The Nose Knows
May 30, 2009 
58 Comments
The Dallas Jew Reserve Bank believes our liabilities have reached $99 trillion. The Chinese, with their antiquated sense of honor, are worried that Jews in the West are going to print more money to deal with the debt. And we all know this will happen, and in fact is already happening. When it happens, the socialist government will blame the private sector. Zimbabwe’s 100 trillion dollar note is actually not as bad as it can get. The record for hyperinflation is held by Hungary, where at one time, after 42 quintillion percent inflation, all Hungarian banknotes combined equaled one-tenth of one U.S. penny.
Asking questions about 9/11 is like asking questions about the Holohoax. In either case, Jews try to silence dissent, as this Jew does to Governor Jesse Ventura.
The empire needs a new threat.
God is ANGRY with us, according to these Zionists.
Like almost everything else that has afflicted the West, this story grows out of the French Revolution and its promotion of anti-Christianity. Actually, you could go back to the third century when Eusebius said that God would never let the Jews rebuild Jerusalem. This was for thousands of years called the Curse of Eusebius. The Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate proved it when he tried to restore the Jews to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple, but he died before it could be done. Then the Crusades proved it again. Not until the rise of the Puritans in England, who took names for themselves from the Old Testament, was there a concerted effort to reward anti-Christs, and this had everything to do with Oliver Cromwell allowing Jews to return to England, from which they had been expelled since the year 1290. (And they had not lived there for long. There is no record of Jews in England prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066. William the Conqueror imported them as moneylenders so that Christians themselves could avoid the sin of usury. And they were not considered to be regular subjects but were “king’s men.” Conveniently, upon the death of a usurer, all of his property was transferred to the king.) But let’s be honest, it also had much to do with common folk reading Scripture in English for the first time and misinterpreting it for themselves.
But it was the French Revolution that really set the gears in motion. On the basis of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Napoleon encouraged assilimation of Jews in his empire, although he continued to refer to usurers as “locusts.” He said:
[It is necessary to] reduce, if not destroy, the tendency of Jewish people to practice a very great number of activities that are harmful to civilisation and to public order in society in all the countries of the world. It is necessary to stop the harm by preventing it; to prevent it it is necessary to change the Jews… Once part of their youth will take its place in our armies, they will cease to have Jewish interests and sentiments; their interests and sentiments will be French.
This has worked out very well for America, as we all know. Napoleon abolished Jewish ghettoes, but only in conquered countries, similar to Lincoln’s “emancipation,” which was also a war measure. He even made Judaism one of the official religions of France, which was unheard of. He declared all Jewish debts to be null and void, which Russia would never dream of doing today. In fact, Russian Czar Alexander I called Napoleon “the Anti-Christ” and the “Enemy of God” for granting equality to Jews. The rest of Christendom agreed with the czar, because in those days Christians were actually Christians rather than craven faggots who make “brothers” of those who consider their Lord to be the bastard son of a whore, who is now boiling in semen for eternity in hell.
Napoleon’s actions were taken not out of a love for Jews but a desire for them to come and benefit the empire with their ingenuity in filthy lucre. Many kings before Napoleon had done the same thing, and it always turned out badly. Jews were usually holding the moneybags for other rulers, and Napoleon knew that his cunning would appeal to Jewish racial solidarity and only benefit him in the long run. For similar reasons, and as a means of cutting his British rivals away from Asian and African trade routes, he offered Palestine to its “rightful heirs.” The Ottoman Turks prevented this from happening (the Curse of Eusebius again), and Napoleon might not have been serious about it in the first place, but Jews later pushed the British to do the same thing. The British were eager to make this deal because to plant some Jewish subjects at a major continental crossroads would better establish the empire, which at the time covered a fourth of the globe.
In Britain, there were Hal Lindsey-like predictions of the judgments of Revelation throughout the 19th century. Charles Finney predicted the imminent advent of the millennium “if the Church will do her duty.” Then came John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensational premillennialism, and Cyrus Scofield, and ultimately the Rapture cult.
“The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the earth… [M]aking a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God’s earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them [the Jews].” ~ J.N. Darby
What we now know as Zionism was presaged by Lord Shaftesbury’s Jewish Restorationism, the idea that it was incumbent upon Christians to restore a racial claim upon the Promised Land, and that the Jews are “not only worthy of salvation but also vital to Christianity’s hope of salvation.”
You can see that these theological heresies were distinctly British. It is a common misconception that Zionism was born with Jew Theodore Herzl at the close of the 19th century. But 50 years before Herzl said, “A land of no people for a people with no land,” Lord Shaftesbury sought “A country without a nation for a nation without a country.” Even five years before Herzl became a Zionist, Christian William Blackstone was sending large sums of money to Brandeis, the first Jew on the American Supreme Court, for resettlement. “We have prepared the ground for you!” Christian William Hechler told Herzl, though Herzl rightly considered him to be “naive.” Hechler even calculated that the rebuilt temple should be located in Bethel.
This religious idea that Jews were still in a unique racial covenant with Christ was born as a result of, and propagated by, imperial British political machinations. Before he became Prime Minister, David Lloyd George told Jew Chaim Weizmann that the invention of “acetone converted me to Zionism.” Weizmann was a chemist who invented mass production of acetone to be used in cordite explosives against Germany in WWI. He said he wanted no payment, “just the rights over Palestine.” (It was Weizmann’s idea to claim Palestine for the Jews; prior to this time it was believed that there would be more political support to settle them in Uganda.) According to Benjamin Freedman, Weizmann and his fellow Jews, Brandeis and Baruch, blackmailed Woodrow Wilson with disclosure of an extramarital affair in order to force America to enter the “war to end all wars” against the German Kaiser.
In 1917, one of Lloyd George’s first acts as Prime Minister was to attack the Ottoman Empire and conquer Palestine. Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour then issued the declaration (drafted 20 months earlier by Jews) that Palestine was to be “a national home for the Jewish people” (not an independent state). He called it “an instrument for carrying out the Divine purpose,” but the measure was primarily suffused with political considerations and likely catalyzed by bribery or blackmail. Such chicanery is on the order of Howe’s satanic “Battle Hymn of the Republic” being appropriated by Lincoln, and the bankers who funded him, as a tool of propaganda. As Stephen Sizer explains in his writings, The Brits and Jews were using each other, and neither intended to fulfill their promises. But today, the Christian Zionists simply don’t care about the history behind these intrigues. Their only concern is that anti-Christs have been restored to their racial inheritance.
In 1917, as now, the Jews cared not at all for the 700,000 Arabs who occupied the land, but a key stipulation of the Balfour Declaration (now forgotten) is that “nothing shall be done” to “prejudice” the “civil and religious rights” of the natives. This was completely disingenuous.
“For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land… [S]o far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.” ~ Lord Arthur Balfour
An interesting aside: Lloyd George said on March 9, 1934, that the Geneva Conventions on war should have prohibited the use of planes for bombing purposes (which is today a common practice of “democracies” but should be considered evil and barbaric) but the British insisted on reserving the right “to bomb niggers” in the colonies. Thus it remains in practice today throughout the world. American presidents routinely issue executive orders to do it, and they don’t even bother to get permission from congress. Two years later, Lloyd George called Hitler “the greatest living German” and “the George Washington of Germany,” but soon rescinded the compliments. Now it is considered a hate crime to remember anything good that Hitler did.
As we know, the world has been forged by the white man, but that’s not always a compliment. In this case, most of the foreign policy problems that still plague us today were created by England, France, and Germany each trying to gain an edge over the others, and manufacturing wars for the purpose of stealing land and killing hundreds of millions of our race in the process. In the year 1900 we were one-third of the population of the world and ruled most of it. In a few short years from now we will be well below 10% of the world’s population and our homelands will be ruled by Asians – Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. Our downfall began by trusting the Jew, who is a walking, breathing curse. But it’s not fair to blame the Jew himself for our destruction. The West has committed suicide. It has always been within our power to put an end to this insanity, and we could do it today if we had the will.
Here in America, Dallas Theological Seminary, which has always been down-home for dispensational wackos, endorsed the Scofield Bible. Scofield argued that it was actually a mistake for the Children of Israel to accept the Ten Commandments at Sinai.
“The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19.8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty… (Ex. 19.4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.” ~ Cyrus Scofield
Lewis Chafer, the president of Dallas Theological Seminary, defined his Rapture cult in this way:
The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity… Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne… [In eternity,] never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet.
In other words, those who hate Christ are still in covenant with him by blood, not by faith, and will be saved by race, not by grace. But somehow we are the racists, not they. Those who belong to this cult are not Christians but Judeochristians, with an emphasis on the Judeo.
Chaim Weizmann became the first president of Israel in 1949, and the Holohoax industry began to work overtime to give the bastard “nation” an air of legitimacy. The rest is true history. Now, pretending to be ministers of the gospel, we have filthy liars like LaHaye and Hagee who have learned how to get rich from Falwell, who once said, “God has been kind to America because America has been kind to the Jew.” And of course, Charles Ryrie’s false view that the Bible is “history prewritten” has led many Christians in our time to make dogmatic historical statements about the Bible, especially its first two chapters. Ken Ham has built his arrogant, hyper-literalist, Scofieldian career on this.
“We should take Genesis literally. Furthermore, it should be noted that you cannot ‘interpret literally,’ for a ‘literal interpretation’ is a contradiction in terms. You either take it literally or you interpret it!” ~ Ken Ham, The Lie, p. 162-163
Things “we all know.”
As Tim Martin says, young-universe creationism requires futurism and is born of premillennialism. “If you take Genesis literally,” reasoned Henry Morris, “you’re more inclined to take Revelation literally” (Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, p. 339). And that’s the point of it.
Anyway, that was just a long, diversionary way of saying that whites, far from being the “supreme” race, have nearly destroyed themselves, and have not been coerced by anyone else. It’s worth remembering that the alternate title for George Orwell’s 1984 was The Last Man in Europe. And sometimes it’s hard to know which came first – the religious movement or the political movement. The Puritans simply wanted to purify their church, but they set into motion (with plenty of atheist support!) a bloodbath that has nearly annihilated our race. On the flip side, they would not have existed if not for radical political swings that went by the names “Catholic” and “Protestant,” which led them to oppose the policies of the Stuart rulers and ultimately to wage civil war and execute the monarch. From the perspective of history, there is no separation of church and state. Great religious tides are usually advanced by conquerors, such as Constantine, and we have seen no evidence that democracies or republics are any better at securing the good fortune of the nation. In fact, quite the opposite, and oligarchies filled with Judeochristians are the worst of all.
In Philadelphia there is a miniature “Washington Mall” with a green space surrounded by Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and various centers of alleged national importance. The National Museum of American Jewish History opens next year. Jews know that they have to dodge charges of racism from those who see through their double standards, and so they write things like this: “By focusing on the particular experiences of one ethnic group and its relationship with the larger society, the Museum illuminates ethnicity in American life.” Which is a long way of saying nothing. It would be better to explain why Jews should be recognized for having anything to do with founding this country.
Well, they were instrumental in founding the institution that drove a wedge straight through the heart of the nation: the slave trade. Let’s give credit where credit is due!
| Slave Ship | Owner(s) |
| Abigail | Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, Jacob Franks |
| Crown | Isaac Levy, Nathan Simpson |
| Nassau | Moses Levy |
| Four Sisters | Moses Levy |
| Anne & Eliza | Justus Bosch, John Abrams |
| Prudent Betty | Henry Cruger, Jacob Pheonix |
| Hester | Mordecai & David Gomez |
| Elizabeth | Mordecai & David Gomez |
| Antigua | Nathan Marston, Abram Lyell |
| Betsy | Wm. De Woolf |
| Polly | James De Woolf |
| White Horse | Jan de Sweevts |
| Expedition | John & Jacob Roosevelt |
| Charlotte | Moses & Sam Levy, Jacob Franks |
| Caracoa | Moses & Sam Levy |
“Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750′s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760′s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760′s and early 1770′s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent.” ~ Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael
There’s a black museum at the Philadelphia Mall as well. What did blacks and Jews have to do with writing the Declaration of Independence from Britain, fighting at the cost of their very lives, and then writing the Constitution for the new government, you ask? I have no idea. It must have something to do with Equality being the sine qua non of Democracy, which was not even imagined until the time of Lincoln.
The Negro museum lists James Forten, Alice of Dunks Ferry, Absalom Jones, Richard Allen, and Octavius Catto as being worthy of mention alongside the founding fathers. We’ve linked to their Wikipedia pages to show that they never did anything more notable than agitate for emancipation and suffrage, thwart the plans for African colonization, and work with terrorists like Frederick Douglass, who conspired with other terrorists and murderers like John Brown. These are the exemplary blacks who are to occupy places of honor alongside Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the others who sacrificed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the good of their people? Most ludicrous of all is this sentence from Catto’s wiki page: “De Tocqueville prophesied that if ever America underwent Revolution, it would be brought about by the presence of the black race, and that it would result from the inequality of their condition.” That thumping noise you hear is Otto Scott spinning in his grave like the Tasmanian Devil. Otto knew that Tocqueville knew what we still know today, which is that blacks are a liability, not an asset, and futile attempts to make them equal result in violence and destitution. It would be the most hateful thing we could do to our children, and we’ve done it. It’s funny that whoever wrote the wiki page considered Tocqueville to be in sympathy.
