The New Christianity Denies the Old
December 16, 2008 
13 Comments
Red diaper babies at your local church.
In the history of America, there are only a few states that never banned interracial marriage, and many of them were states where there were so few blacks that it scarcely needed addressing. But even when it wasn’t banned by law, interracial romance was still considered to be unspeakably disgusting. A woman who consorted with blacks was considered lower than a prostitute, and had consigned herself to life outside white society forever. Even if she later saw the error of her ways, there was no hope for a normal life, because back then any decent white man would rather be celibate forever than be seen with a woman who used to go with Negroes…
Christians and conservatives, until quite recently, opposed interracial marriage with the same vehemence and moral disgust with which they oppose gay marriage today. What was known as “racemixing” was universally associated with Communists who were out to subvert America… If Christians and conservatives gave in on the first marriage battle, there’s no reason to think they’ll stick to their guns on this one.
Self-determination for Whites is “sickening” to “conservatives.”
“[W]hite separatism” is not only not “hateful,” it’s the very foundation of Western Civilization. If you had asked anyone in history prior to 50 or so years ago if he thought that people should separate by ethnicity, he would have looked at you like you were mad. Of course people should separate by ethnicity. That’s why we have separate countries. You would’ve been thought a good candidate for Bedlam had you questioned this until quite recently. But now such an idea is not only controversial, it’s also “sickening” to self-proclaimed conservatives.
Christianity now equals Hate. And those of you who like to use Communist words like “racism” don’t have any room to complain. What goes around comes around.
“Every evangelical should be acquainted with one of the founders and pioneers of modern day Christianity… He’s like today’s John Calvin or Martin Luther.”
James puts some very funny phrases in his blog posts: “Charles Barkley, a genius who’s rumored to have an IQ near the upper two digits…”; “He’s an African living in France who actually works for a living, and he’s come up with Obama Soda” for those “who don’t feel French.”
The problem with James is that he is a logic glutton:
If everyone in the world is equal, why shouldn’t they all live under the same government? If diversity is our nation’s greatest strength, then how can merging all the world’s diversity under one government be a bad thing?… Christians tell us that God hates barriers between mankind because He created us all equal, and so segregation and laws against interracial marriage are wicked and evil. Well, what are national borders but segregation? According to modern Christianity, God despises anything that divides people into “us” and “them” because we’re all equal. Well, that’s exactly what national borders do. In fact, that’s the entire reason for national borders – to divide people into “us” and “them.” If Jim Crow and apartheid were “hate,” then so is opposition to immigration. If it was wrong for Southerners to deny blacks the vote because of the color of their skin or who their parents were, why is it OK to deny illegal aliens the right to vote because of where they were born, or who their parents were?
Russell Kirk on miscegenation: “We have no right to tamper recklessly with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.”
Russell Kirk on segregation: “It would be reckless indeed to tamper with an institution as ancient as segregation.”
Russell Kirk on overturning South African apartheid: “if applied, [it] would bring anarchy and the collapse of civilization.”
(It feels good to fit the mold of what Russell Kirk called conservative, because he wrote the book.)
“Virginia used to be a comfortably conservative state.” By which they mean a comfortably White state.
A columnist who has just what the doctor ordered for the Republican Party’s racial woes in Texas: greet the invaders with a gol-darned “Howdy!” and a slap of the knee. There is a balm in Gilead! And a ten-gallon hat in San Antonio. And if they could also pressure Doug Phillips of the Ministry Mafia to hire his first non-White employee in a city where Whites are spiralling below 20%, and to stop retreading pictures of the same two Negro children on his website, that would be fantastic. It would go a long way towards ushering in a new era for Texas politics and cooperative business.
