Sunday Morning Coming Down
June 8, 2009 
58 Comments
We’re ecstatic to hear that George Tiller is finally in hell. Far be it from us to condemn the actions of his killer, or vigilantism in general. Never was a single bullet more appropriately used. All the decades of Christian protests and trust in lying politicians are as nothing compared to its effectiveness. And in case they’re too dense to figure it out on their own, let this be a clear message to wayward young obstetricians: Turn back! This way lies death.
Still, only five baby murderers in 36 years have been dispatched to their final reward, which shows remarkable restraint compared to their 49 million victims. Whites have had to endure many more murders per minute than abortionists have endured in 36 years, but we don’t get any special laws designed to ensure our survival. In fact, we’re called names and fired from our jobs for even raising the point. When there are spontaneous outbursts of violence from white activists, they are every bit as rare as the violence of anti-abortion activists, and denounced just as vociferously as “hate” by the Jewsmedia. But the cherished practice of baby murder is protected with many special laws, such as FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances). These women wanted freedom of access to their own homes, and the police and politicians could not have cared less.
It apparently doesn’t take much to be a vigilante. According to this kook, calling baby killers baby killers is “incitement to murder and terrorism.” Lest you think this is a fringe idea, remember that Europe has a multitude of laws designed to prosecute free speech as incitement. So we could say that we have no desire to be vigilantes ourselves, which is true, but we know it will not avail us. The Department of Homeland Security has already identified anti-abortionists, along with anti-immigrationists, as terror suspects.
Yes, Tiller belonged to a church; most abortionists are members of synagogues. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America gives us this Bible lesson, found on their official website: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” Nothing is said about the duty of the parents or the church, because all references to duty and obedience have been excised from the Bible; there is only the right that the libertine fetus is unable to claim for himself. Who wants to bet that Tiller’s Lutheran church would never allow vocal “racists” to be members? Come on, place your bets. After all, in the mind of the liberal, determining what constitutes “racism” is much easier than determining the point at which life begins.
Here’s one of Tiller’s little victims. Since Tiller pretended to be a Christian, the God-damned bastard soothed the guilt of parents by conducting memorial services over the corpses. This little girl was given a rose, a teddy bear, and a picture of Jesus to accompany her to the Lutheran incinerator. Sorry, little girl. If only you hadn’t been born with cystic fibrosis the Lutherans would have allowed you to live. If only your head had emerged before having your brain jabbed with scissors, you could have made a sound of some kind, and we could have interpreted it as your claim for an absolute right to live. But it was all very quiet. Therefore you had no rights. Even animals have “rights” in this perverted world, but not little children.
At Tiller’s funeral, his wife and co-conspirator of 40 years stood to sing the Lord’s Prayer, which would be hard to top on the scale of blasphemy. And the next day, at exactly one week after the shooting, the members of his Lutheran church prayed: “Oh God, we are consumed by grief for what we have witnessed in our community. Come to our aid, walk with us, hold us, strengthen us and give us courage for the days ahead.” But God was reloading.
Our old friend Doug Wilson, who ran all the way to White-aho to escape the nation’s greatest strength, compares Paul Hill to John Brown, the abolitionist murderer. I wish he had expanded upon this idea, because it’s rather clever, and rather wrong. He is suggesting that both men took it upon themselves to defend those whom they perceived to be innocent and dispensed justice when no one else would. But here’s the little difference, which Wilson himself recognizes: murder is sinful, slavery is not. So right out of the gate we’re confused. Wilson then writes: “One of the reasons we published the Southern Slavery booklet back then was because we were trying to counter the idea that abolitionist violence is something God approves.” This was the book in which he contradicted himself left and right, calling slavery benign, beneficial, or evil, depending on his daily vapors. We are agreed that John Brown and the Secret Six who funded him deserved to be hanged. But it remains to be shown that “violence” in the service of “abolishing” crime meets with God’s disapproval (see the first comment on that page). If a thief breaks a window in my friend’s house where I am spending the night, crawls through it, and then has a sudden drop in blood pressure resulting from a bullet in his head, it means that I have committed violence for the purpose of abolishing both crime and the criminal. Surely we agree that this is a necessity, because the fabled justice system is truant. And one can argue that the difference is in premeditation. But if the government decrees that breaking and entering is legal, and I still fail to do my duty, anarchy reigns. This is the point of vigilantism; it is justice in a vacuum. Such was the case during the post-war period called Destruction (popularly known as Reconstruction), when only vigilantes stood between Negro predators and the ladies of the South. God bless our gray ghosts for it.
The problem here, in a nutshell, is the popular and fallacious misinterpretation of Romans 13. Christ-deniers have no right to define that which is “lawful.” They can (and do) claim such a right, but it derives from no authority other than their vain imagination. God has most certainly not instituted illegitimate government, or whatever government happens to exist, any more than he instituted the governments of Sodom and Gomorrah. There are times when we must labor under such, as in Babylon and now, but we pray for deliverance, not an opportunity to legitimize the false government. Those in the latter category are just like Wilson, who think that voting for (i.e., approbating) reprobates in the hope that an accidental and temporary reprieve of bloodlust will result is so far beyond insanity that one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry.
We wish it were not the case, but bullets have always been the most effective agents of change, and this will never change. Another thing that will never change is the spectacle of pastors who denounce violence in thundering oratory until a quorum for violence is reached, and it is resolved that we have exhausted our constitutional right for legal redress of grievances, and there is no alternative but to revolt. There is no question that the latter is more expedient, but it doesn’t change the fact that in this case democracy, not law, is the determining factor. If it all ends in victory, the controversy is conveniently forgotten.
It reminds us of this sign:
“Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.” ~ Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come
Of course, if Tiller had secretly been a Nazi and aborted only Jew babies in his clinic, there would be no such equivocation. He would have been shut down instantly, arrested, and excommunicated from his church. If a Christian sniper had then intercepted Tiller as he walked with arms and legs bound in chains, the shooter would have been decorated with medals of valor and canonized as a saint. Predictably, one of the commenters at Doug Wilson’s Blog of Perpetual Pettifoggery proves our Nazi theory:
Also if one were a resistance sniper on the roofs of Warsaw in 1939, one would be justified in taking out an SS trooper about to murder a Jewish child. No law instituted by a properly constituted gov’t to break, there.
It’s so predictable that it’s scary.
Speaking of ministerial pettifoggery, get a load of Mark Horne’s statement that Tiller’s murder was nothing more than vengeance because it won’t stop abortions. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m going to predict that Tiller’s abortive activities will be severely curtailed. In fact, it is doubtful that his slaughterhouse will ever reopen.
Besides, vengeance would not involve a bullet; vengeance would involve an awl to the base of the skull and a wet/dry vac. These gabby poltroons should get real jobs. They can start by waking us as soon as the “pro-life” movement actually does anything useful.
“When will we take abortion doctor killings out of the back alley and ensure a safe, orderly environment in those cases where such a tragic choice may be felt to be necessary?”
Except for the title, this Ann Coulter article is excellent. She makes the point that every other constitutional right is celebrated openly. Protests and demonstrations and church services celebrate the first, hunters celebrate the second, etc. But the purported “constitutional” right to dismember unborn children is kept very quiet. “[T]hey won’t even call abortion by its name, preferring to use a string of constantly changing euphemisms, such as ‘reproductive health’ and ‘choice.’ It would be as if gun owners refused to use the word ‘gun’ and the NRA‘s motto were, ‘Let’s all work together to keep hunting safe, legal and rare’… How about having the president throw out the ceremonial first fetus, like on opening day in baseball?” A week before Tiller was assassinated, Coulter suggested that Notre Dame could have asked him to demonstrate his technique on stage at the next graduation. After all, this “Christian” university has no qualms about inviting baby-killer Obama to speechify in his authoritative baritone.