The most striking thing of all about Philadelphia is that the elegant architecture and accomplishments of the white founders of the city have become museum pieces, and the new citizens have surrounded these artifacts with squalor (Filthy-delphia). As Christians, we don’t have to guess the identity of Christ’s brothers. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. We don’t have to guess who are the true Americans either. The heirs of the “national consciousness,” which Germans call Volksbewusstsein, are obvious.
Qua patres difficillime adepti sunt nolite turpiter relinquere (“What our forefathers with so much difficulty secured, do not basely relinquish”) ~ etched on the grave of William Bradford at Plymouth Burial Hill
“The God of heaven Himself will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no heritage or right or memorial in Jerusalem.” ~ Nehemiah 2:20
Forty-six wetbacks in one bedroom.
Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, has said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” She has said that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” and “our gender and national origins [sex and race] may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Jared Taylor writes: “(These remarks appeared in a publication that is called—apparently with a straight face—the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.) Miss Sotomayor is certainly no stranger to identity politics. She is a member of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.” Any party or organization, like the BNP, that is restricted to ethnic whites is loudly denounced as hateful and exclusive, but the aforementioned credentials are considered no impediment whatsoever in promoting a stranger to sit in highest judgment over the heirs of this country.
James Edwards writes: “Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: ‘I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ — and had proceeded to speak of ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences.’” We can only imagine.
“When you hate white people, the laws, arguments and facts of the case are of no import whatsoever. It was non-whites vs. whites, and Sotomayor didn’t need any ‘facts’ to decide how to rule.”
Being white is now a liability, not an advantage.
It’s your fault that black women jiggle when they waddle.
A man with 21 children by 11 mothers. And a minimum wage job. James writes: “These idiot ‘pro-family’ groups don’t say a word about this garbage, but they’re apopletic about two fags getting married? And they wonder why nobody pays any attention to them anymore?” This is an excellent point. God save us from the “pro-family” and “pro-life” race-mixers.
If you are not actively doing something to prevent stories like this from happening, you deserve to be shot yourself. And please, spare us of your hate speech, that in Christ Jesus there are no borders, and race is a social construct. “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4:20).
“The fiery cross. In its ancient origin this sign of the Scottish Highland means that the Clans must gather to the Holy Rood. The pipes calling from glen to glen say that the usual raiding and reeving and feuding across the borders (always in dispute) must stop and the Clans must unite and they must fight for the greater polity. That polity was once the Christendom.”
To disregard the summons of the Fiery Cross (the Crann Tàra) was to be unanimously branded as a traitor and coward, despised even by one’s own parents, and to be chased far from home. There was no excuse. “The groom forsook his bride at the church door; the pall-bearers abandoned the funeral bier, wherever the Cross was met.”
Woe to the wretch who fails to rear
At this dread sign the ready spear!
Far o’er its roof the volumed flame
Clan Alpine’s vengeance shall proclaim,
While maids and matrons on his name,
Shall call down wretchedness and shame,
And infamy and woe.
When flits this cross from man to man,
Vich-Alpine’s summons to his Clan,
Burst be the ear that fails to heed!
Palsied the foot that shuns to speed!
May ravens tear the careless eyes,
Wolves make the coward heart their prize!
As sinks that blood stream in the earth,
So may his heart’s blood drench his hearth!
Fast as the fatal symbol flies,
In arms the huts and hamlets rise,
The fisherman forsook the strand,
The swarthy smith took dirk and brand;
With changed cheer, the mower blithe
Left in the half-cut swath his scythe;
The herds without a keeper strayed,
The plough was in mid furrow stayed,
The falc’ner tossed his hawk away,
The hunter left the stag at bay;
Prompt at the signal of alarms,
Each son of Alpine rushed to arms.
I watched episode four of this documentary, called The Promise of Home, and I could see right away that it dodges the most important question, which is whether a race or ethnicity can legitimately organize for its own interests and peacefully pursue secession if necessary. Instead, it asks who we are as an empire, and what does citizenship mean, and how can we avoid the cacophony of balkanization. But “balkanization” (i.e., natural ethnic solidarity and eventual secession from empire) is the very thing that brought peace after the scourge of the Soviet Union. It’s fine that such questions are raised, because we’ll have to work with other races if we hope to avoid bloodshed, but please don’t neuter yourself and call it magnanimity.
Episode 11 is devoted to “Racists, Xenophobes, and Bigots,” who presumably are greater threats to the peace than Murderers, Rapists, and Lechers. Here again, the problem is that the episode is all about minorities. There are blacks who came from slaves, and they’re all upset for being disrespected and not being given free things, and mestizos who came from wetbacks, and they’re all upset because they want to steal land and get free things, and Indians who came from Big Water, and they’re all upset because they want Heap Big Wampum. Oh, woe is us! How are we to atone for our sins? By paying more money, of course.
The underlying message is that whites have killed, or at least hurt the feelings, of the hordes who have come here to take advantage of their wealth. But then whites unite with blacks and Indians against the newcomers, and we stand with the blacks and Indians because of our history of “bigotry, racism, slavery, and so forth.” You’ll hear all about the “patriotic call to arms” of Molech Luther King, the “evil” of Jim Crow laws, and the idea that mestizos are not “racially different.” Piss off, and piss on “Americanization” too. One black woman has the nerve to say that her “community” has been “devastated” by illegal immigration. You can be certain that Chuck Baldwin would not endorse these videos, as he has, if anyone in them had lamented the devastation of the white community. As Negro William Raspberry has written, it is “always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men.”
This BNP ad is fundamentally flawed, we believe. The necessity of racial awareness is that we belong to our own by birth, just as is true in our families. But when racialists adopt the perverted ideas of liberals, they imply that national unity is not only assisted by soldiers who die in imperial wars but originates with them. Thus, Griffin justifies “British jobs for British workers” not because the British are British but because the names on the tombstones from those horrible Jew-wars were British names. One major problem with this argument is that Britain was the aggressor in WWII and Churchill, whose image is used in the ad, was a war criminal. (The Dresden holocaust and the post-war Soviet rape of Germany are just two reasons why this is a shitty basis for national pride, even more so because of why WWII is mentioned at all in the ad: to ally the party with Jews and trump accusations of anti-Semitism.) We like the BNP and we like Nick Griffin (very shrewd), but we like to tell the truth even more. We despise equivocation. I suppose this is why we would make the worst politicians imaginable.
“If ever the history of our times comes to be written by scholars free of national prejudices, the ‘crimes against humanity’ committed by the victors of the Second World War of the twentieth century A.D., will appear as equal to those committed by the Nazis. For an objective observer of the ‘crimes, follies, and cruelties of mankind’ cannot deny that the expropriations and expulsion from their homes of millions of people for the sole crime of belonging to the German ‘race’ was an atrocity comparable with the extermination of the Jews and the massacres of the Poles and Russians by the Nazis. The women and children who died of hunger and cold on the long trek from Silesia and the Sudetenland to what remained of the German Reich, may have thought that a quick death in a gas chamber would have been comparatively merciful.” ~ Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance
Read all about it. A desert called Peace. Doesn’t it just make the British and American heart swell with patriotism?
The mass rapes were perhaps the most appalling of these actions, in both the physical and psychological effects on the victims. All women, no matter of what age, faced rape, with gang rapes being commonplace. “Canny Berlin women,” the author writes, “learned quickly that it was wisest to give in and receive Russians one at a time than to have to put up with terrifying gang rapes.” The “wisest” gave themselves to Soviet officers, “as high-ranking as possible,” who could provide protection from the worst types of treatment (p. 101). As a result of the forcible sex, ten percent of German women were infected by venereal diseases, and, because of the scarcity of medicines in the war-torn country, lacked antibiotics for treatment. Abortion was rampant, and was often self-performed. Nevertheless, 150,000 to 200,000 babies fathered by Soviet soldiers were born. The psychological trauma of the rapes was immense, not only for the women but also for German men, who felt emasculated because they were helpless to stop these barbarities. The only way for women to avoid rape altogether was suicide, an option many of them took.
The end result: About 1.5 million German soldiers died in KGB camps, and another 5.7 million German civilians died from Allied policies. All in the name of “democracy, freedom, and racial harmony.”
“I tell the truth not to convince those who do not know it, but to defend those that do.” ~ William Blake
The BNP’s late founder, John Tyndall, was open to tactical political compromises, but he knew that compromise on the Jewish Question would not win the party any sympathy in the media or among globalists or among Jews themselves. He knew that compromise with hostile strangers for short-term political gain would only alienate the party’s base. (This is a lesson the Republican Party has never learned.) Therefore, he argued that Jews should not be admitted as members. He knew that,
though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry, Jewry – or at least its politically organised elements – was determined on conflict with us. Protesting that one was not “anti-Semitic” was of no avail; the moment one became involved and identified with the struggle for one’s own race and nation – in my case the British race and nation – one became tarred by the Jews with the mark of the Devil…
The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European pedigree.
His “rules of engagement” in that article are quite agreeable.
The case for working with your own two hands.
Skilled Americans line up at a chicken processing plant near Nashville for scarce jobs. Also present are vanloads of Burmese and Copts who are transported by Christian churches. Of the 51 applicants hired, 14 are Burmese!
Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps.
I just can’t understand this article. It goes against everything my pastor has been telling me about race being nothing more than a social construct. I can only conclude that doctors are racists who hate the Bible (“the Bible” being synonymous with Ken Ham’s interpretation of it).
If Nick Glasgow were white, he would have a nearly 90 percent chance of finding a matching bone marrow donor who could cure his leukemia.
But because the 28-year-old bodybuilder is one-quarter Japanese, his doctor warned him the outlook was grim. Glasgow’s background would make it almost impossible to find a match, which usually comes from a patient’s own ethnic group.
The doctor “didn’t say it was slim-to-none. He didn’t say it would be hard. He said ‘zero chance,’” Glasgow’s mother, Carole Wiegand, recalled with tears in her eyes.
Speaking of bedside manner, here’s a frog that was sliced open by a lawnmower and stitched together again. Some friends of ours had a similar experience with a cat that got under the wheel of their car.
No bones were broken. The skin was stitched together with needle and thread on the kitchen counter, and the cat was as good as new, except for a temporary limp. They’re now offering their redneck vet services to neighbors.
Stuff black people don’t like. Paternity tests, swimming pools, and books are like kryptonite to black people. Here are the top 60 ghetto names:
Hey, white people can be funny too!
“Lewis Chafer, the president of Dallas Theological Seminary”
Does that name ping the J-dar, or what? I had no idea he ran the seminary — I thought he just had a congregation in the Devonshire neighborhood.
I don’t know if I want to be quite so hard on Ken Ham as you are, but if that expresses his understanding of what constitutes biblically faithful hermeneutics, it’s a red flag warning of trouble ahead. Ask him to read the opening verse of Psalm 23 and then tell us what species of animal David was.
Missing link?
http://cofcc.org/?p=5123
“Once part of their youth will take its place in our armies, they will cease to have Jewish interests and sentiments; their interests and sentiments will be French.”
You mention that this plan didn’t work out too well for America, but it didn’t work out too well for France either. Think the Dreyfus Affair. This scandal over a Jew in the French army who was convicted of betraying his country turned out to be a dagger that struck at the heart of France, and most especially at the heart of Christian France.
Wikipedia says, “The political changes resulting from the Dreyfus Affair brought about the 1905 Law on the Separation of Church and State. It put an end to the favored status of the Catholic Church dating from Emperor Napoleon I’s Concordat with the Vatican. This placed French Protestants and French Jews on the same level as Roman Catholics, with regards to the law and to public financing of places of worship.”
The spin is semitic propaganda, but the basic fact is correct. The Dreyfus affair was used as a weapon to put Jews on equal footing with the Christianity that had been the state religion not just since Napolean, but since the origin of the French nation on the day Clovis was baptised in 496. Napolean only restored what had been the reality for 1,300 years with only a short interlude for the reign of terror that involved not just mass slaughter but also the enthronement of “Reason” on the altar of Notre Dame.
Tyndall was doing great until he got to the end. I like the way he expressed himself. It was very clear and logical and precise. He dealt with the facts, and the facts are that Jews will hate us if we defend our white Christian heritage. It doesn’t matter what we say or what we feel or what we do about Jews. We are their enemies as soon as we defend the things that they are working to destroy.
Then at the end his “Rules of Engagement” were very disappointing. They contradicted everything he had said previously. But I think that earlier in the article he had given a wink and a nod indicating why — he needs to avoid getting arrested. So I believe his “Rules of Engagement” were just a political smokescreen to tip off the police who are reading his mail and bugging his telephone that he doesn’t intend to burn down any synagogues.