Large Intestine Powell says the Republican Party needs to shed its White image (though it draws 90% of its vote from Whites). A White party is a “polarized” party, says General Poopchute, unlike the Democrats, who win 95% of the Black vote. “In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority.” The idea that Whites still matter is an “appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts,” he says. And those who don’t understand that Diversity has conquered their formerly White Christian country but think they can continue to defend the interests of their people through politics are “shouting at the world and at the country,” says Doctor Defecate. Listen! Their hearts and minds are calling to us.
Australians are moving forward on this front, discriminating against White men, just to be fair. They call it “positive discrimination.”
A dog needs a hand up, not a handout. If the collar don’t fit, you must acquit!
The silliness of refusing to mention race in the media creates awkward situations like this one where a racial alliance is the whole point of the story. You have to rely on James Edwards to give you the full story because he doesn’t play by the same rules of political correctness.
“Letting folks buy their way into power? Threatening newspapermen for writing things critical of the chief executive?” Lincoln would be outraged by the actions of the governor of Illinois!
This is pretty funny. Obama says he’s “proud” to identify himself as “African American” (such a racist), but this is upsetting the post-racial crowd who wants to be done once and for all with racial categorizations of any kind.
The sun hates me, and so do animals.
“It’s got everything a journalist or news producer would want in a story – murder, racism, homophobia.” Everything except for a White defendant.
It’s nice to watch the reaction of the Goldman family in this video. They had to wait a long time to get a small bit of justice. There wasn’t any whooping and hollering from the Africans, as in this image from 13 years ago:
Blacks in America are averaging about 8,400 murders every year; a number far greater, in one year, than all the people who were ever lynched in this country. From 1950 to 2000, they killed 420,692, a number greater than all the Americans who died in WWII. And for some reason, everyone got upset about 3,000 deaths at the World Trade Center. Blacks can match that number in a few months. It’s good that they are not more than 13% of the population or we might have to reclassify them as a biblical plague.
“[T]he offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race…incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.” ~ Robert Lewis Dabney
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people [African slaves] are to be free; [Jefferson Memorial quote ends here] nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them… If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“We hold, as undeniable truths, that the governments of the various States and of the Confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.” ~ The Texas Declaration of Secession
“Once you go black, you don’t go back,” says Governor David Paterson, with no fear whatsoever of the repercussions that we face continually for agreeing with our forefathers.
The Folsom Street Fair is coming to Pennsylvania Avenue. I just hope the Gay Bowel Syndrome doesn’t kick in while they’re marching.
“History shows that it’s a lot more dangerous to insist we’re all the same than to entertain the possibility that we may be fundamentally different.” Read Tom’s excellent comments there.
Something invented by Blacks has finally been discovered, and it’s a great one: a 2,000-year-old computer. It even predicts eclipses, which are on 18-year cycles. Wait, scratch that. Whites invented the thing. Well, we’ll keep looking.
We live in a strange world. Our Christian preachers are pretty much worthless and lie their way out of any connection to our forefathers, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan is telling the truth.
Here comes hyperinflation. And what effect will this have on a hate registry?
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work does not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” ~ Jew Leon Trotsky
“Israel allows no dual citizens in its government. Why does America?”
“I cannot celebrate the birth of the God-man with a group of individuals who spend the other 364 days of the year asking – no, demanding – that I renounce my faith in a flesh-and-blood Messiah born in the city of David to the virgin Mary, in favor of a faith in a god of shadows and uncertain origin who appears only to condemn racism and then disappears again in the liberal mists.”
Is there any place for this kind of racism in the year 2009? It is “the most racist site you’ll see today.” “Funny, when white Christians try to reverse the trend of assimilation and intermarriage among their own people, these same Jews are always calling them Nazis. But when they do it, it’s ‘charity’ and ‘philanthropy.’” Hang on, I need to write that down. There are so many rules to remember, and my pastor will excommunicate me if I get even one of them wrong. (Justification by works.)
Menorah Man battles the evil forces of Amalek!