We’re very pleased to see the Christian and Newsom families pressing for execution in Knoxville. We had low expectations from the beginning, when police and attorneys lied to the public about the crimes. Hugh Newsom’s resolve was only fortified when he visited the prison where each defendant would allegedly spend 23 hours a day in a tiny cell, and discovered that the prison’s golf gourse is only slightly less manicured than Augusta National. That’s almost a direct quote. Now everyone is trying to dissuade him from having these animals killed. “The warden told me to my face that the death penalty was a lifetime commitment,” he said. Read the article and see how allergic “law enforcement” has become to justice. Justice cries out by the gates (Proverbs 8:3). The parents of these victims have had their lives destroyed. They should not have to engage in this full-time job. It’s easy to understand why so many others are accepting of plea bargains. On top of everything else, they must tolerate the media’s questions about racial unfairness and the defense’s petition for racial clemency. Lemaricus Davidson’s attorney has even filed a motion to dismiss the death penalty based on racial disproportionalilty! Mr. Newsom remains resolute. “We’re persecuting somebody that raped, tortured and murdered two innocent kids. I could care less what color they are.” You see, there are Jews infesting the legal profession who make it necessary for a man in his position to prove that he is not a racist. The underlying message is that “racists” are not worthy of justice.
Back when there were more Christians around, capital offenses were always met with capital punishment. In 1915, when a judge failed to execute Jew Leo Frank for raping and killing little Mary Phagan, vigilantes took him to Marietta, Georgia, and hanged him themselves. Jews formed the ADL to prevent anything like it from happening again. And now we live in a world where appropriate punishment for murder is a surprise.
This just in: Native U.S. white supremacist militia anthrax hate-bombers attack the entire galaxy! Film at 11.
Guns in bars and at church. Just two reasons why we love white people.
The prerequisites for nationhood, according to Zionist Fritz Kahn, are “consanguinity of the flesh and solidarity of the soul” together with the “will to establish a closer brotherhood over [and] against all other communities on earth.”
The great Charles Lindbergh, who was at one time, like Jesse James, an American who was the most popular man in the world, called aviation “a tool specially shaped for Western hands, a scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion, another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the Grecian inheritance of Europe–one of those priceless possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a pressing sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown.” But great intellect and accomplishment can also be our undoing.
Since aviation is dependent on the intricate organization of life and industry, it carries with it the environmental danger of a people too far separated from the soil and from the sea—the danger of that physical decline which so often goes with a high intellectual development, of that spiritual decline which seems invariably to accompany an industrial life, of that racial decline which follows physical and spiritual mediocrity.
A great industrial nation may conquer the world in the span of a single life, but its Achilles’ heel is time. Its children, what of them? The second and third generations, of what numbers and stuff will they be? How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life. This is our modern danger—one of the waxen wings of flight. It may cause our civilization to fall unless we act quickly to counteract it, unless we realize that human character is more important than efficiency, that education consists of more than the mere accumulation of knowledge.
He knew, before it even began, that WWII would be “a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all.”
It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.
Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races…
With all the world around our borders, let us not commit racial suicide by internal conflict. We must learn from Athens and Sparta, before all of Greece is lost.
IQ is a very real thing, and we can accurately measure it, but in the final analysis it is like judging national dominance based on military spending or number of factories. It doesn’t begin to account for the “intangible qualities of character, such as courage, faith, and skill, [which] evade all systems, slip through the bars of every cage. They can be recognized, but not measured. They lie more in a glance between two men than in any formula or mathematics. They form the unseen strength of an army, the genius of a people.” And on these intangible points, we find that the gap between some races widens to a chasm. They are what led Lindbergh to believe that only the white race could have invented aviation. Who else would have the courage and vision to try?
And who would believe today that such stirring words could have been printed in Reader’s Digest only 70 years ago?
Jimmy Webb’s song The Highwayman, made famous by these men, is about the restless white spirit of adventure, the same Spirit of St. Louis that spanned an ocean.
I was a highwayman
Along the coach roads I did ride
With sword and pistol by my side
Many a young maid lost her baubles to my trade
Many a soldier shed his life blood on my blade
The bastards hung me in the spring of ’25
But I am still aliveI was a sailor
I was born upon the tide
And with the sea I did abide
I sailed a schooner ’round the horn of Mexico
I went aloft to furl the mainsail in a blow
And when the yards broke off they said that I got killed
But I am living stillI was a dam builder
Across a river deep and wide
Where steel and water did collide
A place called Boulder on the wild Colorado
I slipped and fell into the wet concrete below
They buried me in that great tomb that knows no sound
But I am still aroundSeems like it all goes ’round and around
and around and around…I’ll fly a starship
Across the universe divide
And when I reach the other side
I’ll find a place to rest my spirit if I can
Perhaps I may become a highwayman again
Or I may simply be a single drop of rain
But I will remainAnd I’ll be back again
and again, and again, and again.
I’m reminded of this verse written by just such a man, warrior-poet George S. Patton:
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age-long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.
Our generation is expected to exit the stage of history with a whimper, and there is widespread hope that our children’s generation will be the very end of the white race. But we will not go gentle.
“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” ~ Revelation 20:9
It’s sad but true. When God delivers our people from impending death by the power of His mighty hand, atheists will still curse His name. Nevertheless, they will witness a miracle with their own eyes.
Oh, to have Rudyard Kipling with us today. His favorite symbol was the swastika, and his wonderful poetry was the bane of the Jew.
Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee
Our love and toil in the years to be;
When we are grown and take our place,
As men and women with our race.Father in Heaven who lovest all,
Oh help Thy children when they call;
That they may build from age to age,
An undefiled heritage.
He heralded a more hopeful day.
Now, this is the cup the White Men drink
When they go to right a wrong,
And that is the cup of the old world’s hate—
Cruel and strained and strong.We have drunk that cup—and a bitter, bitter cup
And tossed the dregs away.
But well for the world when the White Men drink
To the dawn of the White Man’s day!
He compared the bond of race to holy communion.
This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
We shall not see his like again. Or shall we?
Calling the clans with the Fiery Cross:
For the average family, one in every six dollars of income is transferred from government. “The safety net is working,” advocates say. Whatever you do, don’t call it socialism.
The Obama/Sotomayor interpretation of American history.
Like Michelle Obama, Sotomayor has wanted “to enjoy the advantages of affirmative action—while being peeved that anyone might notice that she was enjoying them.”
“Studying Filipino-Americans would be particularly useful because they show the paradoxical benefit of not being constantly targeted by diversity outreach. Nobody much cares that Filipinos are more likely to become nurses than, say, lawyers, but African-Americans are constantly lured in over their heads by affirmative action.”
The black Dallas school superintendent makes $300,000 a year, and his son was just allowed to cut to the head of the line at Harvard under a program for disadvantaged minority students, funded by your tax dollars, naturally. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Presidential material!
God bless Latvia. Blonde women marching in a parade? God bless them, I tell you. I’ve never seen anything so racist!
Horrifying stories of sex slavery (“racial grooming”) in once-white, once-Christian England. The police are doing nothing about it, the parties (except for the BNP) are doing nothing about it, and if you do nothing about it and continue to call yourself a Christian, you’re a liar. Christians love their brothers and sisters. They don’t run and hide when beasts break in to steal their women.
This is funny. Nick Griffin wins one for the race, and the lapdogs turn their backs on him and walk out of the room when he takes the podium. One Labor leader said: “I think it is horrific that we have representing Britain in the European Parliament people who think that black people and people of Asian origin have no place in this country.” As Griffin said in his press conference, he’s going to turn his researchers loose in Brussels, and I do believe some politicians will be in jail before he’s finished uncovering the corruption. Listen to this interviewer try his best to put Griffin on the defensive, and he can’t gain an inch. I love it when Griffin is asked if he is obsessed with the BBC. He says no, “It’s just that whenever I’m interviewed by the BBC, I’m asked the same damn fool questions.”
Speaking of the BBC, they have finally gotten around, 65 years after D-Day, to letting us know that black soldiers went on a raping and looting spree across France. But the important thing is that the hateful, racist military was finally racially integrated. “Of 29 soldiers executed for rape by the US military authorities, 25 were black… In Italy several black GIs were also executed for rape and murder. One rapist was the father of Emmett Till. He raped multiple Italian women and murdered one of them.”
You’ll hear it said again and again in these BNP interviews that the party only won seats because the Labor vote collapsed. But they don’t tell you anything about how the BNP has to scrape for every vote they get. There was more anti-BNP literature distributed in this campaign than for any other party. As every billionaire in this country knows, money gets out the vote, or suppresses it, as the case may be.