But we should be clear that these “Rules of Engagement” will never work. The Jews hate us with a demonic fury. They want to destroy white Christian society. There can never be any true coexistence. The correct model for engaging with the Jews is that of the glorious queen Isabella of Spain.
When she took the throne the Jews had a stranglehold on Spain. They controlled all the money and every important office. When she announced the expulsion, the Jews predicted that Spain could never survive without them. They ran the country (which was true) and Spain would collapse once they were gone. Instead Spain entered into its glorious “Siglo de Oro” (Golden Century) when Charles V was the most powerful monarch the world had seen since the days of the Roman Empire. A small arid country with no natural resources became the leading country of the world, spanning the globe, with gold pouring into its treasuries and its poets and painters setting the pace for all Europe. And the Spanish Siglo de Oro produced great saints who astounded the world not only with their holiness but with the prodigious feats they accomplished. Contrary to the predictions of the Jews, the poor backwards country that couldn’t run itself for 5 minutes without their help achieved all this while the door was hitting them on the way out.
Unfortunately they moved to Holland where they caused even greater evils than could have been imagined in Spain, but that is another story.
Good news, Nose Knows. The white race of the European nations are a long way from having destroyed ourselves. Sometimes a thought like that will hit me too. But this is the sort of thing you (and I include myself here) have to fight.
Rather than try to suppress defeatist thoughts (which from time to time plague us all), log onto You Tube. Search by title: River Dance for the complete play list and start watching. You have to filter out the Neo Pagan comment which is mecifully brief but obligatory for the European culture fests.
Just watch the River Dance performances – the resurgance of traditional Irish Dancing in force. This nation has been Christian since St Padraic converted Eire in the 4th century A.D. So they have had a long time to create a strong and beautiful national culture infused with Christian faith and Spirit. And watch THEM DANCE.
Far from being spent, the blood is strong.
I was wondering, as a guy who still largely agrees with this site’s racial/political views, yet no longer holds to the Christian faith, why do you? Meaning, what approach do you take to witnessing to unbelievers? Classic philosophical arguments, evidence, presuppositionalism or a combination of all? I guess I’m addressing this to any and everyone who might wish to comment. Not trying to start a fight, just curious. Thanks.
If someone no longer holds to the Christian faith, they are most definitely not in agreement with SWB’s racial/political views, not even largely, and not even a little. Race and government necessarily mean entirely different things depending on whether one is seeing the world through Christian eyes.
John, that’s an excellent point about Dreyfus, and it proves that compassion can often be short-sighted, as Napoleon would have seen if he had lived long enough. Liberals think compassion is the highest virtue, but we need men of wisdom instead. An interesting note: The Dreyfus trial was covered in person by none other than Theodor Herzl.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that Tyndall entirely contradicted himself in his rules of engagement, but I do see what you mean. How are “crude attacks on Jews as a race” to be defined? If you ask the Jews, this includes any form of disagreement whatsoever. They are the only people on earth who have turned disagreement with them into a capital offense. But truthfully, I believe that Jews are dead in their sins, like all men, and can be redeemed from that curse if God grants them repentance. If not attacking them “as a race” means agreeing that they are not beyond redemption then count me in, but we all know that this is not how it works in practice.
Likewise, I believe in the Golden Rule. I agree with Tyndall that we should treat Jews as we would have them treat us. They should be assured that, regardless of our very serious disagreements, we will treat them as the second half of the Ten Commandments requires. This is the closest we can come to “loving” our “neighbor” as far as they are concerned.
I disagree with Tyndall that we should treat Jews as separate from us only because they have imposed separation and “chosenness” on themselves. We separate from them as a positive good for our own kind.
I agree with Tyndall that Jewish dedication to Jews, primarily, is admirable and respectable. We spend most of our time here lamenting the fact that whites have lost this dedication.
I disagree wholeheartedly with Tyndall if he is saying that actions must never be taken against an entire group of people, even if only a portion of them are hostile. We have faced this problem with blacks for 150 years, and now we are facing it with Muslims and mestizos. It does no good to say that most of them mind their own business, because the fact remains that demoting them all to resident aliens and dealing with them accordingly by law would effectively resolve the threat of crime. There is no way, short of an absolute police state, for France to deal with Muslim arson unless they strip citizenship from all foreigners. The British have already made it known that they opt for the police state. But as we know, the BNP is not going to spell it out in those terms.
In general, there should be no problem with resident aliens. No one can really imagine that Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans living temporarily in the formerly united states are going to be a threat to anyone. All we lack are biblical laws of property and inheritance to prevent them from buying our country. In the European and American past, Jews were prevented from holding office, or even property a thousand years ago, because the threat was plainly evident.
And obviously, it’s silly to suggest that we can only discuss Zionism if “it is conducted in moderate language, it avoids insults and it excludes the emissions of obvious cranks.” This subjectivity is meaningless and offensive unless it is built upon objective Christian laws and traditions. If Jews and Christians are equal citizens, who is to decide how to define the word “crank,” and why would one side be any more justified than the other?
We were hasty in saying that these rules of engagement are agreeable, and we apologize. Thanks for helping us to clarify.
You’re right, Queen Isabella is the model of Christian governance. Does she have any descendants alive today? I wonder if she could get a job in the Vision Forum book warehouse.
Lynda, I agree that “the European nations are a long way from having destroyed ourselves.” But our recent history is one long attempt to do so. My faith in Christ precludes me from being defeatist, but it’s astonishing and worthwhile to reflect on how many stories in the news today are the direct results of seeds that were sown in our past. And if not for a merciful God, we would have exterminated ourselves with our own folly long ago. This kind of sober realization is healthy, I believe.
This ties in to hohenzollern’s question. Christopher is correct. The spirit, water, and blood which testify as one in the earth (1 John 5:8) also allude to the unity of faith, land, and race, all of which will be resurrected. As Wendell Berry has said, it is dualism to cleave Creator and creature, spirit and matter, religion and nature, religion and economy, worship and work, etc. A man is not body + soul. This would be dualistic. Rather, soul = dust + breath.
http://spiritwaterblood.com/2008/10/outer-space-and-inner-vacuity/
The unredeemed man is incomplete and will ultimately lose what little he has. This is explained in the parable of the sower: “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him” (Matthew 13:12).
We can agree on racial issues and politics, but we are motivated for very different reasons, and ultimately must diverge. I am motivated to bring these things about not only as a simple matter of obedience but so that our children will grow in safety and common faith and common heritage, and we can pass our traditions on to future generations who will not only know where they came from but where they’re going. Your motivation must necessarily be evolutionary – that man is ascending towards deity, and like an animal must seek his own selfish interests, disregarding all life but his own. Your worldview does not account for love. To the evolutionist, “love” is selfish gene endurance.
We don’t actually devote much thought to witnessing as such. All we can do is testify to what we have seen and heard, and it is up to others to receive or reject the witness.
Thanks for the reply, Christopher. In a sense, you’re right. I didn’t mean to overstate the case. I know that SWB’s belief is that all governments are a theocracy of one kind or another. That was also my understanding as a Reconstructionist/theonomist, as well, and I continue to hold this, even though I do reject any “revealed” source of political authority. Whether there is or isn’t a “God” (haven’t made up my mind on that), my current belief is that, since there is no divine special revelation, we’re on our own on the question of how best to regulate society. Obviously, that’s 180 degrees from a Christian view, as you pointed out.
However, I’ll have to insist that we (maybe not you, I don’t know) actually do hold a number of the same opinions on race and politics, though our reasons aren’t necessarily entirely consonant.
John, you make may excellent points. Your summary of the settlement of the Reconquista is exactly the model we should be looking at. And you are certainly correct that the Jews will hate us if we defend our Christian heritage.
The Talmud (in English translation) is now online with rabbinic commentery in hypertext and search engines for both the text and comment. This is the Babylonian Talmud ed by Rabbi Dr Isodore Epstein. This is the Soncino English Times Press. http://www.come-and-here.com/editor/index.html. This is the supreme law of Judaism and the Sanhedrin – which is now an overt organization sitting in Israel.
Michael Hoffman’s – definitive text Judaism Discovered – http://www.revisionisthistory.org is the best comment on The Talmud we have.
Judaism is a code. It has an imperium. Those who adhere to the code intend to rule the world. The non-Jew or the Goyim has a very limited role in this scheme. In fact, the agenda which serves the imperium (The Protocols of the Elders of Sion) specifies the ‘killing out of the goyim.’
The only power that stands athwart this imperium is the living Christ who, as King – seated in the Heaven “must reign until all enemies are under his feet.” (1 Cor 15:25) He has set down Lucifer / Satan from his throne over all kingdoms of this aeon “for such are given to me” (Matt 4:9) winning the decisive victory for the human race over this entire world “seated in wickedness.” (1John 5:19) The question that was before the Pavement, before Rome, before the Sanhedrin 2,000 years ago “will you have this Christ?” is now before the world. The answer of the Phariaisic religion and its law (which is modern Judaism) is of course. No. They will not have this Christ to reign.
For those who will have this Christ to reign – as would the nations of Europe, when these nations were the Christendom, Our Lord founded the Church to assert his victory against the principalities and powers of this aeon (Eph 6:12) together with their agents of flesh and blood. Of course, the Church is much more than that. The Church is New Creation in this age of the world and time and it will go on to victory and grow up into the New Heaven and New Earth that is to come. But the position of the Church and the nations, peoples, tribes and individuals who are joined to Christ through the Church is that: we will have this Christ to reign.
So. The Church is building. They are building. We oppose the order they are building. They oppose our order and its extension into the nations, peoples (they covet as sacrifices, chattels, slaves). But among those nations (maybe even nations as nations like Europe) there live those whom Christ the King would incorporate into his body, the Church. And by extension, their nations which He would bless with Christian social order and a culture in which his Grace can freely create the kind of civilizations he wants.
This story of world and time is going to unfold along the plotline of “setting all enemies under his feet” until the close of the age. That is why you are right about the correct model for ‘engagement.’ It is the model of Spain after the Reconquista. It conforms to the pattern of the King’s rule for engagement: the assertion of Victory.
This is the chapter I think we have to look at. For us, no period of history is more relevant to the current state of play.
Admin, I disagree that young-universe creationism is born of premillennialism (either dispensationalist or traditional). There are simply too many counterexamples that could be given. I know plenty of premil dispensationalists who believe in an old earth. I know plenty of postmillennialists who believe in a young earth. Contra “reading literally,” if one takes the Bible on its own terms (which is a good deal more sophisticated than a “literal” hermeneutic), one can believe in 6-day creation without turning into Hal Lindsey on eschatological matters. Having said that, I do agree that “If you take Genesis literally, you’re more inclined to take Revelation literally,” along with all the horrors that entails. To impose a literal reading on Scripture is like looking at a score of Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto and duly — religiously — affirming every note on the page, but all the while failing to discern the music. The person who can discern the music is a better educated, more sensitive and more experienced reader. Historically, I see the anti-intellectualism that has characterized the Christian faith since the advent of pietism and revivalism as the main cause of Dispensationalism and many if not most of the other aberrations that get passed off as Christianity today. Modern Christianity has severed itself from its own past and will be condemned to a future of perpetual immaturity and fruitlessness until we repent. The proper response to the errors of the Wars of Religion was not to retreat into perpetual childhood.
I feel better already!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/latvia/5417540/Blondes-march-in-Latvia-to-cheer-up-nation.html
Heh, “youths” again. I guess boys will be boys, and youths will be youths . . .
http://cbs3.com/local/Teens.Destrucitve.Rampage.2.1025684.html
Christopher, have you read yet Glover’s ‘Beyond the Firmament’? He goes into the analysis of YEC and Fundamentalist mindsets- not in any great detail, but he does draw connections.
Pax.
Christopher, the notes / silence, together with tempo, measures and phrasing is the music; the dancer in movement is the dance. Even if one is just reading the notes – one hears the music. Even if one just reads the notation of the choreography, one sees with the mind’s eye: the dance. If actually played / danced, the matter is either done well or badly.
“Modern Christianity has severed itself from its own past and will be condemned to a future of perpetual immaturity and fruitlessness unless we repent. The proper response to the errors of the Wars of Religion was not to retreat into a perpetual childhood.” (June 1, 09)
This is a sad statement. It is a statement freighted with adultism and the liberal indifference of the cargo cult.
In history, Wars of Religion were extensions of conflict in matters of truth vs error. For the Christian, the fundamental is: the Light has come into the world and men prefer darkness. A conflict has been set up. At issue in the Wars of Religion for Europe was this: can the life of a soul baptised into Christ be expressed under the Law of Sharia or the Talmud? To reject war as an extension of conflict because it is an ‘error’ is not maturity; it is acquiescence to the Athenian dicta (during the Peloponnesian War): “the strong take what they will: the weak concede what they must.”
