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.

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!

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?

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?

“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.

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.

“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.

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.