Leaning to the left like a Republican.
Do you see anything about white “issues and interests” on this form?
Happy Terrorist Fist Jab Anniversary Day!
Torture has been in the news for a very long time. Here is a nursery rhyme about Bloody Mary that you’ll recognize.
Mary Mary quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockle shells
And pretty maids all in a row.
The “garden” is a burgeoning cemetery being filled with Protestants, silver bells are cathedral bells, cockle shells are symbols of pilgrimage, and the pretty maids are nuns. According to an alternate interpretation, the silver bells are thumbscrews, the cockle shells are attached to genitals, and the pretty maids are iron maidens—all instruments of torture.
Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife.
Did you ever see such a sight in your life
As three blind mice?
Bloody Mary is the farmer’s wife. She burned bishops Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer at the stake, along with nearly 300 others.
Wesley Pruden, who fired the great Sam Francis, sounds a lot like Francis now when he writes that Obamination “is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA… Kenya simply routed Kansas.” Being fired by this blackguard and Jew-tool left our friend Sam with little money for retirement, forced him to work long hours, and probably drove him to an early grave. Sam’s heinous sin was merely talking and thinking about race and genetics, just as Pruden is doing now.
As Sam Francis said, when whites have ceased to exist subjectively, they will cease to exist objectively. This article makes the very interesting point that the very same government which now enforces “hate speech” laws once gave its tacit blessing to “communal vigilantes” who performed the very same function. Now it has simply been transferred to the the public sector. So we see that just as Christians feel the need to become vigilantes in a vacuum of justice, anti-Christians will do the same thing when the tables are turned.
A notable feature of white racial consciousness is the absence of vertical cultural transmission—which is to say, transmission from one generation to the next, whether intra-family, via the educational system, or by means of a dedicated organizational nexus. Vertical transmission has been impossible for a long time. It is rare indeed that anyone obtains pro-white ideas from his family, and never through the educational system, church, or community. More often than not the conscious man’s views are completely at odds with those even of close family members, including parents and children—never mind more distant kin.
Contrast this with vertical transmission within the Jewish community, which is alive and well. Of course, that community is not targeted for eradication, making all the difference.
Horizontal transmission is just as impossible as vertical transmission. The mass media promote only anti-white messages. Whites cannot obtain positive racial images from the media or other contemporary institutions. Such entities are instead the fount of white self-hatred and of the hatred of other groups for whites. We are the only race for which this is true. The racial consciousness of Blacks, Amerindians, mestizos, Jews, Asians, and others is not only transmitted and fostered, but conspicuously glorified by the media, churches, big business, and other influential institutions.
If we no longer exist consciously as a race, do we still exist? Our enemies believe so, at least as a remnant, and we are now like a city under siege, because there is no immediate need to finish us off. It is much easier to slowly starve us. Our enemies tantalize their countrymen with warnings of a “white backlash,” but only to keep their senses alert, knowing that it will never materialize.
What did not occur in a whiter, freer era is not going to happen in a racist, totalitarian environment in which whites comprise a bare majority of the population, are rapidly dwindling in numbers and social and economic influence, and are discriminated against at every turn.
The enemy does not believe that we will ride, like Theoden at Helm’s Deep, into the jaws of encircling armies. But destruction will come upon them in an instant.
The financial crisis of 2008 is instructive in this regard. The terrible suddenness and violence with which it drove the world instantly to the brink of total financial collapse revealed a deeply vulnerable system. Had events proceeded, tens of millions of people would have discovered their savings had vanished–FDIC-insured bank accounts, checking accounts, money market funds. Stocks and mutual funds, too, would have imploded. Bankruptcy of firms would have created massive unemployment. Few to this day comprehend the seriousness of what transpired…
But it would be foolish to assume that such an event would automatically redound to the benefit of the white race, or put paid to the totalitarian elite. During the last major crisis, the Great Depression, Jews leveraged already formidable power to achieve racial dominance. Although pro-white movements briefly grew in size and influence [such as the America First of Lindbergh, Disney, et al.], they were quickly crushed everywhere, internally as well as externally. It was Communism that emerged victorious over half the European world while extending its tentacles into the upper echelons of government and academia in the remainder. Communism “collapsed” when Jewish enthusiasm for it waned. Its Orwellian essence did not disappear, however, but became universal.
The incredibly ugly monument to Communism left behind in the former Yugoslavia:
Since at least the 1920s, Jews have made sure that we are unable to form an effective counterculture. The very thought of it has been stigmatized as evil and Hitlerian. “Law, human rights, freedom of speech and association, the Genocide Convention—everything goes out the window when it comes to accomplishing this one essential task.”
Libertarian Justin Raimondo launches into Jared Taylor in this article, saying that white nationalism is just a cover for opposition to miscegenation. But why would anyone cover one thing with another that is not less controversial? Raimondo is gleeful that a time limit has been imposed on the goals of the white nationalists.
The real solution may have to wait another generation or two after which, if some who call themselves conservatives have their way, there will have been so much miscegenation there will be no more white people left to worry about.
This is genocide, of course, and I suppose libertarians justify being gleeful about the demise of an entire race as long as they are still personally “free.” This brilliant riposte was found at Majority Rights:
If Raimondo wanted a reason for white ethnic nationalists’ objection to miscegenation, he could’ve just asked: we like being white, and want white children; we like western civilization, and only whites have proven capable of creating it; we admire Jews, and want to emulate them. One wonders if Raimondo would get the connection if we changed names to protect the guilty; if for example we wondered aloud what promoting sterilization of all blacks could possibly have to do with discrimination against blacks, or black interests.
I need to remember that one.
As a libertarian, much of Raimondo’s opposition stems from the “statist implications” of white nationalism, which he argues are anything but conservative.
Taylor’s is the legacy of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, the Count de Gobineau, and that failed portrait painter from Vienna [Hitler]: ours is the legacy of Christianity, which recognized the centrality of the individual soul, and rejects collectivism, including racial collectivism, as inimical to freedom, reason, and just relations among men.
I don’t know where Raimondo finds in the Bible that Christianity is based on “the centrality of the individual soul.” Is that the Ayn Rand version of Scripture? But seriously, many Christians would agree with him that faith is inimical to wielding the power of the state to protect said faith, and by consequence the actual people in covenant with Christ. We’ve gone over this many times before. It’s neither an accurate depiction of Scripture nor of Christian history. It is always worthwhile to compare matters of race to the family. No father allows his children to fend for themselves or to believe that one person’s duties do not coincide with those of the others. Family government protects both the group and the individuals who comprise it. Everyone understands this, and no one bellyaches about “familist implications.” But Raimondo calls the extrapolation of patriarchy unreasonable and unjust.
He writes: “Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of ‘racial solidarity’ represents the most complete and abject surrender to multiculturalism.” This echoes David Horowitz’s belief that Taylor is imitating the left by presenting whites as a victimized minority. But imagine that Neighbor A and Neighbor B each have children. Neighbor A convinces the authorities to outlaw inheritance per family. Every man’s estate is to be confiscated by the Ministry of Love and distributed equally to citizens. Neighbor B protests this as theft, but Neighbor A rebukes him for presenting his children as a victimized minority. I think you get the picture. According to Raimondo, it is hypocritical for Neighbor B to pursue his own self-interest at the expense of Neighbor A. After all, the cooked books show a deficit for A if B gets his way. B is accused of stealing from A because the very definition of theft has been turned on its head.
Taylor’s response to Raimondo proves why he is one of the sparkling jewels in our patria’s crown. The article needs to be read in full, but let us pause to savor the near-poetry of the first two paragraphs.
Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.
Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”
Perhaps we should take for ourselves the name Normalists.
“Not knowing the history of the civilization of which they are a part, today’s students are like amnesiacs, cut off from the past that makes them who they are. Or again, they have become like the anti-heroes of absurdist fiction (Kafka, Céline): trapped in a world they cannot understand, bit players in a drama whose basic themes remain a mystery to them. ‘The only reason we are still alive,’ said German philosopher Gerhard Krüger with only slight exaggeration, ‘is our inconsistency in not having actually silenced all tradition.’”