Whereas Modern Wars are wars of deception and aggression; they are imperial wars of real politik (including wars by other means: diplomacy, reserve banks and their corporations) disguised as wars of religions and ideals. These are the only wars that realistically have any meaning for us today. They are machinated by deceptions to conceal aggressions. It follows, therefore, the nation will organize at the level of nation to respond to warfare that involves the wholesale looting of the nation whether by invasion from without or fractional reserve banking organized by its foes from within. Or the nation will acquiesce in its destruction. To reject the conflict as an ‘error’ of Modern War is not maturity; it is acquiescence, apathy and liberal illusions.
The idea that a world of unregenerate men can just be nice and then everyone can get on with living in social and environmental harmony – this is silly. (And not that Mary Poppins doesn’t think they shouldn’t). But Christianity gets to grips with a real (not a toy or illusory) world and time.
The problem is not anti-intellectualism but intellects that are not regenerate. And further to this, (the present obstacles) that prevent regenerate intellects from following on to become Christified.
If the life of a soul must traverse the path of intellect, the spirit and play of the child is not something to be scorned. Indeed, to recapture in one’s thinking (as in all else) the youthful rejoicing of the Eternal Logos as Son of Man is the supreme goal:
“I confess to thee O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth because thou has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them to little ones, yes, Father for so it hath seemed good in Thy sight.” Luke 10:32 DRV
Real universities once were founded by the Church so as to enable such minds to get fundamentally and radically to grips with every subject worthy of study and contemplation. From the latter is distilled Christian wisdom and understanding of the issues of life.
The secret springs of Spirit and song; the silver thread of the Divine Comedy and true story weaving through history and into the present is the stuff of national identity and strength, Christified imagination and poetry – do not let this elude you. If angels would seem to be beyond your ken at present, then it would be manly and right to labour in prayer to bring them back into ken.
Although such would seem to be childish and foolish in the eyes of the unregenerate, these realities turn tides in the affairs of men and govern the destinies of nations. Doubt it not!
admin,
Yes, ultimately we must diverge if a triumph of the type of Christianity that Kinists champion would result in a religious state that would institute not merely laws derived from so-called Scripture, but outlaw and actively suppress the voicing of any skepticism, dissent, or criticism of Christianity, labeling all such as “blasphemy”. Now, I’m not in the least worried that that’s going to happen because, in my view, the idea it will isn’t just a faithful attempt to “keep hope alive” (as Jesse Jackson might phrase it), but represents a flight from reality, as does religious belief in general. Nevertheless, that’s what Kinists want to happen, am I right? And if so, isn’t it somewhat ironic in light of their/your desire to exercise their 1st Amendment right to poke holes in the ideas of racial equality, the Holocaust, etc? In other words, dont you want the freedom to communicate your doubt on these topics, but would deny the same freedom to religious skeptics in a hypothetical Christian Kinist state?
That aside, our reasons for agreement on certain issues aren’t as different as all that. I also want our children to be safe, free from politically correct indoctrination and common heritage, albeit not the Christian one. How about our heritage that goes back long before Christianity and endured for at least 3 to 4 times as long as the new faith has held sway in the West? I always see European and Christian conflated by Kinists, as if Europeans were great, but still somehow less than European before the first holy, pious and theologically astute clan chiefs took up the cross, but this seems totally arbitrary. And I, like you, am unapologetic about liking White people and wanting them to continue to be around. So, those are my motivations. You say they must be evolutionary, that my worldview doesn’t account for love, but I never said I was an evolutionist. I said I don’t believe in Christianity and asked what apologetic approach you take, which no one has really answered so far.
What I meant was, if you had an opportunity to witness to an unbeliever, 1 on 1, how would you go about it? If they asked you, “Okay, tell me why I should believe the assertions of Christianity,” what would you say? I’m sincerely curious. If no one here wants to answer the question, that’s fine but, “All we can do is testify to what we have seen and heard, and it is up to others to receive or reject the witness,” is sort of a strange non-response.
What HAVE you seen and heard?
I don’t like the thought any more than you of silencing free inquiry, and that’s not the same as blasphemy. And blasphemy does not in every case call for death. The Apostle Paul admitted that he himself was once a blasphemer. Blasphemy is fine to discuss, but that’s not really what’s eating you. The primary hang-up is that God exists, and secondarily that He decrees how we are to live. Everything else is a detail.
I know you didn’t say you were an evolutionist, but there is no alternative but to live like animals, red in tooth and claw, if there is no God. And with all due respect to Paul, who said that we are most to be pitied of all men if Christ is not risen, I think there is one group just as pitiable, and that is white nationalist atheists. Because if we were not created to glorify God, all the words you typed in the previous comment are no more significant than a bug I smashed while walking home today. Without God, there is no morality, no logic, no beauty, no truth, no ideas, no love, no poetry, etc. And every attempt to prove to me that our race is nevertheless “important” will fall on deaf ears.
I’m not trying to be evasive, but again, rather than “Why should I believe the assertions of Christianity?” the question you should be asking is how you can believe anything without it. If there is no logical foundation for trust and faith, you can ask questions all day long, and they will be just as meaningless as any answers I could provide.
But I will give you one answer. You’ve just been on the receiving end of presuppositional apologetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
Our friend Michael Butler is mentioned on that page. The Butler-Harris website is http://firstword.us.
(Admin posted his reply above mine while I was typing what follows, but I’m going to post my comments anyway, even though hohenzollern just got it straight from the horse’s mouth.)
hohenzollern, FWIW I’m not a Kinist, but rather than try to discern the extent to which there might be points of genuine agreement between your views on race-related matters and the views of the folks running SWB, let me put it this way: if one had to choose between being wrong about race-related matters or rejecting the Christian faith outright, it’s a no-brainer: there will be VAST NUMBERS of people together with God through all eternity who had severely mistaken ideas about race-related matters, but precisely ZERO people who rejected the Christian faith altogether. That’s the main thing that I want to say. I pray that your eyes might be enlightened to come to a living, persevering faith in Jesus Christ.
Now, as a very secondary matter, to come back to the question of whether there might be agreement between you, as an non-believer, and SWB, as Christians, on matters of race, it needs to be kept in mind that believers and non-believers are actually saying very different things even when they both superficially agree, for example, that “Grass is green” or “2+2=4.” Everything that the non-believer says that makes any sense does so because of his borrowings from the worldview of the Bible. The very use of language itself is only possible because the Bible is true. Now it just so happens that I disagree with Kinists on various matters, but I can confess that they are right even when they are wrong because they are Christians. Presumably they would say the same thing about me. But the non-Christian is wrong even when he’s right, because he is wrong in the most fundamental way that a person can be wrong about anything. You may have been aware that this is what I was getting at when I answered you the first time, but I thought I ought to spell it all out. The bottom line is that regardless of whether Kinism is correct in its views on race, there’s no way you and the Kinists can really be in agreement on race-related matters. For the Kinist, the things that are are the way they are because God made them that way, and things ought to be a certain way because God has commanded them to be that way, and if you take God out of the picture then Kinism simply disappears. Regardless of whether and how Kinism might be correct, it needs to be seen in sharp contradistinction from all non-Christian thinking pertaining to race.
Hohenzollern, I really don’t think there is such a critter as a pre-Christian pagan liberal. Or may be if there were, such a one could fit into the Brehon that lays it down: no one is permitted to be a slave unless he or she wants to be. The whole society would have to defend those who elected to be under a Brehon like that and protect them like a niche. That’s probably all they could ever be is a protected niche, because if ever rule was invested in them the whole society would go under.
The pre-Christian clan of any European nation was solid in its convictions and piety toward the gods – as every peat bog in Europe attests. The Christian Evangelists who had a mission to preach the Gospel to them did not go to claim first Amendment rights but to make statements of faith and demonstrate the Holy Spirit and power. The chips would fall where-ever they would fall.
I don’t know about other nations, but Eire converted when an Druidh Breathrecas (the Druid Bond) was challenged to duel in powers at Tara and they lost to St Padraic. (I.e. he ‘drove the serpents out of Ireland’). And he broke the Collin Rede (the wands of hazel – their rule / witchcraft) in front of the high king.
But the nation, as a nation having converted, there has always been an underground pagan minority. In England the legends of Robin Hood, the fyres and celebrations around the holy days attest to this.
The Holly and the Ivy
When they are both full grown
Of all the trees in the wood
The Holly bears the crown
Of the rising of the sun (Sun Return at winter solstice)
To the running of the deer (Beltaine)
The Grey Horse to the Hunter go
On the day outside the year.
All of Europe is filled with this kind of stuff and it has coexisted with the Church and the Christian nations and the temporal Christian powers since the year dot. Look at West county churches in Eire, the Sheila na-Gigs carved in stone right on the churches. Whooah. As Hamlet would say – talk about “country matters”. I think you could make a very good case for the tolerance the Church and the temporal power had for the pieties of clans that kept pagan traditions.
But the blood / power cults of the Old Religion – human sacrifices to the old gods, blood rituals, hanging from yew trees, blackmailing with niding and curses, suicide cults of Berserkers and wowing the rubes with supernatural powers through demon possession etc. – all that went underground where its arcana was just as coveted by power seekers then as they are today.
But for those who wanted to be out there and up front as challengers to what the nation believed fundamentally and have their views respected, enjoying all the rights, priviledges, duties of state appertaining to the polity, I think the burden of proof should be on you to show us anywhere in the real world where this has ever been o.k as an enduring practice. The fool of the king was a protected institution. The soap box at the fayre was a protected institution. Protected as in from the wrath of the your ordinary Christian populace.
But a man who wanted to state that he doubted the resurrection of Christ and argue about it would not be holding public office or enjoying a position of esteem in a Christian state anymore than Christians challenging the holocaust industry, multicultural mythologies and official conspiracy theories could hold public office or indeed any position of credibility / respect in the present nonseparation of synagoge and state.
Fr. John, I see that a great deal of Beyond the Firmament can be read via Google’s preview function, so I’ll check it out.
By the way, I hope I may be forgiven for popping in a disclaimer here. A friend of mine has been taking some flack because his friend Christopher Witmer comments at this blog, thereby apparently giving the impression to some people making the occasional browse-by that he is either a Kinist or favorably disposed to Kinism. Well, I’m no Kinist but neither do I think I’m going to get a case of the the cooties just from reading this blog. If my memory serves me correctly don’t think I have gotten into any slugfests at SWB, but I had plenty of them at Little Geneva, both over doctrinal differences and also pertaining to matters of protocol in handling disagreements with ministers of the gospel, etc. When I post here, all of that is not forgotten in my own mind and I presume neither is it forgotten by people who are familiar with me from Little Geneva. However, I can well imagine that others dropping by might confuse me for a Kinist when I post about less controversial matters like hermeneutics or 6-day creation but don’t get into a brouhaha about the more controversial aspects of Kinism. Well, I expect that eventually I’ll get back into those more controversial matters, but I don’t feel that “right now” is the best time for that. If I am going to post at all, I always have the option of posting anonymously, but up until now I have felt no compelling reason to do so. It would be a bit hard for me to be a card-carrying Kinist in any case, seeing as I am already married to a person of another race. Not only that, but both my parents are apostates, I have one brother who is a sodomite shacking up with an Episcopal minister, a Jewish sister-in-law, and three sisters who keep the latest issue of “Israel My Glory” magazine on the coffee table in their living rooms. So yeah, depending on how you look at it, either I’m a real piece of work or just one member of a rather typical family in modern America — just the sort of fellow you’d expect to bump into at a Kinist blog, no?
Quite right, Lynda. Christians take a lot of heat over their eagerness to coerce freethinkers under a theocracy, but there is no such thing as the absence of “theocracy,” just as there is no such thing as the absence of law. We used to pierce the tongues of Jews with hot pokers for cursing our God, and now Jews throw us in jail for cursing their lies. They would like to do far worse. And still, the libertarian imagines “freedom” to be a market commodity. People who live in a fantasy world should go into the movie theater business.
“This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” ~ John Wycliffe, plagiarized by Abe Lincoln
Christopher, I wish we could say we’re surprised at the intolerance of your friends. They’ll never convince us of our errors if they run from open discussion like it’s the swine flu. It’s amazing that Christians can have all sorts of relations outside the church, occupationally and vocationally, including fag hairdressers, but they must never befriend anyone with old-fashioned views on race. Unspeakable horror! You left comments on a blog. You heretic.
By the way, we all have family members like that.
But just so there’s no confusion on blasphemy, we absolutely believe that, if convicted in a court of law, sodomites, adulterers, blasphemers, murderers, abortionists, and their like should be executed. We make no apologies for this, as many pastors do. They like to say that we couldn’t possibly pull this off for 500 years, because it all has to be democratically voluntary, and so there’s no reason for anyone to fear. There are also times when vigilantism becomes an unfortunate necessity. One of our writers is preparing a piece on this for the next post.
admin,
As someone who’s been following this site since the old days of Little Geneva, and who was also once a Reformed, theonomist type, I just want to say I’ve always admired you guys’ intelligence, courage and polish. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things and the fact that we can be respectful of each other, but frank about our opinions.