A friend of ours visiting Germany right now tells us that he tried to browse his favorite websites from the hotel lobby (a dangerous proposition). He writes: “Spiritwaterblood comes up on the main page, but when you click for the whole article, as often as not it is censored; davidduke.com, stormfront.org, and conspiracypenpal.com are completely censored – can’t even get to the main page. Anything with ‘white pride’ is killed, unless it is anti. But ‘black pride’ hits go through fine – even when they are fag-based.” And the message that appears on the screen when the Evil Whitey sites are blocked refers to “protecting the youth.”
Ehud has posted a very interesting “disclaimer” related to his church elders gagging on his orthodox Christianity. Try as they might, they could not prove that he had thought-sinned or thought-crimed (which speaks better for them than for others who simply make it up as they go along), but punished him nonetheless by barring him from teaching or becoming an elder. It’s a sign of the sickness of the church in our time that a man as brilliant as Ehud is prohibited from teaching Christians what they have forgotten. We agree with him wholeheartedly when he writes: “The historic Church was monolithically nationalistic, racialist, eurocentric, patriarchal, and yes…Kinist. I unequivocally stand by the fact that one cannot survey the religion of Matthew Henry, John Calvin, St. Augustine, and the host of the great biblicists honestly without encountering this truism.”
Excellent…. as usual. I especially like the ‘graphics’ Laughed My *** off.
I just love the marquis – the Church of Masochism.
I think kinists who are being persecuted in their local churches have a great chance to make their case. Ehud won in my mind because, though they barred him from teaching, they could not find the grounds within their own exegesis to excommunicate. I would call it a victory.
God Bless you all,
persevere and keep up the good work!
Ehud didn’t win. His position paper was incomplete. I am a long time friend of Ehud and one of those who felt it necessary he bring his case to the Elders. This was after over two years of open discussion amongst us.
Based upon Ehud’s words you would believe the Elders of our church made a pragmatic decision to appease those of us who dissagreed with him. with this in mind I challenged my Elders as to why they would restrict a member from being and Elder and teaching for pragmatic reasons. This was wholey unacceptable to me. The answer is they didn’t.
The position paper submitted was enough for them to agree that they could not support his position Biblically and that they didn’t want it taught in our church, however it was vague enough that they couldn’t in good conscience excommunicate him with so little knowledge of the position; without a clear understanding that this was truly heresy and unrepentant sin. I commend them for taking the lenient route due to lack evidence. When presented with a more detailed summary of the Kinist position as presented by Ehud to myself and his friend, their oppossition was much more outspoken.
No, I did not present a straw man to my elders. I consulted with the other two friends whom Ehud has been engaged with for over two years and we tried to stay true to Ehud’s presentation of his argument. I may strongly dissagree with Ehud, but he is still my long time friend and brother and I pray for him often.
The Kinist argument may feel right it this time where to be white is borderline criminal. But it doesn not stand up to Scripture. The argument that our forefathers were slave owners and thought blacks less than human, only goes to show the depravity and sinfullness of our forefathers. To use it as justification for continued sinfulness is absurd.
God commands us not be unequally yoked. I have yet to fine a single passage where unequally yoked is not in the context of God’s people vs pagans. Christians with Christians is the command. Try as you may, you cannot add to God’s law.
What I find truly humorous is there is no such thing as a “pure” race today. History has mixed man over and over again.
While I am saddened to have seen the community in which I was raised taken from a nice middle class world to a ghetto, it is because Godly people left and were replaced by unGodly people. Their race was irrellevant. Their culture and lack of respect is what mattered.
God is color blind. You either are his chosen or you are not his chosen. It was the Pharisees who preached they were God’s people soley based upon their genetics. It was John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the apostles who corrected them.
I don’t understand this:
“The Kinist argument may feel right it this time where to be white is borderline criminal.”
I’ve read a huge amount of antebellum and postbellum writings, and I’ve never encountered the idea that blacks are sub-human. In fact, they would not have received so much loving care if this had been the case. All you need to do is feed an animal to get it to work for you.