A bimbo speaks out against “white-trash” Middle America.
Oh yeah, you know that Tiananmen Square massacre in China? I still clearly remember watching it 20 years ago. We were told that students were rebelling against Communists and wanted democracy and were waving American flags, and even statues of liberty. But we weren’t told of how it began. It was started—and here comes a shock to your delicate systems—by violent attacks by African students at a Hehai University Christmas party. I know, you’re like me, and you’re probably thinking, “Africans committed violence? They weren’t in the library balancing equations and conjugating verbs?” True real! Three thousand joined the protest, which expanded to include other grievances, and it only ended when 241 people died (officially). “Unofficially the number could be several thousand.” I wonder why China and Japan don’t want to share our buh-boolies with us. They’re excellent tapdancers, and they’ve made Baltimore #1. It’s not easy to beat out every other city in the country in a competition like this. It’s kind of like the Negro National Spelling Bee.
Star Trek has never been anything more than visual pulp. The only reason to notice the series is that it has the dishonor of showing the small screen’s first interracial kiss, between Kirk and Uhuru; but Kirk was under some kind of alien, demonic possession at the time, so it was understandable. (In the 30 years that followed, it “seemed easier to sell images of black men as wise mentors, crime fighters, scientific geniuses, US Presidents, and God, than black women as attractive sexual partners for normal, non-defective white men.”) The latest installment, as usual, sends two very contradictory messages: that both “diversity” and miscegenation are normal. “All of the sexual/romantic relationships depicted in the film are interracial except for one (Kirk’s father and mother).” As Spock would say, this is very illogical. There is no way for both messages to be true for long, even in real life. In a world in which preachers have united with Marxists to erase borders, and “where any social controls against exogamy are considered morally wrong,” everyone would be Brazilian; coffee-colored. In the Star Trek series, after ten generations of sinful mixture there would be no “diversity.” Yet even the liberals who watch such dreck could not imagine this to be a pleasing state of affairs, and so the hero has to be a chiseled white young man from rural Iowa. (Even Superman, from another world, had to grow up in rural Kansas to be believable as an exemplar of virtue.) So liberals can allow themselves to be absorbed in the interracial fantasy as long as they don’t have to think about the ugly children that Kirk and Spock would spawn if left to their devices.
The people who create these movies—the directors, the writers, the producers, the casting directors—are not artists. They are abortionists. They are aborting the whole future of the white race. And they are not doing it by accident. We know this, because so many of them are Jews, who are constantly reminded from birth that marrying out leads to extinction for them, and they know that goes for us too.
“Everyone thinks that whites who date outside their race are somehow defective. If you don’t look defective, then people will just assume that you have some hidden physical, ahem, shortcoming, or a psychological problem. If you don’t want people thinking you are somehow defective, then don’t date a non-white.”
Multiracial people are the fastest growing group in the country. “Interracial marriages increased threefold to 4.3 million since 2000, when Alabama became the last state to lift its unenforceable ban on interracial marriages.” But what the article doesn’t say is most interesting: According to the census bureau, in 2007 4.6% of married blacks had a white spouse; less than 1% of married whites were married to a black.
On the subject of miscegenation, we reserve all of our scorn for whites. It’s easy to understand why black women want to marry up. Look at the crap they (and we, by consequence) are used to dealing with. We call it hateful and evil to deal with this for another day.
Well, we take back every compliment we ever paid to Rev. James Manning. Most of them, anyway.
We knew it was too good to be true. Thus the search for an honorable black man continues. When Cameron was in Egypt’s land, let my Cameron go! Why is James Edwards always right? I hate that guy.
Its refreshing to hear reason on the topic of Roeder-Tiller (there’s a joke in there somewhere, I’m sure of it).
All those ministers who extol Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his attempted assassination of Hitler denounce Roeder for doing the same thing for the same reasons.
In the case of Bonhoeffer, they parrot the Nuremberg tribunal, saying in effect, that the law of a land is no excuse for the allowance of murder. But in the case of Roeder, they hypocritically take the Pietist interpretation of Romans 13, saying that we must be subject to the governing authorities.
That is to say that when the lives of Jews are perceived at risk, they deny positivist law but when we speak of American children the same ministers claim no king but Caesar. Clearly, they think Jews purportedly murdered 60+ years ago in Europe are more important than Babies being murdered in America today.
Moreover, its clear that no one REALLY believes this notion of taking Romans 13 in a purely prescriptive manner. No one is willing to be consistent with that interpretation.
Just ask: In the case that the govt. comes to liquidate your children in the name of population control, will you simply pray about it, saying, “its out of my hands, I must be subject to the governing authorities”? No. Everyone knows better.
Ultimately, everyone knows Romans 13 is more DEscriptive than PREscriptive. Otherwise we make nonsense out of all Christian morality. Caesar is not the arbiter of Christian ethics.
Wow, that’s a great comment. I’m in total agreement with every word. Truly excellent.
This is sort of off-topic. But since you brought up Tiananmen Square. . .
When I was in China last year, I planned a weekend trip to Beijing to visit Tiananmen Square and the Great Wall. I decided to do some research in preparation for the trip. Since I especially wanted to stand precisely where that young man stood in front of that column of tanks, I needed a picture of the area. I googled “Tiananmen Square protests”, and as soon as I hit enter, my browser shut down. It came back up a couple of hours later. So I googled “Tiananmen Square massacre” and hit enter. Boom! Browser shut down! Turns out that any reference to that event will immediately shut down whatever browser you’re using. Oh, and remember that Bird Flu epidemic in China about a year and a half ago? Don’t google that, either. And if you ask the locals about it, they’ll tell you they never heard of such a thing. A couple of people there thought I was joking when I told them about that. Not long thereafter I was hit by a minivan while I was walking to a store.
“Change must come, from the barrel of a gun”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpGgLyfDERI
Another excellent one, admin.
Amen, Ehud! So true, even a joodeo-con should be able to understand what you wrote.
I aint kneeling before their ditch.
Don’t be too hard on Pastor Manning. I saw that clip months ago, and I understood it to be “tongue in cheek”.
If you had his parish to serve, how would you convince men & women to follow Gods law for marriage?
I think that his urging of Black Women to find White Men to marry, is like encouraging the lazy man to get busy, or calling on the drunkard to get sober.
IMHO Pastor Manning meets his people where they are, and calls them to follow Jesus. Sometimes that means encouraging them to take “baby steps”.
Ehud- ABSOLUTELY STELLAR.
SWB folk- thought you’d like to do an issue on the fact that ‘choice’ is DENIED those, who want to choose NOT to be ‘gay’
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/resources_and_tools/ChallengingExGay.pdf
What are they afraid of- the Truth? Or a lack of bed partners? (ewww)
Ha! Just as we predicted, Tiller’s slaughterhouse is now closed permanently.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98NBOHG0&show_article=1
So now it’s indisputable, whether we condone the means or not, that Roeder’s “call to worship” was more effective than decades of protests in front of the “clinic.” Troy Newman, who took over Operation Rescue from Randall Terry, knows that everyone is thinking this, and so he is now saying that he was “just two months away from getting Tiller’s medical license revoked, and that would have accomplished the same goal.” Yeah, sure.
Warren Hern, who is one of the only other “doctors” in the country performing late-term abortions, asks these very lucid questions: “How much can you resist this kind of violence? What doctor, what reasonable doctor would work there? Where does it stop?”
This Saxon has deep roots from inside Germania.This Saxon is ready to fight.My children are Beautiful,Smart Pro-White Gentiles.They have no love of jews or negroes.I want them to have a place.When will White people began to gather and fight back?
THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
“This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of
strength descends upon those in its service.” – Francis Parker Yockey,
IMPERIUM
Shazam, Batgirl. You think?
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2508616.0.feminist_pioneers_rethink_a_womans_place_is_in_the_home.php
I’m terribly sorry to inject an off-topic comment, but could you confirm or deny the claims that James Von Brunn was a PT-boat captain in the USA military? Some people are reporting it as fact, others are saying that it is just a “claim.”
http://www.military.com/news/article/retired-navy-captain-attacks-holocaust-museum.html
seems to be reporting that von Brunn truly was ex-military.