You said:
“I don’t like the thought any more than you of silencing free inquiry, and that’s not the same as blasphemy. And blasphemy does not in every case call for death. The Apostle Paul admitted that he himself was once a blasphemer. Blasphemy is fine to discuss, but that’s not really what’s eating you. The primary hang-up is that God exists, and secondarily that He decrees how we are to live. Everything else is a detail.”
I believe you but, realistically, wouldn’t that be the likely outcome? Correct me if I’m wrong, but in a state governed by biblical principles as interpreted by Kinists, there would be no freedom of religion. Of course, people would be free to silently not believe as long as they maintained outward conformity, but would they really be free to flatly say Christianity isn’t true, or the Bible isn’t inspired, inerrant, etc? It’s hard to imagine otherwise, especially given past history. It’s not like we’ve never tried the Christian theocracy thing before. Free speech may be granted for a time, but is always eventually suppressed, often brutally. Because the simple fact is that exclusive, dogmatic religions which try to paint a version of history flattering to themselves and making claims to be based on explicit divine revelation cannot withstand hard scrutiny, which invariably exposes the falsity of the claims. It’s the Church or reason and evidence, and the Church has proven that when she can she will go so far as to kill to silence those who expose her fraudulence, which indeed is the real reason Christianity is in dire, dire straits at this time. It’s being assailed on every front, with no means of defense. Since it nowhere has the power to compel the State to protect it, its very foundations are being yanked from underneath it.
I didn’t say I was an evolutionist, nor did I say I’m an atheist. There may be a God of some kind, or not. I don’t know. I realize that some might say I do know, I’m just lying. But I’m not. I guess that’s prompted by the same thing that causes you to speak authoritatively about what’s “eating” me, when nothing is, other than the fact that I’m a White Nationalist who’s convinced Christianity is false (and certainly not European, nor suited to them as noted by Mangasarian) and that it’s nothing but a burdensome folly not to de-couple the one from the other as soon as possible.
Anyway, the primary hang-up isn’t that God exists. Two observations: Christianity or atheism isn’t the only option. Another religion could be true, or they all might be false, despite the fact of there being either a personal, transcendent Being, or a non-personal, non-material, but transcendent aspect to reality, neither of which ever wrote a book.
We could go on and on, but for now suffice to say that merely asserting something doesn’t make it true, and I’ve never been impressed with presuppotionalism. I can’t help but wonder how many people have ever been converted by it. Very few, I suspect. Is this what brought any of you to faith, or were you raised as Christians? It seems more like a method of preaching to the choir, of keeping the already-Christian in the fold by convincing them that, as the starting point for everything, the Bible and Christianity are off-limits to serious questioning in contrast to the valid investigation of any other topic like, the Holocaust. Perhaps the kikes should adopt it as a defense of the truth of Shoah-ism. When asked where’s the evidence, they can just say we have to begin with the Fact of the Holocaust. Or maybe they already do.
I also meant to reply briefly to this:
“I know you didn’t say you were an evolutionist, but there is no alternative but to live like animals, red in tooth and claw, if there is no God.”
There isn’t? Atheists do it all the time. I can’t remember the last time I saw one caged at the zoo.
“And with all due respect to Paul, who said that we are most to be pitied of all men if Christ is not risen, I think there is one group just as pitiable, and that is white nationalist atheists. Because if we were not created to glorify God, all the words you typed in the previous comment are no more significant than a bug I smashed while walking home today. Without God, there is no morality, no logic, no beauty, no truth, no ideas, no love, no poetry, etc. And every attempt to prove to me that our race is nevertheless “important” will fall on deaf ears.”
I agree that without some kind of transcendence (doesn’t have to be the Christian God), then ultimately all is meaningless, but for the sake of argument let’s say atheism is it. In that case, we’re still here. We still have all the same needs, hopes and desires. That they’re just biological in nature, the result of eons of evolution doesn’t really change any of that, just the basis for it. I’m not arguing for atheism, but we could and would still have all those things. Now, I couldn’t berate anyone into agreeing with me on any issue of morality by appealing to God’s will or convince them our race is important, either. However, a different sort (but very compelling) argument could be made along pragmatic lines, if nothing else.
But anyway, you answered my question- you’re a presuppositionalist, and that’s primarily what I was after. Keep up the good work =)
I’m not trying to be evasive, but again, rather than “Why should I believe the assertions of Christianity?” the question you should be asking is how you can believe anything without it. If there is no logical foundation for trust and faith, you can ask questions all day long, and they will be just as meaningless as any answers I could provide.
Lynda, that’s all fine and dandy. I mostly agree with what you said there, and wasn’t suggesting that non-believers should have equal rights; certainly not the right to run for office. Obviously, a theocratic state couldn’t allow that. My question was very simple: Would they be persecuted for publishing the facts and evidence that severely undermine the veracity of the Christian religion?
I ask because it would seem to put the Kinist, who values his free speech rights to question some popular notions, in an awkward position. Or an interesting one, at least. For my part, I not only doubt the resmurrection of Christ,but his actual historical existence. No, doubt is too weak a word- I’m absolutely convinced of his mythical status. Good thing we don’t live in a Kinist theocracy, eh?
Dear Admin,
In my thinking (and once for my sins I tutored in social policy at a university) I never got to first base until I read the world’s most famous FORGERY, absolutely VERBOTEN at every university (it isn’t even catalogued as an exhibit of ‘wrong thinking’) I refer, of course, to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. For those who cultivate the art and science of Knowing Otherwise, this in itself is a leading clue as to what exactly is going on. (Like the guy in the movie: “What is going on? What the h@*$ is going on?!! All I want to know is what the h@*$ is going on!!!)
My political education began with this document. In The Protocols, the Learned Elders make it very clear that liberalism (indeed all the isms) are the intellectual creations of their social Masonry designed for the destruction of Christian nations. There would be a period of transition to their rule when every ‘error’ would be promoted. By error, they mean intellectual artifacts created by their AGENTUR upon the basis of false principles they know to be false. “Only lies will be printed.”
When you get to the blueprint for their Despotism, there won’t be any liberalisms, feminisms, faggotisms, republicanisms, egalitariansims. There will, however, be Darwinism as the Talmud plainly teaches that the goyim (the gentiles) are not Adamic. So the Europeans will still get to be descended from hominids. Who knows, maybe they will even allow goyim chimp-outs at the games. Interested Readers should Google: the Frankfurt School.
With apologies to the Classics – those whom the J_W would destroy, they first confuse, corrupt and demoralize.
The worst and I mean the worst of the Christian polities was far more tolerant of ‘the other’ than the NWO now abourning. Many were permitted to live outside the law (the Christian laws of the nation), but they were not permitted to predate upon the society. Those who intended to predate, of course, exploited this tolerance and found ways to predate.
H, thank you indulging and engaging. Christians are almost never as pure as the wind-driven snow in their presuppositions either. That’s what all the debates over theology are about. It’s only human nature to be fallible and to disagree, and if we want others to be patient with us in our shortcomings, we had better be patient with them.
This also applies to restrictions on speech. There is no such thing as a society in which every man is free to speak anything that pops into his mind. Christians place restrictions on some forms of speech and atheists on other forms. Likewise, freedom of religion does not exist. It never has and never will. Freedom is not the same thing as license.
Do you really believe that Christians have prevented their faith from withstanding rigid scrutiny? We are talking about the most debated subject in the history of the world. Christendom suffers from many things, but lack of scrutiny is not one of them. And this repressive, totalitarian, unreasonable beast of your imagination has flooded the world with art, science, and every form of high culture known to man. Only when the “shackles” of “censorship” were thrown off did we sink into a cultural morass, and this was not the doing of Christians. So your accusations simply do not comport with the facts.
Christians, with very few exceptions, have simply sought to govern themselves, establish their own nations, and yes, punish lawbreakers. And as I said, this is not your real hang-up; rather, it is that God has given us His law and expects us to obey it.
And do you really believe that Christendom is in dire straits today because it lacks the power of the state to protect it? Historically, Christianity has flourished under such conditions. We don’t deny that a marriage of church and state is most ideal, but if Christianity were truly as you imagine it, it would have been rather easy to kill off long ago. The closest thing that compares to it, at least superficially, is its counterfeit, Talmudism. And as you know, Jews don’t care who is in power. Rothschild said he didn’t care who made the laws.
I think you’re correct that presuppositionalism never converted anyone to the faith. That’s not its purpose; only God the Holy Spirit does that. Its purpose is to expose the folly of misplaced questions.
Dear Hohenzollern,
The truth does not fear debate, does not fear the public forum, does not fear science and the creation of intellectual validations of the sciences at the level of university or the college. These institutions were established by Christians to create models of validation for the studies of (well) the universe and every subject that a living soul created in the Divine Image might want to inquire into.
And the Church does not fear martyrdom and conflict, does not fear war and defeat. The Church is New Creation in Christ “without rival or resemblance” to quote Chesterton.
For heresies (choices of beliefs outside the Credo) the forum for this is a synod or a Council. The Church refutes heresies by debate: real argument, real evidence, real decisions. If you don’t think so, then edify yourself and your family by reading the Fathers of the Church. Maybe you should start with St Iraneaus of Lyon – as he had obviously graduated from one of the great Bardic colleges of Gaul. So he understood pagan Europe better than you ever will.
But in a Christian nation state, who just wish to blaspheme and drag others down with this type of pollution so come under the codes (based upon the Ecclesian canons) and legislated by the temporal power; just as defamation, racial vilification, libel come under codes (based upon a constitution) and legislated by the temporal power.
In a Christian nation error and truth do not have equal rights.
And why would you think that in a Christian state, refuted heretics should be allowed to take to the marketplace with a view to winning sectarians and partisans from among the population who do not have the intellectual resources in scholarship and argument and rhetoric to refute them?
But, I agree that you have not converted a man because he is refuted or even silenced. Catholic nation states solved these problems by allowing freethinkers to stand on the soapbox at the village fayres and pontificate. Humans being humans, everyone wants to be the pope (unless of course a man is elected in the Succession to actually carry the burden of The Rock). As a Catholic, I say, On Ya Hohenzollern! put on the cheese at the fayre and stand up on the soapbox and tell us that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead; tell us that the Legionaires ‘fell asleep’ on their watch (for which Roman penalty is death and for the Legion – decimation); tell us that the disciples in hiding for fear of the Jews came and overpowered the Roman Guard and spirited the body of the Lord away and then went out and boldly proclaimed the Evangel that would get every one of them (except St John) martyred and crucified; tell us the Jews came and stole the body and chose not put the evidence on display when the Apostles began to turn the world upside down with the Evangel; tell us that aliens invaded and stole the body; tell us that he recovered from Roman flagellation and crucifixion in the tomb and ran away to someplace where he could just put it behind him; tell us he never existed in the first place and is just magic mushroom or a creation of ‘the Church’ which underwent 300 years of martyrdom in Rome for the Evangel before the Edict of Milan; tell us that saints like Perpetua, Felicity et all – teenagers from Patrician families who turned the Circus Maximos upside down with the demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power never existed when even the pagans saluted them. (You know, as in ‘we who are about die salute you’). None of this was done “in a corner” Hohenzollern. It is public domain. You don’t think the Church has heard all of this like about a million times before?
But I expect you don’t really wish to dispute the facts of the matter of the Evangel which were established in the public domain. I expect (for whatever reason) you don’t want to believe it and that’s how it is. Well, the good news for you Hohenzollern is that in a Christian nation you don’t have to believe it. But if you want to be public and disputational about your unbelief – you do have to give reasons that will hold up against facts of matter on the historical record. And you do have to give those reasons in appropriate public domain – i.e. a synod.
“I have felt no compelling reason to do so. It would be a bit hard for me to be a card-carrying Kinist in any case, seeing as I am already married to a person of another race. Not only that, but both my parents are apostates, I have one brother who is a sodomite shacking up with an Episcopal minister, a Jewish sister-in-law, and three sisters who keep the latest issue of “Israel My Glory” magazine on the coffee table in their living rooms. So yeah, depending on how you look at it, either I’m a real piece of work or just one member of a rather typical family in modern America — just the sort of fellow you’d expect to bump into at a Kinist blog, no?”
Christopher, you can always do what God asked the Israelites to do in Ezra 9:2ff.
That is, if you wish to ‘leave all and follow me,’ [Matt. 4:19-20] as Christ has asked us to do. And I wouldn’t say this, unless I had left a similar scenario in my earlier, foolish days, to find a covenant mate, and raise godly (as opposed to miscegenated) children, seeing it as the Duty once normative in American society, pre-1965.