As you study God’s law to understand what it means to be unequally yoked, do you take into account how God’s people actually lived their lives? Does their tribalism set a pattern for us, or is it all meaningless? Is there anything in the NT that abrogates OT tribalism? (Please don’t say Galatians 3:28.)
While you find the lack of a “pure” race humorous, what you really mean to say is that there are no races at all. Does this fit with God’s design for dividing the nations so that they might grope for Him and find Him? And should this design be called “colorblind” if He considers distinct families, tribes, nations, races, and languages to be good? Or is it our duty to fix His mistakes in the name of love?
Can you cite any examples in history where races have been mixed, as they have in your ghetto-hood, and high culture and refined manners and orthodox religion were the result?
If you think that our “racist” Christian forefathers, Kinists, and your friend Ehud believe that God’s people are defined solely by genetics, you are sadly mistaken. I wish you had listened to him when he explained his position to you.
No, Ehud believes it is God’s command to preserve racial separations.
There is a great deal more that Ehud believes, but I let him present his own case.
While normally I have been inclined to share views with Ehud, on this issue after two plus years of discussion he has been unconvincing. If my long time friend and walking Encylopedia isn’t convincing, I doubt anyone here will be (nothing personnal, but Ehud is one of the best debaters and wordsmiths I know). Many moons ago he helped lead me out of the Maze of Mormonism into Christianity. I have much to be grateful for that God graced me with his friendship. His embracing of this doctrine has been a very sad event for me.
God’s grace is colorblind. Just because he divided the nations at Babel doesn’t mean he isn’t color blind. The great commision was to go to all nations. What God separated at Babel he brought back together through the gospel. We aren’t fixing a mistake, but fullfilling the great commission.
I never said refined religion or culture was a result of mixing races. But history is full of conqueror and the conquered. There is always a mixing of races when that happens. The point being is that we are all mutts. Culturally we may have different backgrounds, but when you trace genetics back far enough, we all meet somewhere.
Culture, refined manner, and orthodoxy are a result of God’s law, the Holy Spirit, the preaching of the Word, and Godly people. Race is a non-issue. Evil can and does abound in all races. It is God alone who justify’s, sanctifies and gives saving faith to his elect to endure till the end (again, race is a non-issue).
My purpose in posting here wasn’t to re-engage the Kinist debate. I’m enjoying a reprieve from that discussion. My purpose was to defend my church Elders whom are being misrepresented.
The decision they made to suspend Ehuds ability to rise to the level of Elder or to even teach in our church wasn’t a pragmatic decision. It was the best decision they could make with the information they had. They didn’t know enough to declare it heretical, but they knew enough to recognize it as a stretch on the Bible and certainly not what would be taught in our congregation. Ehud was not forbidden to teach without just cause. Punishments are not issued without cause in my church.
No, I don’t take into account tribalism. God’s law doesn’t decree tribalism. I do take into account God’s law. The Israelites are a poor example if you are looking for an example of how to live. They were a rebellious nation from day one. God left them to thier evil or judged them on many occasions. The old testament is full of evil. Family battles, adultery, murder, incest, sexual imorrality, idol worship, unjust wars, polygamy, ect.
I look to the old testament for the law and for the signs pointing to Jesus, grace, and the gospel. There is much wisdom contained in the old testament. I don’t think tribalism falls into that category however.
Yes, of course God “preserves racial separations.” That has been the divine decree from Babel onwards. This is not at all the same thing as saying that genetics define God’s people, and if you refuse to acknowledge this, it’s true that not even Ehud could convince you.
“What God separated at Babel he brought back together through the gospel.” We share your desire to evangelize the world, but it does not follow from this that nationhood and ethnic tribalism (or ethno-nationalism) has ended under the new covenant. This is why I asked if you can find any evidence for its abrogation in the NT. The reason for separation at Babel is still quite valid, and you can see reasons for it every day.