“He was commissioned as a naval officer decades ago, and discharged from the Navy in 1956. ”
This is *very* interesting news. On the one hand the USA extols its “greatest generation,” and on the other hand it targets its returning heroes as potentially violent dissidents.
In my humble opinion, this incident might be spun in different directions by different factions. Von Brunn’s admirers can simply echo von Brunn’s words; the USA government can echo that its vets are dangerous (and thereby weaken itself); but the active-duty USA military grunts are in a difficult position.
“Far be it from us to condemn . . . vigilantism . . . we could say that we have no desire to be vigilantes ourselves, which is true . . . “
I’m scratching my head here. If the way Roeder killed Tiller is biblically defensible, are we not bound to go even further and say that it was biblically mandated? If that’s the case, then having no desire to be a vigilante would seem to be a problem.
” the fabled justice system is truant . . . This is the point of vigilantism; it is justice in a vacuum . . . only vigilantes stood between Negro predators and the ladies of the South . . . “
I’m going to have to confess that I don’t know much about the details of what went on during the post-war “Destruction” period. However, we need to draw some distinctions with regard to today. There is not a vacuum in America today so much as a situation in which the government is tending to actively encourage evil and persecute what is good. There may be better analogies from church history but I’m going to suggest this situation is similar to the persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire. Do we have any records of Christians resisting their oppressors by force and killing them?
“. . . murder is sinful, slavery is not.”
I have never been able to get my head around the idea that slavery as it was practiced before Lincoln “demancipated” the South was concomitant with the teachings of the Bible. Are you saying that perpetual chattel slavery of believers (who have committed no crime) is not sinful? What about the six-year limit? Likewise, I’m having difficulty reconciling the fact that the Bible says a fugitive (believing, non-criminal) slave is not to be returned to his master, or that he is to go free on account of a knocked-out tooth. Now, it is true that the Bible calls these slaves who are to be freed “Hebrew brothers,” while I’m applying those concepts more broadly, to include all believers. However, I think it is hermeneutically legitimate for us to see these passages as making a distinction between believer and unbeliever, and apply them accordingly. (cf. John 8:31-36) There were white slaves in America before there were black, and I think the issue of slavery’s morality can be discussed quite apart from race. Whether Scots or Irish or Negro, if the slave was a believer there should have been restrictions in place such as the six-year limit on service, freedom for the slave to flee, and freedom as compensation for bodily injuries resulting from physical abuse. I have not read Rev. Wilson’s book on the subject but I’m pretty sure his take is similar to mine. Is this in error?
Speaking of boats, here’s a cruise that made me laugh till I cried!
http://www.zasucks.com/?p=3533
Here’s a link which documents the photo option provided by Tiller as an abortion-delux package. People would actually pose for photos with their dead babies after murdering them (warning: not for the feint at heart).
http://kgov.com/gallery/abortion/wichita-memorial/memorial.html
And here’s Neal Horsley’s tribute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0GsWq2t0U
Yes, we linked to that memorial page above.
Good questions, Chris. Defense of one’s country is also a necessity, but typically soldiers do the job. In the South during Lincoln’s War, even some women took up arms. I suspect that anyone who kills a murderer is going to have nothing to lose, because he knows he’ll end up like Paul Hill. But I know that even such a man as this does not DESIRE to be a vigilante. No one desires a vacuum of justice. Comparing it to defense of country is actually fairly accurate. Even those who strongly oppose abortion recognize that there is nothing to be done if death-lovers kill themselves and their own. Even the military is useless to prevent such a thing. But as the death strikes closer to home, more people react. To take the most extreme example, abortionists are protected by law in many states when they kill a man’s grandchildren (assuming he has a rebellious daughter). Well, we beg to differ. Any man who loses a grandchild to a murderer in a white coat should see to it that justice is served. It’s preferable for justice to be served by the state, but it must be served regardless. And of course, the reason a man has no legal power over the life of his grandchild is that no man has a legal right over whether his own children live or die. All power over the family has been stripped from men.
“There is not a vacuum in America today so much as a situation in which the government is tending to actively encourage evil and persecute what is good.”
That sounds like a distinction without a difference.
I don’t know of any Christians who killed Romans, but I’m sure they resisted as much as they could while being marched to the coliseum. And I know that European history is one long story of resisting oppressors by force and killing them. There would be no American history unless this were true. And this is what we’re saying about the future of our race. We can either resist genocide with deadly force or we can lie down like pacifists and let them finish us off. Sir Walter Scott wrote these lines about the latter sort:
Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
“This is my own, my native land!”
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.
We’ll all die eventually, but Scott tells us that this feckless coward dies a double death. Perhaps his first error was in believing that his native land and his native people could be secured without bullets.
For a clear understanding of slavery, I highly recommend R.L. Dabney’s Defense of Virginia. There has never been a time in world history when slavery has not existed, so the first thing you need to do is purge your mind of the idea that “chattel slavery” has been vanquished. Slavery never goes away; one kind is exchanged for another. The second thing to note is that Negro slavery of any kind is the worst idea that ever entered the mind of white people, because slaves are always emancipated. Lincoln is given the credit for this, but the process had begun much earlier. And the last thing whites need is for their homelands to be flooded with foreigners. This is also what happens when empires conquer foreign lands and extend citizenship to imperial subjects, many of which are manumitted slaves. The whole composition of the empire changes, and it falls from power. Greece, Rome, Britain, France, America – all the same.
As for biblical law, there is no six-year limit on foreign slaves, believers or not. You’re correct to point out “Hebrew brothers,” because the idea conveyed is a brother of blood. Dabney explains this very well.
I think you’re quite right to point out deficiencies in how slavery was actually practiced in the South and other places. Just because Christians were slaveholders does not mean that they always comported themselves lawfully. Even so, this says nothing about the legal legitimacy of the institution. In Africa, almost all wives are beaten. There are even public ads to convince men to treat their wives with dignity. But we do not, on account of this, say that their marriages are illegitimate. Ephesians 5 & 6 make it clear that the relationships of man/wife, parent/child, and master/slave are sacred. Still, there are all kinds of bad people, dead marriages, corrupt masters, and lazy slaves.
In the South, while there was no six-year limit on service (mainly because, as Thomas Jefferson said, the Negroes will never be our equals), there was certainly freedom when deserved. Some freed slaves formed their own small slave plantations. This was the nature of the economy. As Dabney details, they were also well-protected from abuse by law. Slave rapes were almost unheard of, as Dabney shows. Mulattoes were FAR more likely to come from big cities than the plantations. The slaves were treated well; they did not even flee when it would have been most advantageous, during the war. As for illegality of fleeing, even the North recognized that this was constitutionally protected because of the enormous lifelong investment in the slave. And since you want to uphold Scripture, I know you must be opposed to this, because the Apostle Paul was opposed to it (see Philemon).
I guess I really do need to read that work by Dabney. Probably nobody on any side of the issue can talk intelligently about that period of our history if he hasn’t read it.
As for people needing to take the law into their own hands at times, I’ll go so far as to grant you that such a radical-sounding concept is not necessarily always as lawless as it might seem, given that the Bible affirms the concept of the kinsman avenger. It’s a shame that the civil magistrate is nowhere near as cooperative in our day with victim-led prosecution of crime as ancient Israel was. If victim-led prosecution of crime still occupied the same position in our society that it occupied in ancient Israel, a man would be able to do what needs to be done without thereby becoming an outlaw himself. I really hear where you are coming from, although I’m not convinced that God wants us to independently exercise vengeance against evildoers when he seems to have given that function exclusively to the civil magistrate. We definitely have a lot to think about . . . sinning against God in my anger is the last thing that I want to do.
By the way, actual practice may be a different story but on paper at least the situation is still better in the USA than in Japan, since at least in the USA the victim of a crime can press criminal charges against the perp. In Japan, only the government can press criminal charges. On the other hand, among the nations of the world, Japanese judges are definitely among the more sympathetic to demaands from the surviving family members of a murder victim that the perp be given the death penalty. There is still broad popular support for the death penalty in Japan. It used to be that the prosecutors would only call for the death penalty in cases where more than one person had been murdered, but recently there seems to be a trend toward application in more cases where just one person was murdered. And Japan is overall trying to pay more attention to the rights of victims in its legal system, so things are moving in a generally positive direction. And of course there are not many murders in Japan to begin with, largely due to the fact that Japan has a low percentage of people inside its borders who are prone to commit violent crime . . .