And, as to a ‘typical family’ – yes, you are probably correct- if one calls the NFKAUSA the nation America. I do not, and refuse to let the older covenantal, racial, European nation I was born into, become blurred, confused, equated with the antichrist ‘proposition nation’ now on hand, starring the Jew’s house n***er, His Eminence, Barry Baby.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are indeed the Jewish blueprint for world domination. The Jews have followed it to the letter, and they’ve also tried to defuse its release by calling it a forgery. This is very clever, calling a copy a forgery.
Admin,
The Home Schools should sharpen their wits on The Protocols. And every Kinist library should have a copy of Michael Hoffman’s definitive text:
Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblican Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit. Now out of print with limited availability.
The Kinist movement and organisations need this text and so does the Catholic Church (now in Eclipse). Organisation of bulk pre-paid orders might entice the presses to roll out another print run.
Another Hoffman axiom explains the importance of the Lockdown on the First Amendment Rights. It is intended to ignite the sleeping, easy going gentile population. This axiom is: “whoever hates the Judiacs – perpetuates the rule of the rabbis”.
Christians must fight this with the weapsons that will win. Hoffman’s text is indispensible and he should be on the Kinist broadcasts.
Knowledge precedes victory; ignorance precedes defeat. Sun Tzu – The Art of War
admin,
I’m glad we have an understanding of sorts. I don’t see Christians as the enemy at all. Misguided, to be sure, but we want many of the same things and without a doubt share a common foe. Neither of us would want to live under the same kind of governance, but that’s okay, too. I don’t think we have to worry too much about either a Christian or secular nationalist society taking formm within our lifetimes, at least. We both know who rules America now. The Jew. And anyone with enough gall to mention that fact -let alone object to it- will have trouble enough.
“There is no such thing as a society in which every man is free to speak anything that pops into his mind. Christians place restrictions on some forms of speech and atheists on other forms. Likewise, freedom of religion does not exist. It never has and never will. Freedom is not the same thing as license.”
I agree that freedom isn’t license. I for one have no trouble with banning obscenity. But I also don’t think that there should be any restrictions whatsoever on political speech, no matter what kind of regime we’re under, Christian or secular. Basically, I’m in favor of the 1st amendment. I UNDERSTAND why a non-secular, religious state really can’t tolerate that, which, as previously noted, is because religions like Christianity can’t stand the light of day. Now, from here on, I’ll be obliged to pull no punches, but bear in mind my comments are meant entirely in the spirit of friendly remonstration, not hostility.
Presuppositionalism just can’t protect its (the Church’s) texts and historical claims from the analysis of scholars and archaeologists. To take two glaring examples from the OT: the total failure of anyone to unearth corroborating evidence of the Exodus or Solomon’s temple, not to mention his alleged empire. If those were real characters and events, it’s simply not possible that they were never mentioned by anyone else and left no trace.
If we want to look at the NT, there’s always the fact of not one single contemporary reference to Jesus Christ or his activities. Also impossible if he existed as a miracle-working Son of God. There are a few near and non-contemporary references, granted, like the passage in Josephus, but these are almost indisputably forged or irrelevant. There should be dozens of them, at least, but there aren’t.
“Do you really believe that Christians have prevented their faith from withstanding rigid scrutiny? We are talking about the most debated subject in the history of the world. Christendom suffers from many things, but lack of scrutiny is not one of them. And this repressive, totalitarian, unreasonable beast of your imagination has flooded the world with art, science, and every form of high culture known to man. Only when the “shackles” of “censorship” were thrown off did we sink into a cultural morass, and this was not the doing of Christians. So your accusations simply do not comport with the facts.”
They totally comport with the facts! We’re not talking about my imagination, nor is the fact that art, science and culture somehow managed to survive during the Christian era indicative of anything. These things all existed and originated in the classical pagan world long before Christians came along and began destroying basically everything they could get their hands on, including the Library at Alexandria. Some think that the triumph of Christianity in the West set civilization BACK by 1,000 years, if not longer, and I’m inclined to agree.
OF COURSE, there have always been nay-sayers and folks poking holes in the Church’s claims, usually at great personal risk. It has almost always used any means at its disposal to shut them up, including murder for “blasphemy” and “heresy”. I don’t even know how anyone could begin to deny that.
What it’s flooded the world with is ignorance, superstition, fear, war, morbidity and general mayhem, which isn’t to say that no individual Christian or even Christian institutions never did ANYTHING good but, my God, let’s thank our lucky stars it’s finally embarked on its grand exit from the scene.
“Christians, with very few exceptions, have simply sought to govern themselves, establish their own nations, and yes, punish lawbreakers. And as I said, this is not your real hang-up; rather, it is that God has given us His law and expects us to obey it.”
For the umpteenth time, I don’t have a hang-up, lol. I merely DON’T AGREE that God has written a book. I keep asking you why I should believe he has, but aside from presuppositionalism, which isn’t an answer, you’re not offering anything else. What is more, if Christianity had been invented last week, instead of 2,000 years ago in a mostly pre-scientific era, this wouldn’t warrant discussion, because if they hadn’t had it spoon-fed to them since the time they were tikes or bamboozled later on by crafty and manipulative apologists, nobody would ever believe its assertions for one second. The same holds true if any of us, as intelligent, modern men were transported back to pre-Christian Europe when the first missionaries began showing up with such nonsensical stories. We’d demand some kind of proof, or evidence at least; not wild hearsay about Jew-gods, miracles, resurrections, etc.
“And do you really believe that Christendom is in dire straits today because it lacks the power of the state to protect it?”
Yes, partially, though not entirely. It’s in bad shape primarily because it’s based on falsehoods, the main ones being that Christ was an actual historical personage, the literal Incarnation of God and that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, all of which is demonstrably untrue if one is willing to set aside their commitment to presuppositionalism and look at the facts as they would, say, with the Holocaust. State power is just a tourniquet- it can help slow, but not stop the bleeding.
“Historically, Christianity has flourished under such conditions. We don’t deny that a marriage of church and state is most ideal, but if Christianity were truly as you imagine it, it would have been rather easy to kill off long ago. The closest thing that compares to it, at least superficially, is its counterfeit, Talmudism. And as you know, Jews don’t care who is in power. Rothschild said he didn’t care who made the laws.”
Well, again, my imagination doesn’t come into play here. It is what it is- false, and a literalist hijacking of the gnostics’ invention. For those who would guffaw at this, and I’m sure they’re many, all they need no is refer to Freke & Gandy’s “The Jesus Mysteries”, Acharya S’ “The Christ Conspiracy” and/or “Who Was Jesus?” or Doherty’s “The Jesus Puzzle”.
Sorry to interpret but in case you missed it, Taki Mag has a very interesting article discussing the switching of roles between the US and Russia: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/back_into_the_cold/
The fact that Russia may be the savior of the West is ironic on a grand scale. Heia Ruski.
With tears streaming down my face, I condemn the vicious racism and quasi-religious hate pouring from this site. Your words are chipped from a hard heart in covenant with something — someone — other than the living God, and, by your fruit, I believe you don’t know Christ. I pray for God’s mercy on your very souls. You are welcome to respond to me on http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com, but you will never convince me that your words are borne from the filling of the Spirit, the water of Christian baptism, or the Blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Keely Emerine Mix
Keely, would you like to share a hanky?
EP, very interesting! “Orthodoxy is Russia’s one common bond.” I’m disturbed by this talk coming out of Russia of a global currency, but the conspiracy theorist in me leads me to believe that it could be a tactical move against The World’s Most Sacred Race.
Lynda, I was shocked to learn today that Michael Hoffman is selling off his entire research library to fund another printing of his masterpiece. It’s astonishing that he can barely sell any books. We’re talking about The Protocols, Part 2, in terms of the undying hatred that will exist for it far into the future. Christians have grown apathetic. Even Hoffman’s fellow Roman Catholics are trying to shut him down.
Dear Admin,
The novus ordo (Post Vatican II) sect currently in possession of the Roman Catholic infastructure worldwide is attempting to shut down Hoffman. No doubt about it.
The antipapacy installed after the Coup of the covert B’nei B’rith Cardinals in the 1958 Conclave has undertaken (at the behest of its masters) the autodemolition of the Church in faith, sacraments and morals. The latest anti-pope Benedict is a crypto rabbi who under the Vatican II Charter Nostra Aetate is pushing ‘Shoah Theology’ and working with the Sanhedrin to promote Noachide Law at the international level. Noachida is mandated by the Talmud for the goyim and will be the jurisprudence of the NWO.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy is underground – as it was for the first 300 years of the Church. The Holy Father would certainly be murdered by the foes of the Church were he to publicly declare himself – as were the popes of the early centuries of the Roman Apostolic See.
Most of the novus ordo Catholics do not know the magisterium of the Church, they have not read Trent, they have no concept of Thomist criteria for law that is ultra virez any authority to enact (unjust law against the laws of God and natural light of reason). They have been dumbed down and are just going along with what their clergy tell them is the ‘mind of the Church.’ To these people I say: “if you want to know the mind of the Church then start with the Didache and the Fathers. Read the Holy Scriptures with the living source of authority – the bishops who are built up on the foundation of the Apostles and the Fathers. This is in the Ordo and the Roman Rite in which the scriptures are prayed and expounded by the Apostles and the Fathers, Doctors and some of the popes who were also Doctors. Get to grips with this and you will see clearly that by the Church’s own criteria – John XXIII – Benedict XVI can not be in the Succession. There is no need to judge hidden motives, thoughts or even behaviour (although they are very badly behaved). But it is their manifest, declared public statements and works that put them outside the communion of the Church by the Church’s own laws and norms. And for idolatry of Apostolic works being publicly foresworn of Sacrorum Antistitum (the Oath Against Modernism they would have taken at their ordinations) they are under the Latae Sententiae (automatic excommunication) of Pope St Pius X reserved in pertetuity to the Holy See.
Listen to Benedict – then Fr Joseph Ratzinger after the Vatican II Council: “Lumen Gentium is a ‘counter’ syllabus errors.” What!!! The Syllabus of Errors (of modernism) can not be set aside by any mere pastoral council. These were pernicious errors promulgated by the enemies of God and man for the ruin of souls in the 19th century, errors that became virulent in the 20th. For CRYING OUT LOUD the errors of the Syllabus are even designated as ‘principles known to us to be false’ in The Protocols of Zion. So how then does a scandal like Lumen Gentium become the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Short Answer: NOT. NEVER. NOT EVER.
Of course the antipapacy wants to get rid of this. And these pernicious ‘bishops’ are now saying that to cricitize the ‘Shoah theology’ is heresy. St John Chrysostom, however, says: “hell is paved with the skulls of apostate bishops.”
The hostage papacy of the twentieth century is documented in http://www.thepopeinred.com. This is one of the webistes posted with the approbation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the Church in Eclipse.
Every Kinist and everyone who would persevere in the holy faith against the apostacy of the World Council of Churches and the Nostra Aetate sect (currently posing as the Roman Catholic Church) needs at least 2 copies of Hoffman’s masterpiece: 1 for the home library and 1 for the home school.
When Noachide Law becomes the jurisprudence of the former U.S. of A. what will you oppose it with if not the scholarship and wisdom of Michael Hoffman. The brilliance of Hoffman’s work is that he is using Judaism against Itself.
Buy it. Buy it. Buy it.
Well Keely, I did visit your website via your link and I did read some of your posts.
You are writing as a mother and disciple of Jesus from (it would seem) a catholic faith community according to your biopic, so I can see where you are coming from with “But I am as uncomfortable with legislating against first term abortions as I am…” Why do I doubt that it would console you to realize that the Church and a Catholic nation has no discomfort at all in legislating against abortion or against theft, rape, murder or manslaughter? And centuries of good Catholic government have successfully legislated against all of the above. Also Christian societies have always been the first to bestow advances in medical sciences, therapeutics and the caring arts upon the most vulnerable members – such as mothers and children. This is what a Christian social order looks like.
But when I read down and find reservations like “Being born a white male obviously isn’t a birth defect…” and references to feminism as a “theological treasure”, I begin to think that I have strayed into Rev Jack O’Kobian territory. Did you read his homily on the SWB main page?
I have no doubt that the novus ordo Jesus, Pansy of Palestine, has a special place reserved over the Rainbow for his theological treasures such as feminism, Gaia reverence and parish passover seders with our elder brothers and sisters in the faith – the J_Ws.
Maybe you should find a priest ordained before Vatican II (i.e. a priest with valid orders) and open the catechism such as Baltimore or Trent under his pastoral guidance. Just a suggestion from a former novus ordinarian.
As to Hoffman’s work, I would say, yes, it is the best first start, to understanding the Deicides. Along with the Protocols. But I would aver that filioquism was the quicksand that led to the Reformation.
If the Church (Protestant AND Catholic) wants to recapture her patristic vision, she will have to jettison filioqism, and the scholastic theology that arose from it, first.
