, poor Kate, who would have made a good wife for some deserving man, resigned herself to the mistake she had made by saying, in one episode, “I’m not sad that my children do not look like me, but I am sad that I do not look like them.” This is obviously a political answer designed to make the best of a detestable and painful situation, but we find it interesting that, in the fashion of whores everywhere, she would deny her own race if it could lift the stigma. We’ve seen this many times before. It is not uncommon for the white mothers of mulatto bastards to overly tan their skin and perform other cosmetic adjustments to create an artificial resemblance. Heidi Klum does this. As the old saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn’t make it a hockey mom.