With the notable exception, of course, of victims of infanticide (“abortion”) in Japan. Nobody is calling for the death penalty for baby-killers in Japan. Japanese are good copy-cats, however, so if the USA ever re-criminalizea baby-killing, I bet Japan will follow suit.
I agree with Mr. Witmer’s point above. Vigilanteism would not be optional in the defense of murder if it were morally just. If I see my neighbor under attack and have the ability to prevent his murder, I must take action.
From the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
I believe that God mercifully does not permit or require vigilanteism in a society with a well established rule of law. Gary North wrote a letter to Paul Hill on this issue:
http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html
[i]“What you forgot, and what violent resisters want to forget, is that there is a God in this process, and He does act in history to bring His sanctions. You were not authorized by God to represent the public. You were authorized by God to do non- violent things and suffer the consequences personally. You were authorized by God to stand in the gap and get your head beaten in, maybe on videotape, to be broadcast at the six o’clock news. You were authorized to get the public infuriated against the agents who bashed you head in. That is what you were entitled to do. But you were not entitled to gun somebody down. God allows the sword to be used only by someone who is ordained to do it. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” So says Romans 12:19. Romans 13 says that the state is authorized, as a minister of God (v. 4), to act as God’s lawful agent of vengeance. If he brings vengeance against evil doers, then God does not have to, and He will not bring vengeance in history against the society as a whole for authorizing a civil magistrate to do evil.”
“There is a biblical hierarchy of vengeance. God is at the top, and the civil magistrate is under him. You and any other private citizen are not part of this hierarchy. That is why it says, “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” You forgot that. Those with a revolutionary bent in their psychology will also forget that.”
“What you are accused of was not only against civil law, it was against God’s law. What you recommend is not only against civil law, it is against God’s law. Individuals do not have the right under biblical law to bring violence in the name of the community. They have not been ordained to do it, and they are not part of God’s lawful, ordained hierarchy of vengeance.”[/i]
I’m not sure I buy all of Gary North’s arguments in his letter, but at least he takes a side on this issue. Most Christians just stick their heads in the sand and avoid the issue of physical defense of the unborn.
Taking the position that the individual doesnt have the authority to take on the role of magistrate doesnt mean that there are no biblical means of resistance to authority. Would not a lower authority such as a state, county, or city be just in defying the US Govt. by physically preventing abortions even using the threat of violence? Also, I could see that a father could justly use violence in preventing the abortion of his child.
Anyway, this situation seems parallel to the J.W.Booth/Lincoln situation. We can oppose vigilanteism but agree that the victim got what they deserved.
On a related point, just the discussion of this topic probably puts all of us on a terrorist database in DC.
Hampton, I think you misunderstand our point. Of course, “If I see my neighbor under attack and have the ability to prevent his murder, I must take action.” Or in terms of abortion, if you know your own daughter or niece is under the knife, you must take action. That may or may not involve deadly force, but what man would allow such a thing to occur if he knows the hour and the place? He certainly would not be on a high horse denouncing vigilantism, if he is a man at all. At the other extreme, if some stranger on the other side of the world is being butchered, we won’t like it, but we’re going to do nothing about it, mainly because we can’t. In between, there are many varying degrees. Those of us who view abortion as one more tool in the arsenal of white genocide are going to be much more outspoken about some abortions than others. This holds true in every case where immoral and genocidal laws are enforced by the state, not just abortion.
Now, you grant the right of vigilantism to a father but say it is out of bounds for anyone else. Therefore, you have already conceded the argument and are merely quibbling over degrees.
You also miss the obvious in this statement: “I believe that God mercifully does not permit or require vigilanteism in a society with a well established rule of law.” You assume too much. At what point would you ever agree that we are living in anarchy? Is anarchy merely a theoretical state of affairs? It does no good to say that things are not as bad as they could be; that’s a truism, and it’s irrelevant. Read this, if you don’t understand how close we are to total societal collapse:
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2009/06/09/rob-arnie-and-dawn-show-grovels-to-perverts/
“God allows the sword to be used only by someone who is ordained to do it.”
This is ordinary, but not a rule to be followed regardless of circumstances. I think Ehud made it clear that no one is really consistent with how you and Gary North are interpreting Romans 13. We are going to defend our lives (not “life” in general) by any means necessary, as all honorable men have always done. This duty supersedes all rules about who is “ordained” to wield the sword. We fail in this duty if we become pacifists, as egghead Gary North tells us we must.
“Individuals do not have the right under biblical law to bring violence in the name of the community.”
This is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. I would love to hear Gary North explain why William Wallace was a lawless renegade. Hint: Arguing that he broke the laws of England misses the point entirely. Here again, we return to what Ehud said: “Caesar is not the arbiter of Christian ethics.” Duty to our “community” (our own people, and our own families) supersedes obedience to the laws of Sodom. The apostles said it best: We will obey God rather than men.
You’re right, discussing these matters is enough to be considered a terror suspect here in the Great Satan, precisely because our liberties have been stolen from us. As we’ve said, DHS already considers anti-abortionists and anti-immigrationists to be terror suspects, regardless of their actions. Look at all the news stories about that idiot von Brunn. The media has now nominated this guy to be the public face of “white supremacy” and – you guessed it – the anti-immigration right-wing. The new hate crimes act will be pushed through Congress now as a means of getting around the first amendment and establishing European-style speech laws in America. The purpose of this will be to kill off all claims of white exclusivity and open the borders permanently. It’s all very well-designed, and it is pushing us towards revolution. I don’t like this any more than you. I wish we could have learned from history and not mortgaged our birthright. But like it or not, a man becomes dangerous when his back is to the wall. That’s what makes him a man. At least for now, you and Gary North still have the luxury to discuss ordination.
Without deep biblical wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, making a wrong turn in difficult matters like these is about as easy as falling off a log. We may be tempted to think we have clear, simple rules given to us in the Bible until we recall some of the various counter-examples peppered here and there throughout the Bible, like Sarah and Jacob conspiring to deceive Isaac. Without those various counter-examples, we might be tempted to think that morality can be reduced to a flow chart that anyone can follow. The reality is that real-life decisions are frequently fraught with difficulty and can be very tough calls, especially when taking another person’s life is involved, and just the thought of being in such a situation scares me to death. I wonder if God would give me the clarity of vision to make the right decision in such an extreme situation. Blessed indeed is the man who is able to make the right choice under difficult life-or-death circumstances. A lot of people who think that they are doing God’s work are actually doing the Devil’s work. But that’s a reality we have to accept since we are living in a war zone — total warfare between God and Satan. May God have mercy upon us.
Tiller and the Government are the vigilantes against God’s law: thinking that God’s order is wrong, they practice their own social justice for “women’s privacy and freedom.” The woman is not freed until the baby is murdered, then justice has arrived.
They invented the term to stigmatize the heroes who hanged criminals they let loose to destroy the South, and those who hanged the pedophile faggot Leo Frank. So let’s give them credit for it.
They collude to destroy us (which is war), and when we fight back (just war) they call us vigilantes–which is just more warfare propaganda so that their troops can identify their enemy.
We should stop seeing Paul Hill and the like as usurpers of the magistrate right to execute, and begin seeing them as soldiers fighting in self-defense of themselves and the helpless.
Doug Wilson sees how powerful this argument is and responds by saying “don’t start what you can’t finish.” As if a soldier should quit firing on the enemy because many of his comrades have put their hands up in surrender. As if ethics are determined by what the majority will think of your decision.
Excellent points, JPC. There is a difference in paradigms here which is seen again and again throughout history. The regime has legitimacy only so long as it is given legitimacy. In this case, we have Christians legitimizing the magistrates of pure evil, until the point at which they don’t. As was written in the post above, and as you said, democracy, not obedience to God’s law, becomes the determining factor. Then comes war, and after the war the controversy is conveniently forgotten. Everyone just concludes that God was on the side of the winners.