Your contention that “we are all mutts” is not only unproven but would prevent any group of people anywhere from organizing as a distinct and exclusive ethnos and polis. You are very much in tune with the liberal, neo-Babelist zeitgeist in the church today, believing as you do that all Christians in the world comprise one race and one nation. This is against God’s design.
If race is not an issue in culture, manners, and religion, then we should see at least no difference in those areas where races mix. I hope you think about this and come to understand why you are unable to cite any examples, even when you know that there are innumerable examples to the contrary.
“It is God alone who justifies, sanctifies and gives saving faith to his elect to endure till the end (again, race is a non-issue).” Again, you confuse the issue with race being a factor in salvation, which we all deny.
I don’t know anything about your elders or how they reached their decision, but it appears to us on the outside that they understand that they have no reason to declare Kinism a heresy, especially since we Kinists agree with the vast majority of the church in history on racial matters. There are plenty of us who could supply your elders with more information, if they desire it. But they need to understand that they are considering not just a slim minority of Christians today but most Christians who have ever lived.
Admin,
I realize this is quite an old thread, but I have a question stemming from your saying you’ve never encountered any ante- or postbellum writings which speak of blacks as subhuman. For the record, I have recently been convinced of ethnonationalism, but I am trying to clear some things up still.
Now, above, Dabney referred to “this vile stream from the fens of Africa,” and the Texas Declaration of Succession said that blacks “were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” I can understand how these might not be referring to black subhumanness, but I can also see how others would claim that it does without any eisegesis.
Can you explain what those two quotations mean?
That’s a good question. A man can be inferior in many ways without being subhuman. You would not want Down’s Syndrome or some other form of retardation to be the prerequisite for serving in city councils, circuit courts, and air traffic control towers. Such people are fully human but are inferior thinkers. Basketball coaches don’t recruit midgets. Engineering schools don’t require classes in cosmetology. Very often, superiority has nothing to do with abilities. My wife and children have an exclusive claim on my will, as paltry as it is.
This sort of thing is easy to understand when it concerns the family, but the understanding tends to break down when discussing race and nationality.
Dabney meant that our people are irreplaceable. If we, a race of figurative giants, mix our blood with Negroes, who have never done anything, and (well after Dabney lived) only rose above a borderline retarded IQ by spreading the legs of white bimbos and producing mulatto babies, we can be certain that our children will never rise to the heights of our fathers. This is not an option for us. It would be a blatant violation of the Fifth Commandment to poison the family tree. We owe it to our fathers to continue in the way that they patterned for us.
The South had a wolf by its ears, as Jefferson said. To say that blacks were inferior was to put it mildly. They were barely removed from cannibalism. There was no easy way to make them free, and only radicals and Unitarians wanted to give them equal rights as citizens in our government.
It was precisely because Southerners viewed them as human beings with dignity that a massive effort was undertaken to try to instruct them in the Bible and social graces. One does not bestow such treasures upon animals. Still, this made them no less dependent and inferior.
The reason why this is sometimes hard to reconcile for people in our time is that we’ve been conditioned to minimize the gulf between superior and inferior, but it exists nonetheless. In fact, St. Paul, in Ephesians, lists three unequal relationships that are crucial to the functioning of society:
1. husband to wife
2. parent to child
3. master to slave
Liberals hate the inequalities between the first two as much as the third. History is one long story of how nations collapse when any of these distinctions are blurred.
Conservatives accept and appreciate inequalities, because this is how God designed the world to work. It’s fine to despise slavery (I think enslaving Africans was the worst idea in the history of mankind – even worse than Russians thinking they were getting a good deal by selling Alaska for two cents per acre), but to despise inequalities as well is to despise the created order.