I’ll never understand the big deal about the controversy over the filioque clause, the idea that the Holy Spirit does or does not proceed from the Son. By “filioquism,” I take you to mean disagreement with your Orthodox view, which you call heresy. But the idea that anyone can understand the supernatural relationships of the Trinity seems crazy to me. It should be enough to agree with Scripture that the Holy Spirit is God and is sent to us from God, whether by or through the Son. If anything, I think the Roman Catholics have done the right thing in this case by no longer accusing those who disagree with them of being heretics. In my own Reformed tradition, we have entire industries dedicated to such hair-splitting and gnat-straining. Meanwhile, our people are perishing, and the Church (as a whole) aids the warmongers and white-haters.
Dear Lynda,
You’re taking an adversarial tone with me, I guess because you feel threatened. But then, I’m not as given to making dogmatic assertions about the psyche and motivations of my interlocutors as some. Anyway, I’m not easily provoked, and it’s not me you should be sore with. I’m not your problem, such as it is, just a messenger.
I agree that truth doesn’t fear debate. Why should it? But the Church certainly does and always has from its inception. You may’ve read a lot of sanitized history that persuaded you otherwise, but we all know whose voice is loudest- the winners’. And half of writing history is hiding the truth. You’re not likely to get much of that by sticking only to what the winners’ fiercely partisan literary hitmen have to say about events.
My pride isn’t in any large measure wrapped up in my level of erudition, which is more than some, less than others’, and I make no claims to being an expert on pagan Europe, past or present. However, if you think Irenaeus and the “Fathers” are particularly good, objective sources on, well, anything, really…I’d have to demur. You may not be aware, but a lot’s been written (and documented) on the inaccuracy, deception and outright fraud perpetrated by these men, and I’d urge you to seek out a slightly broader perspective.
“And why would you think that in a Christian state, refuted heretics should be allowed to take to the marketplace with a view to winning sectarians and partisans from among the population who do not have the intellectual resources in scholarship and argument and rhetoric to refute them?”
I thought the truth had naught to fear from debate. You sure don’t seem to give your fellowman much credit for intelligence and being able to separate wheat from chaff, light from dark. If Scripture is so clear about the main essential doctrines, I can’t even see why there’d be a problem. Or is now. At any rate, other than your low personal opinion of others’ mental faculties, why should your doctrinal views be adopted and theirs excluded? After all, it obviously ISN’T clear to all, and the regnant views (which would somehow just happen to comport with yours) might be erratic.
“As a Catholic, I say, On Ya Hohenzollern! put on the cheese at the fayre and stand up on the soapbox and tell us that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead; tell us that the Legionaires ‘fell asleep’ on their watch (for which Roman penalty is death and for the Legion – decimation); tell us that the disciples in hiding for fear of the Jews came and overpowered the Roman Guard and spirited the body of the Lord away and then went out and boldly proclaimed the Evangel that would get every one of them (except St John) martyred and crucified; tell us the Jews came and stole the body and chose not put the evidence on display when the Apostles began to turn the world upside down with the Evangel; tell us that aliens invaded and stole the body; tell us that he recovered from Roman flagellation and crucifixion in the tomb and ran away to someplace where he could just put it behind him; tell us he never existed in the first place and is just magic mushroom or a creation of ‘the Church’ which underwent 300 years of martyrdom in Rome for the Evangel before the Edict of Milan; tell us that saints like Perpetua, Felicity et all – teenagers from Patrician families who turned the Circus Maximos upside down with the demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power never existed when even the pagans saluted them. (You know, as in ‘we who are about die salute you’). None of this was done “in a corner” Hohenzollern. It is public domain. You don’t think the Church has heard all of this like about a million times before?”
Now you’re just being silly. But I didn’t realize before that you’re a papist, which explains so much, no offense. You’ve been pumped full of that gobbledygook and you feel your toes have been seriously stepped on. I understand. I don’t think further discussion along these lines is likely to be productive- believe what you like, whatever makes you happy. In fact, I’ll be happy to know you’re happy- there’s a deficit of it in this world.
===========================================
“With tears streaming down my face, I condemn the vicious racism and quasi-religious hate pouring from this site.” ~ Keely Emerine Mix
LOL. Get used to it guys, this is what Christianity is now. They’re holding the reins (and the money and guns) and y’all have a bulls-eye on your foreheads.
Dear Admin,
“our people are perishing”. Exactly. And why, Biblically do people perish?
If the nations as nations or even a remnant of peoples of those nations that once were the Christendom of the West could reforge that faith vision, then we could turn this thing around. The reason why the Church (as a whole) aids the warmongers, white haters and world devourers is because all the heresies created created for the destruction of the Church have been weaponized are now active as congregations and international orgs – christian zionism, novus ordoism with its promotion of the Noachida…
It is like in the Lord of the Rings. One summer when I (and fellow Homeschoolers) read the the Trilogy to the Home School we also read Tolkien’s letters so we could follow the historical context of the writing of the great saga. We had a lot of great discussions upon the interplay of synchronicities between: the events unfolding in historical time through which the Inklings were living and teaching, their conversations at the Eagle and the Child (their Oxford pub) and Tolien’s writing of his great saga – many chapters of which were read to his friends and fellow Inklings at ‘the Bird and Baby’.
Before the Fellowship leaves Rivendale, the sword of Elendil (the shards of Narsil) are reforged. In the older matter, in the War of the Last Alliance, Elendil is slain by Sauron, but Isildir takes up the hilt shard of his Father’s sword which lays beside his body and cuts the Ring from Sauron’s hand. And this ends the War of the Last Alliance.
But as Elrond would later tell the Council: “Fruitless did I call the victory of the Last Alliance? Not wholly so, yet it did not achieve its end. Sauron was diminished, but not destroyed. His Ring was lost but not unmade. The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed..”
When the Eldar reforge the sword, Aragorn gives it a new name: Anduril – the Flame of the West. This is the sword that will lead the remnant forces of the former Allies into the battles that will come to the aid of the Fellowship. For they have determined upon “the hard road, the road unforseen” and the end to the ‘weregild’ of the North and the legacy of the Ring.
In the great forge of Tolkien’s Bardic imagination all the matter of N.W. Europe is being remade for his great Saga – much of it written concurrently with the European conflagration of WW II. However, the Saga was not written for the war raging in their own time; it was written for the time that the Inklings foresaw – the destruction of the entire West, its historic faith, polity and civilization. Their conversations and letters clearly show this. As philologists and professors of ancient languages they read Anglo Saxon, Old Finnish and Orkill. They knew the matter of the West both pagan and Christian.
It was during the Battle of Britain and the London Blitz that Narsil is reforged and the chapters around it are read to the Inklings at the Eagle and Child by candlelight – when the pub and all of Oxford is under the blackout.
But “The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars (the Pleiades) between the Crescent Moon and the rayed sun (the eastern crescent rising in the rays of the dawn). [ Therefore the Great White Bull of Europa stands in the helical rise] and about them were written many runes for Aragorn, son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor. Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen. And Argagorn gave it a new name and called it Anduril, Flame of the West.”
Dear Hohenzollern,
And your ‘unsanitized’ sources for your historical views are?
Your LOL is making all my points. Thanks
Lynda,
You can bellow and fulminate till the Swiss Guard goes home, it won’t make you any less credulous or your Church any less corrupt, controlled by Jews and moribund. As I said, if you choose to wrap yourself in a cocoon and entertain thoroughly discredited fantasies about the way the world really is and works, that’s your decision.
Hohenzollern, if you want to argue (June 4) that Christ is a gnostic invention or a magic mushroom and the Christian faith is a literalist hijack of the gnostic invention – then argue it. SWB is giving you a forum on the messageboard. But reading over 3 days worth of your posts – I fail to see argument, evidences, textual criticism and conclusions.
This entails scholarship – which is demanding. And there are appropriate fora for this type of debate in the Christian polity. As I have said elsewhere, this is why Christians established monastic foundations with libraries, universities and colleges. Demanding fora for demanding subjects and the debates such matter will generate.
It is not possible to take an adversarial position with you because you do not procede beyond rhetoric and name calling. I am a ‘papist’ – oh boo hoo. The most convinced papist in the world can proclaim – ‘it is a full moon tonight’. That doesn’t make it a quarter moon tonight. The great foe of rhetoric isn’t the Church – it is Socrates. The Church actually finds many uses for rhetoric; however, the argument of a thesis is not one of them.
What I will say, is that you do not wear the cheese head well at the fayre. For “one not given to making dogmatic assertions”, it would not be difficult to go back over your posts June 3-5 and give many excellent quotes where you are making dogmatic assertions outside the scope of what Vatican I would permit the pope. You are being merely pre-suppositional about your unbelief.
If you want to argue about “deception and outright fraud of the Christian sources” and “thoroughly discredited fantasies about the way the world really is” (June 5) – then argue it. Let’s hear your evidences.
The truth does not have anything to fear from public debate. But you are not debating here. You are ranting and pontificating with diatribe, rhetoric, invective. The forum for this is the soapbox at the fayre – a protected Christian institution. Blasphemy, however, was never accepted among Christians whether in a Christian polity or conversation.
And I think you are correct in your assertion that the Judaic Imperium has usurped the Apostolic See in Rome and through its anti-papacy (over the Post Concilliar, Vatican II sect) now is in possession of the Roman Catholic infastructure world wide. I could defend that thesis with reason and multiple and congruent evidences. And I have defended it. But the messageboard on a blog is not the appropriate fora. If the subject interests you, I’ll be happy to post up some links.
And I am glad you are happy that I am happy. Actually, I am happy almost all of the time. I like going to the fayres and I like reading and writing on the blogs.
As one born a catholic, but living now as a reformed protestant, I am gratified that R.C. believers like Lynda still exist. May Lynda and those like her revivify an ancient, but now senile, expression of the one true faith. If that were to ever happen in my life-time, I might have to reconsider the R.C.C.
In any case the splintering of our Lord’s church was indeed tragic, and yet necessary for the preservation of the faith. But I have come to believe that in order for christendom (ie. the races of Europe) to one day revive and reassert themselves with some permanency, the various ‘branches’ of the church must eventually join, and weed out of their doctrine all the poisonous crap promulgated by Marx, Freud, Engells and Darwin.
But first things first. We must survive as a race and re-conquer our nations, while reasserting our right to expel foriegners and heretics; that is the pressing need of the moment. Then we can talk about purging the church of jewish error. Then we can engage the agnostic and the atheist. But, when one’s back is against the wall, one must fight, not expound sound doctrine. The weapons of our warfare may not be entirely carnal, and yet, without a place for our people to gather in peace and safety, there can be no secure future for us. I repeat, we need to repossess our nations; and then we’ll work out our differences. We simply must forego any more fratricidal wars. In other words, white protestants, catholics, orthodox, atheists, and agnostics, need to bury the hatchet, and stand back to back and shoulder to shoulder against the NWO and all it’s jewish machinations.
Done preaching for now.
I completely agree, Randall. I don’t have high hopes that various churches can ever come together again when they fight for a thousand years over matters far more trivial than the various real threats that you mention, but I suppose more surprising things have happened.
Dear Admin and Randall,
A cessation of fratricidal wars among Whites is definitely step 1; as well as refusal to fight as proxies for the Judaic Imperium and Greater Israel. The penalty for this refusal is that our overlords will use covert science and social engineering to unleash chaos in the natural and social realms.
Faced with this type of thing, people tend to fragment and stampede into every man for himself. Apostate Christianity has been carefully set up and equiped to address this chaos, to unite and instrumentalize the beleaguered Christians and assist with the delivery of the New World Order.
Evangelical, Nondenominational Christian Zionists will square off against the Judeo Christians of the ecumenical WCC (led by the Orthodox) or the ecumenical novus ordo, post concilar, Noachide sect (calling itself the Roman Catholic Church). After looking at the photo-ops of Benedict’s big kissy-kissy with Patriarch Bartholomew, I expect that in the confusion and treachery of the times, the latter two orgs will engineer an ecumenical (all faiths and nations) type of pantheism – the one world ecumenical church needed by the NWO.
In opposition to this, the Roman Catholic Church, through Her bishops who are una cum Pope Gregory XVII (1958-1989)and his Successors state that the cause of the hour is Omnia Instaurare in Christo. To Restore All Things in Christ.
Nations and races are certainly a part of this restoration. For nations (as distinct ethne) are treasures of the Church but they are not ends in themselves. The nations of Europe which once comprised the Christendom are the only nations which once (by conversion and Grace) held the holy faith as a single race. Among the races of mankind, we were once the Christopher, that unique Christ bearing race. Maybe it is God’s will in the restoration that as a race, we reclaim the dignity of the Christopher.
But other nations have also held the faith even though they were minorities among their own races. This may well be the time when other nations unify at the level of their own race to come forward as the Christopher. I do not rule this out. Indeed, looking at the twentieth century – the bloodbaths among the Christians in South and Central America and IndoChina through the Communist Revolutions, I would fear to rule this it out.
I do not think that the struggle here being squarely faced in “our people are perishing” – can be won at the level of nation or race.