We Southerners understand this very well. Just because bankers and brigands seize military power, take the name of the country they’ve usurped, and call themselves “federal” does not mean that we are under any obligation to agree, and it most certainly does not authorize the false government to be “a minister of God” and “God’s lawful agent of vengeance,” as Scary Gary puts it.
Voting might still have some value, and in all other respects we should be working to form institutions and governing bodies that render the present criminal government obsolete. As the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6, under a pagan government we need to govern ourselves. But this is easier said than done when alternative currencies and avoidance of the “voluntary” income tax are illegal. These are not easy questions, that’s for sure.
Here’s the opinion of the Westminster Divines:
“We teach that any private man may kill a tyrant, void of all title (p.33)…
[I]f for nature to defend itself be lawful, no community… hath power to alienate and give away this power (p.34)…
[T]he community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny, and to coerce it… The community’s law is the law of nature (p.350)…
If the king shall sell his kingdom or enslave it to a foreign power, he falleth from all right to his kingdom… [and when the people fall subject to] a prince who enslaveth his kingdom to a foreign power… [the people are not bound to acquiesce because] they cannot so readily destroy themselves, the law of nature having given them a contrary internal principle of self-preservation (p.36)…
[anyone who denies this commits] black treason (p.40)…
God hath given to every society… a faculty of preserving themselves, and warding off violence and injuries… the inherency of sovereignty is natural and not arbitrary (p.38)…
[I]t is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him [a foreign or tyrannical king] a lawful magistrate (p.41)…
This law of the people is prior and more ancient than the king… the scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David kings… that which taketh away that natural aptitude and nature’s birthright in a community, given to them by God and nature, to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest government, that is not to be holden (p.43)…
[L]aw and reason both saith, Quod vi partum est imperium, vi dissolvi potest. Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence (p.49)…
[E]very foal to its dam… the primary law of nations is indeed the law of nature, as appropriated to man… fatherly government being the first and measure of the rest, must be the best; for it is better that my father govern me, than that a stranger govern me, and, therefore, the Lord forbade His people to set a stranger over themselves to be their king (p.52).”
(Samuel Rutherford, LEX, REX, anno domini 1644)
By the previous post I meant to show that private individuals have a Constabulary power of their own. That’s why we have always traditionally understood ourselves to have a “primary right of self-defense” which extends to the defense of our neighbor as well. That’s how we have good neighbor laws and the power of citizens’ arrest for heavens’ sake.
The power of the Magistrate is real but it does not descend from heaven in an unmediated fashion. No, it receives its power by “consent of the governed” because government is something that resides natively in men byway of being the imago dei. This power receives a testimonial affirmation in the corporate existence of nations, which in turn find it necessary to form institutions of government to protect the existence of said communities or nations.
That’s why in the absence of a lawfully functioning magistrate, individual men, retain a power to act on behalf of the community for its defense. I believe this to be the biblical understanding.
I love it when Ehud comments here.
This is perfectly stated by Rutherford. But far from getting people to understand that “the community’s law is the law of nature,” we can’t even get them to understand that the American empire did not form the states. It’s quite maddening.
“Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence.” In one sentence, this sums up everything that we’ve been trying to say. But that’s just because we’re not as brilliant as Rutherford. Doin’ the best we can.
Admin, when you refer to Rutherford, do you mean Lex Rex?
http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm
Yes, I think all of the quotes above are from Lex Rex. The title is very interesting, because most people these days are geared to think in terms of Rex Lex (the king is law). Not surprisingly, Charles II burned Rutherford’s book and would have executed Rutherford himself if a natural death had not taken him.
Dear Admin,
“Under a pagan government we need to govern ourselves”
Exactly, Admin. And this works from the ground up. In terms of this organization we see that words pressed into the service of mere rhetoric – ‘supremacy’, ‘aryan supremacy’ etc – such terms become useless when life issues (bound up with nation and race) move out of the realm of argument and into the realm of lived realities (or not).
It is true that white nations (which once identified themselves at the level of nation) are shackled with oppression, punitive rules and regs, etc. It is true that the corrupt system affirmatively actions hispanics, negroes etc over whites. It is true that the Judaic supremacy uses finance to destroy the livelihood of white Americans in terms of economic class.
However, it is under these conditions that qualities which characterize the white nations can be seen most instructively if people living in the same area form community.
In my shire, there is a significant German population – and many would have immigrated after the WW II. Yes we are growing ‘multicultural’ and ‘multiracial’ affirmatively actioned polity according to federal dicta. And yes we have a Jew reserve bank sitting on top of the Australian pyramid running a Ponzi. So its private owners are looting the land, labour and resources of the nation at a hefty percent.
It is in times like ours that true superiority (which de facto exists in the natural and social order) comes to the fore and asserts itself against the entire crap heap. And this is a quality that the Germans have in spades. (And this is the reason why Big Jewry must demonize those people forever). But in the real world no amount of P.C. can dispute with it successfully. The bosses can disguise it for the rubes, the dumbed down and those who do not have direct dealings with it – but it is a force to be reckoned with.
For example, where I live, as a ‘family tradition’ among those who would have had German officers among their members, it is required that before a son is permitted to get any kind of job from the system (and learn how to be bossed around by a gender neutral female type person of colour) he must create employment for himself using only the skills that he has from his family. He might barter for the use of tools of trade (if he doesn’t possess them) but no money is given as capital for supplies or the hire his labour. He must build his own employment from scratch while he is still living in the family home. Preference will be given to jobs that serve the community.
In reality, this is a true initiation, because it is the challenge that young people always face. In the Hood it is solved through hiring out to the crime syndicate that runs the Hood. We know how the gangs solve this universal initiation of young men. And this is sad. However, for many generations now, white America has solved this initiation for its young in terms of qualifying them and hiring them out to ‘the system.’ Frankly, this is just as bad.
To this, the Germans here say: Nein. And they are right.
Just last week, I saw the accounts for some of our young men (aged 14 and 15) who are in the home school. They now have a successful business and are taking orders from overseas. Their skills are in the hobby / craft of leather working. They started with a mission statement of: “helping our environment.” They saw that the cane toad is officially designated as an imported pest. The state gov’t has given up on trying to eradicate it and switched to management strategies.
The young men decided on a cane toad based product. They went out summer nights and caught toads. They agreed to mow my lawn (my son’s job) in exchange for exclusive use of the freezer in his beer fridge. They froze the toads, cleaned out the insides and tanned the hides. They sewed linings on the insides. Only capital investment: zippers and plastic eyes. On the toads, they customed stitched famous quotes by traitors, politicians and famous quotes from ‘the divine gods on this planet’ – Marx, Herzl, Ben Gurion etc. People do have to learn these statements in the Home School together with historical context.
The product is a cane toad coin purse with a well known (public domain) quote from a famous person stitched front and back. The purse has the forelegs and head and most of the body. The hind parts and back legs have been removed to form the purse with a zipper across the back.
I placed my order for a custom stitched toad purse with my favourite Bushey: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm our people or our country and neither do we.” Aug 5, 2004.
That’s where the money goes!
Once these were taken to some of the local markets and fayres, they sold out with orders for more. Now they are creating a website to liase with teenagers overseas who want to develop business concepts for the leatherworking of imported pests. And yes, they have employed some local affirmatively actioned young people who would rather work for a young, dynamic (soon to be international company) rather than say: “Would you like a coke with those fries” a million times a day or more lucratively hire themselves out to a crime syndicate. So they are equal opportunity employers in good standing with the comrade overseers at all levels of gov’t.
However, those who can employ themselves and create opportunities for others are not necessarily equal to those to whom they offer employment in terms of their faith, their capabilities, their adventurous spirit, their knowledge, their sense of humour and loyalty to their families, community and people.
In the Home School, creating one’s own employment is a senior subject. It has been a lot of fun to see the young Germans tackle it at the sophomore level.
Further to Ehud’s excellent comment.
In the Home School, we have to learn the jurisprudence of the West.