Let’s think about that word “work” for a moment. I took a lot of physics courses in college, and one of the first things I learned is that work is the product of force and displacement, not merely force. It is by definition effective. To do work is to actually do something meaningful. A squirrel, in his natural environment, knows how to work, but if you put him on a wheel in a cage, he’ll do no work at all, despite running his ass off. The energy can be converted to work if the wheel is connected to a system of pulleys, but that requires more ingenuity than the squirrel possesses.
Some men are slaves by nature. Their energy can be channelled into useful pursuits that benefit themselves and others, or they can be left to their own devices, in which case they are a threat to themselves and others.
So here’s the question: Which path does the righteous man choose? Is it merciful to grant liberty to blacks when they are incapable of it? More importantly, is it merciful to our own people to burden them with the welfare of savages?
Admin,
Good comment as usual. You should write a book. Either Harris or Butler were once asked why they don’t write one, and the response was something about the narrow audience and the difficulties of finding a publisher. True, the audience is narrow, but you guys are the folks who need to be discovered in writing generations from now when we’re long gone. Something more useful than a MySQL database of content entries will be needed. There are self publishing places now that make the Jew-filter in publishing a non-issue. There is always the eBook and pdf option. Shoot, anything you or Tim or Michael (and a few others) write and sell I would pay for and promote in a second–I bet hundreds of others would too. Heck, the proceeds generated by our little awakened guild through cross promotion on our sites would be worth the trouble. Anyhow, write a book so I can buy it.
On to my question. You say enslaving African Negroes was the worse idea in mankind, yet “their energy can be channelled into useful pursuits that benefit themselves and others.” Seems to me you can’t have one without the other. The curse of Canaan is what it is, and our choice is either to enslave them for their and our good, or to live completely apart from them–I’m talking oceans apart.
Is your comment more in retrospect? If so, yes it sucks that the Jews manipulated wars and politics to unleash them on us and our women. But that’s more of Jew problem than an enslaving Negro problem. No free white culture unmolested by hooks would EVER choose to live among them as equals. (Not even the Yankee North wanted that!) And God knows the Negroes are not capable of MAKING us live among them. I think allowing Jews to migrate to European lands and live as our equals is the worst idea in the universe of all ideas…ever.
I’d love your you to expand on your comment. Thanks!
I’m flattered. Thank you very much. But actually, the commentary posted here is a group effort. I’m with you – I would buy anything written by Harris and Butler, even if it’s on the back of a napkin.
Touche on the JQ. You’re right, granting citizenship to Jews is a worse idea. When Zionists made it their goal to form a Jewish state, a great many people got behind it, just to get rid of them. Now we see that Jews aren’t happy with having their own state, and they continue their project of controlling others. Question any aspect of it and you’ll end up like Helen Thomas.
You did a good job of exposing the holes in my comment, and I admit they exist. This ties in with the utter helplessness felt by Southerners. This is why I like Jefferson’s analogy of having a wolf by the ears. You don’t dare hold on and you don’t dare let go.
As Jefferson also said, we can’t live together as equals. They either need to leave or be classified as politically inferior. Even Lincoln desired the first option, but as we see in the immigration fight in Arizona and other border states, this is easier said than done.
The main problem then and now is with giving the business classes free reign. They can’t be allowed improve their profits at the expense of destroying the country. Of course, the reason this happens is because they have the money to lobby politicians, and politicians are easily bought. (BP is a perfect example.) It comes down to the fact that the State is incapable of regulating itself. It needs help from the Church, and even then, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Southern planters wanted cheap labor. They preferred black slaves to white freemen, and to this day, we are living with the staggering costs of their selfish decisions.
Likewise, there were no wetbacks in the Ozarks until Don Tyson lured them to his poultry plants. Tyson gets rich while the rest of us are forced to pay for generation after generation of crime and poverty and other “Hispanic family values.” Eventually, we realize that a $4 chicken from Walmart has hundreds of dollars of hidden societal costs in our lifetime alone. White people consider this a bargain versus paying a white neighbor for the true cost of raising a healthy bird, which is ten to fifteen dollars.