It can, however, be won at the level of the Church. Against the novus ordo, this is what the bishops have said:
Now (our time) is the hour “of the power darkness.” Anti-christ “has been given strength over the continual sacrifice and truth cast down to the ground.” Dan 8:12
“This is the time of the power of darkness, but we must challenge that darkness…In our times to be a true Catholic, three things are required:
devotion to the Holy Eucharist” (now all but extinguished over entire continents)
“devotion to Our Lady” (whose Immaculate Heart will triumph over this time – to the glory of Christ the King. This is the promise to the Woman who will crush the Serpent’s head)
“devotion to the Holy Father” (the Petrine Office as The Rock – now in exile from Rome and underground as in the first 300 years of the Church)
“Jesus will restore his Church, but we must fight – fight with courage!”
Fr Peter Khoat van Tran. The Easter Sermon (for the missionary province of North America) April 2007.
The Church can only be built from the top down. The foundation stones of Apostles and Prophets aligned to Christ the Chief cornerstone with the Rock upon Him were laid on the earth, but they are empowered in Heaven so that peoples, nations, races could be built up on them – each in his own order. The white nations of Europe conformed to that structure at the order of race. Even so, this can not be just a people’s movement or sovereignty attempting to unify and organize from the bottom up. The organization is given from Heaven.
I know it is very difficult for those who see the dire straights of the white race (as a race) to think in other terms. But I would submit to you for your prayerful reflection that Omnia Instaurare in Christo is the cause and it is both the higher and the inclusive term. This is definitely a matter of seeking first the Kingdom and all other things being added to us.
Lynda,
I hear what you are saying dear lady, but we don’t hold the holy faith in common without serious differences of opinion. What we do have in common, right here, right now, is our blood. Let us all hope that is enough to unite us.
Lynda,
Just wondering about the “fayre” thing. Seems like a bit of an affectation. We’re not in the 16th century, so fair or even faire would suffice- everyone will know what you’re talking about.
That aside, I think there are a couple of different issues here. For starters, I reject absolutely the idea that I or any unbeliever bears the burden of disproving the truth-claims of Christianity. Christians bear the burden of proof here, as they are the ones advancing a “novel” (it was once) and extraordinary story about Jew-gods, miracles etc. that they want everyone else to accept, with the additional claim that our very immortal souls are in danger of hellfire if we do not. Because the Bible says so. Or the Bible and Tradition. In essence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, no exceptions. Now, I can and have offered some reasons why I don’t believe in religious hokum, but am I obliged to? A thousand times, no.
As for various theories -such as the pre-carnalized Therapeut/Gnostic’s mythical, pagan Christ later co-opted and historicized by the Church- which try to account for Christianity’s origins apart from the usual Christian claims (though whose should be believe, the Catholics’, Eastern Orth., Baptists’, Presbys’?), these obviously do stand in need of some explication and it’s quite right for anyone, Christian or not, to ask for it, which is why I tried pointing the curious in the right direction with the aforementioned resources, which do a far better job of succinctly developing this line of inquiry than I could. Therefore, I urge anyone who thinks something smells a little fishy (no pun intended) to consult them, though there are others worth reading, too. Mangasarian’s, “The Truth About Jesus” and Massey’s “The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ” come to mind.
“I’ll never understand the big deal about the controversy over the filioque clause, the idea that the Holy Spirit does or does not proceed from the Son.”
Admin, then I respectfully suggest reading some of the Patristic Fathers and learning why this IS still a heresy. Rome can say any damn thing she likes, as the ‘Largest of the [sic] Christian communions’ all she needs to do is wield numerical power. But remember, Orthodoxy is a very close second, and her faith has not been Vatican I or II’ized, so- from a purely temporal POV, she has not had to ‘update the faith.’
(and, as we all know, the essence of heresy is to seek to ‘upate the faith’ to ‘make it meaningful’… lol
I have said it before, but I will say it again. Photius Farrel’s [PhD, Oxon] ‘God, History, and Dialectic’ is THE book to read to learn why the West is NOT the ‘real’ Europe, and why the filioque is the reason for Darwin, Nietzsche, Camus and Satrte.
you want to get out of the mire of heresy? then stop working with the secondary and tertiary forms of it- deconstructionism, post-modernism, sexism, homosexism, feminist, LGBT studies, et al.
Filioquism put MAN in the place of the Holy Spirit, as the MEANS and Mediator of the ‘grace of God’- THAT is the reason it is so heinous an error- by substituting Man (in the place of the Pope, the Church as Institution, or Man qua man- even the modern equivalent- Negro Man as ‘savior’) it was the most subtle of errors, breaking the First and Second commandment, and via it, breaking all the rest.
That is the heritage of Filioquism. And most are too ignorant of it to even understand its basic premises…
Regarding the major Jewish involvement in the American slave trade, you and others who have written on the subject are totally correct about this.
In the early 1800s guess which American city was home to the largest number of Jews in the entire USA? Charleston, South Carolina…which was also a MAJOR slave port, the biggest one in the USA. Once the slave trade was abolished a large number of Jews in Charleston immigrated to other cities.
Also, in Newport, Rhode Island there was also a large Jewish population…it was also the American city that is home to the oldest synagogue building still standing in the United States, the oldest surviving Jewish synagogue building in North America and the only surviving synagogue building in the U.S. dating to the colonial era. Well, Newport also happened to be another major slaving port in the Northeast – the Jew Aaron Lopez was a major slave trader and own around 30 ships by himself.
Jews were also found in rather large numbers in New Orleans, which was of course another major slaving port-city.
If you also look at the history of slavery in the Caribbean and South America you will again find major Jewish involvement there. They set up huge sugar plantations there and brought in untold numbers of slaves from Africa to work them. Some of the oldest synagogues in the entire ‘New World’ were founded on some Caribbean islands and along the South American coast, thus suggesting the Jewish business elite there who imported all of the African slaves to do nearly all of their work for them and make them filthy rich as well.
Jews have their hands all over the trans-Atlantic African slave trade – to deny this is to deny the historical facts.
Dear Randall,
“What we do have in common, right here, right now is our blood. Let us hope that is enough to unite us.”
For the barbarians, I think the blood tie would be enough.
As a Home Schooling Grandmother, I have to advise home schooling parents on a lot of subjects. I do not see anywhere in the history of Europe where the causasians ever united (even in the most dire of straits) on the basis of race. In the east – the wars of the Russias with Khazaria, they were united on the basis of Christian Orthodoxy under the Byzantine and Russian autocracy. In the West, the Europeans united on the basis of De Fide of the Apostolic See of the West (Rome) and the Successor of Peter who anointed Charlemagne as Holy Western Emperor to fight the Reconquista: East and West. Apart from the faith, in history what I see is a race of very warlike nations. My own outfit (the Celts) probably squared off with everyone.
I also see conflicts where those who were united on the basis of true faith (though their numbers be few) won against odds that in the natural order would be impossible to win against. I think the history of Europe bears out this scenario rather than the caucasion racial unity scenario.
Lynda,
We could debate this till the cows come home, but I just have a few observations to leave with you, even while I don’t dispute at all the history you’ve just given. First of all, that was then, this is now. The various caucasian tribes have intermarried to such a degree that we’re pretty much all one tribe now. I realize there are still pockets of pure nordics, celts, anglos, franks, russians, balts here and there; but in my own family I have them all represented, except the eastern and scandinavian tribes. Ooops, scratch that, my son just married a scandinavian girl and I plumb forgot! I am primarily french, german, english, irish & welsh, and I’m sure you’ll agree, most whites are mutts like me.
Another thing I’ve noticed about caucasians today is that we are much less inclined to argue over religion then we were in past centuries. I guess those two factors together is why I’m putting my money on blood ties as the one factor which will ultimately supercede everything and unite are various peoples in a fight for survival. The more white people are marginalized, enslaved, preyed upon, robbed and raped by other races, the more we will seek solace among those who look like us, and think like us, religion be damned. This is not to say the faith isn’t everything to me; it is, and our people need it far more then they now know, but in the short term, I just don’t see our people uniting under one expression of Christ’s church. I wish I did; but I don’t.
Randall,
Amen! Our enemies have raised the Black Flag, shouting No Quarter! White people will receive no quarter.
Right Now, in the Forced Union, children under the age of @ 8-9 years of age are non-White, do the progression. Next year 10, then 11, 12, 13, etc. This does not take into account, 30 – 50 million more non-White Invaders (in a very short time) with Obama’s Shamnesty. We can survive 400 years of slavery, but we can not survive Genocide. We face the end, unless the Living God intercedes for us.
Solo Christus,
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Sorry,
“+50% of” children under the age of @ 8-9 years of age are non-White
Dear Randall and Lee,
In terms of the holy faith, I think we have to look to living truth of which we are but mere keepers and vessels.
I see a deal of argument on this website about propositional Christianity. Personally, I have no idea what this means or can possibly mean. Yes, the statements of the Credo can be stated and argued propositionally – as in the catechism, as in apologetics, in systematic theology. But this is a mere intellectual treatment of the thing itself. Ideas about the faith (even if correct as a mere idea) are not the faith.
The faith is supremely a Subject. Any propositional treatment objectifies (for a purpose) that which can not of itself be objectified. The faith is supremely a Subject because it is the life within us of the Supreme Subject – the eternal Logos.
The holy faith as truth is a living dynamic because of the One who said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” In its essence the faith is more like a hologram than it is like a proposition – for in holography, the whole is beheld in any one of its parts. From the heart are the issues of life and from the hearts sanctified by the Holy Spirit in the Truth, come the ways in which we live and meet the challenges of the issues of life.
This power is growing within us and through us into the New Heaven and New Earth. If we hold to and persevere in the holy faith then we are new creation in Christ and the holy faith is the way we think and feel and imagine and live as individuals, as family, as kindred, as nation, as race in Covenant relationship with Our Lord. This reality proclaims itself in every dimension of life and is the “evidence of things unseen.”
This life generates its own solutions to conflicts and problems within the created orders.
Egalitarianism is a myth. What actually exists is order and hierarchy within order. And within the order of nature, a living soul (an enfleshed God Breathed spirit and enspirited God created soul) is a person. And a person has an individual, sexual, ethnic and racial identity with all its qualities which can either be enobled and (if we are Christian) sanctified or if under the sway of the world, the flesh and Satan – corrupted and degraded.
A saint is more distinguished, more vivid and real in his or her qualities of natural order and grace – not less than someone who is merely an unbeliever.
There is an order of nature; an order of grace and an order of ‘glory’ or theosis. Just as grace perfects nature, so theosis perfects grace.
This is not a proposition. This a spiritual law and if you are based on this through living faith, then lived solutions to individual and collective problems appear.
In the order of nature, the races are not equal in their capabilities; just like in the order of nature the different species of canis are not equal in their capabilities. They might be equal in value before their Creator as creations in their own order, creations of the Divine Logos from nothing. But they were not created equal in capabilities and they were intended as creations to be distinctive in their qualities.
It is true, the anti-Christs have raised the Black Flag against the Caucasian race – which is tragically no longer a race of Christian nations. This flag represents degradation in the natural order, numbers, force and antiChrist laws of oppression for us. Without such laws, numbers and force could not avail. But unless the white race had become corrupt, materialistic and pagan – the assertion of degradation in the natural order could not avail. And with the whites fighting each other, the Black race is asserting itself successfully against the White on the basis of numbers and force.
Yet the Caucasian race, does not meet this conflict from the wellsprings of its true identity in the order of grace. It does not arise to this conflict as the Christ bearing race. And there might not be any solution to this conflict for the whites outside of our identity in the order of grace.
In terms of the order of grace, the white nations are the only nations that as nations converted to the Evangelium. Among the races of mankind, only this white race converted to Christ in its nations, worshipped as a single race in Spirit and in Truth, communed as a single race in the body and blood, soul and Divinity of Our Lord, lived the holy faith and its Covenant at the level of civilization – the Christendom of the Holy Western Empire.
This is not, of course, to say that tribes and kindreds, even nations of non white peoples did not convert and receive the holy gift. But only, in the order of grace, did the white race in its nations convert. Thus, we are and always will be that unique Christ bearing race. And as a race we have fallen from that high station.
Can we arise to meet the current challenge in the mere order of nature? This remains to be seen if you think that hope for the race lies that way.
But now, in the times of the Great Apostacy, the operation of The Lie is so powerful, with all the Christian institutions overthrown and only a remnant of the true Apostolic Succession underground – that for individuals even families to convert to the Evangelium, to hold and persevere in the true faith is such a manifest work of the Holy Spirit, it would seem to me that in the new creation coming out of the Great Apostacy, another order entirely has appeared.
The prophet Daniel puts it like this: In that time of trouble that never was since ever there was a nation “those who know their God will shine like the stars of heaven forever.” Dan 12:3.
I think it is precisely this blessed few who are going to turn this thing around for everyone. Very few Christians of every nation will do this and the white Christians who are among them will carry the unique Christ bearing standard of their nation and race into this conflict. Sadly, their kindred will not be with them.