The Christendom has always recognized the Common Law in accord with right reason and the Evangelium. Cannibalism, usury, infanticide – traditionally of female infants, association for the purpose of thuggery (the Thugee in India) for example, might have been part of the pagan common law; but nations converting to Christianity or under Christian law prohibited these.
Catholic nations recognized the Common Law right of free association, but this did not prevent them from following the Church’s prohibition against Masonry and legislating against this form of association. The Bavarian government outlawed the Illuminati. Even though the Church places the right to freely associate under natural right of Common Law.
To enter into private association is the natural right of man in society…”the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbid its citizens [in principle] to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence; for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely, the natural tendency of man to dwell in society.” Pope Leo XIII. Condition of the Working Classes. Encyclical Letter Rearum Novarum, May 15, 1891 .
This is based upon foundational Western jurisprudence that laws only bind when they are in accordance with right reason and hence with the eternal law of God. The right to freedom of association is a Common Law right that in principle meets Christendom’s test of “in accordance with right reason and the eternal law of God.”
“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason, it is called an unjust law; and in such case it is no law at all but rather a species of violence.” St Thomas of Aquin, Summa Theologica, 1a 2ae Q. xciii. art. 3.
This is a uniquely Western concept – that law itself can be unjust (according to Christian jurisprudence). A law that falls into such a category is “a species of violence”.
This extends the force of Ehud’s statement.
The corollary would be that a state or polity constituted under unjust law in violation of right reason and the eternal law of God, is itself a species of violence. The Leviathan State. From such a state will issue the passage of laws which violate right reason and the eternal law of God and are against the Evangelium. Such laws are, according to the jurisprudence of the West, laws that are ultra virez the power of any human authority to enact. Therefore, such a state is going to be dissolved by the same laws by which it is in violation – if we are to extend Ehud’s logic.
In Human Liberty, Pope Leo XIII draws out these foundational concepts. “Lawful power is from God and whosoever resisteth authority resisteth the ordinance of God; wherefore obedience is greatly ennobled when subjected to an authority which is the most just and supreme of all. But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Thus, an effectual barrier being opposed to tyranny, the authority of the State will not have all its own way, but the interests and rights of all will be safeguarded – the rights of individuals, of domestic society, and of all members of the commonwealth; all being free to live according to law and right reason; and in this, as We have shown, true liberty really consists.” Pope Leo XIII “Human Liberty” June 20, 1888.
Admin – thanks for your kind reply. You wrote:
“Now, you grant the right of vigilantism to a father but say it is out of bounds for anyone else. Therefore, you have already conceded the argument and are merely quibbling over degrees.”
Ah, but the degrees are the tough parts. These are certainly not easy issues. However, I think it critical to carefully cut these issues because failure to act when required is sin.
I believe we need to distinguish resisting a tyrant or just defense from vigilantism (i.e. assuming the role of judge and executioner). A father violently defending his unborn child is not a vigilante, even if our culture says he is – he is justly defending. Similarly, William Wallace or the Scottish Covenanters were not vigilantes – they worked to overthrow their oppressors. The abortionist killer is doing something altogether different – he is executing temporal justice/punishment. He is not resisting a tyrant – if he were he’d try to overthrow the government (which brings up JPC’s quote of Wilson “don’t start what you can’t finish” – as in just war theory, a war to turn out a tyrant has to have a possibility of success).
When I said “I believe that God mercifully does not permit or require vigilanteism in a society with a well established rule of law” I had in mind that the US law by and large is representative of the consent/will of the people. Lets face it, even Christians do not care to end abortion. An abortionist killer certainly doesnt represent the will of our community. (This situation is different from the arguably just vigilante Klan in the times of Reconstruction where the law was not representative of the community and was imposed by a resisted oppressor.)
Anyway, none of this in incongruent with Ehud’s posts or Lex Rex, with which I agree.
Also,none of this changes the fact that GWB, BHO, and every state governor in recent times are going to stand before God for their sins in permitting abortion under their watch.
This blog is becoming a gold mine of the thoughts of Christian men that know how to think. Thinking outside the box, creating new paradigms. Rediscovering the ancient wisdom.
Thank you. You are forcing me to rethink the Scary Gary/David Hagopian model of civil compliance from the ground up.
For starters, many of us should admit that we have a bias toward quietism constituted by our essential cowardice. We should admit, “I have a bias toward Scary’s view, because if the opposite view triumphed, I would be revealed as a coward unwilling to act.”
The good news is, a beaten dog can be retrained to have doggish dignity. This has been proven in the case of German Shepherds that were craven due to abuse by previous owners.
That’s a wonderful story of young entrepreneurs. Please advertise the website here so we can try to send some business their way.
You’re right, there’s something special about Germans. I truly consider them to be the wiser, elder brothers in the family of whites, just as Virginia used to be the wiser, eldest brother here in the States.
I watched the movie Valkyrie tonight for the first time. There’s some interesting Jew scripting that pops up a few times, with statements to the effect that the plan to assassinate Hitler must succeed, or else all of Europe will be laid waste. The suggestion is thereby planted (more than once, as if to really drive it home) that the Allies just had to incinerate millions of women and children in Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, and elsewhere, and millions more after the war, because Germans failed to solve the problem on their own. Tsk, tsk, what a shame, says the Jew, but worth it after all to take out Hitler. Another Jew, Madeleine Albright, said the same thing about killing half a million Iraqi children to take out Saddam Hussein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
While watching, I was thinking about vigilantism, and how “the right kind” can draw many thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to see Tom Cruise work his magic on the silver screen. Christians cheer for this “high treason” because it is in the service of Jews. But they would never do any such thing in defense of their Master’s own law and their own people, no matter how flagrant the violation. And I wonder how many of the Christians who watch Valkyrie will realize that Stauffenberg, who came from German nobility, acted in defense of his own people. He claimed the right under natural law (“Naturrecht”) to commit treason, and his final words were “Long live sacred Germany!” or perhaps, “Long live the secret Germany!” I’ll wager that of the millions of Christians who saw this movie, only a handful could ever imagine being driven by a similar motive, because their preachers tell them a) that they don’t have a people, and b) that Romans 13 authorizes Christ-hating, white-hating lunatic “laws.”
Thanks, Vittgen. I think you’re right. Essentially, one side is pondering what the hero would do in a situation, and the other side is saying that he’s not a hero at all. But I think we all can agree that heroes are rare.
Hampton, I don’t follow the idea that violence as an act of defense is illegitimate resistance to tyranny if it is not part of a workable plan to overthrow the government. This is a confusing mix of the micro and the macro. If I am defending my family from an intruder, for instance, I am giving of myself to control events that are within my power to control. I don’t need permission from the government, and I don’t need to first take a poll to see how many others agree that a law preventing a just defense is unacceptable. Overthrowing the government could not be further from my mind.
I get the feeling, from what Mark Horne said above and what I think you are saying, that success is the criterion of right. R.L. Dabney called this the credo of the atheist.
As I said, Christians have unfortunately decided that democracy rather than law is the determining factor for the legitimacy of our evil empire. You make my point for me when you write that our “well established rule of law” is such because it derives from the consent of the governed. But this consent has never been monolithic, not even Southern consent given to the KKK during the 1860s. The gray ghosts did good work (they were the early grassroots that led to the Plessy decision, which was not overturned until 1954, 58 years later), but they were mainly in border states where quite a few whites opposed them. I appreciate what I’m reading in Lex Rex because it starts from the premise that the law is objective, and we are to be ruled by law, not by men. Consent of the governed is only meaningful among an homogeneous, God-fearing people. It has absolutely no meaning for the American Empire but plenty of meaning for communities.
It is very difficult for those who conceive of a nation state in republican (Masonic) terms to form correct ideas about historical figures like von Stauffenberg and Sir William Wallace.
The idea of noble house, its duties of state in terms of call to bear arms and to serve nation, monarch and Church does not come from any republican sense that power derives from the consent of the governed ( it doesn’t) or belief in an illusory freedom that somehow transfers power to the people (how?).
In a republic, power is thought to derive from the governed through a constitutional social contract and electoral process. The better case could be made that the republic was always governed covertly by the tripartite power of private bank, secret societies and a selection process whereby people go through the exercise of voting for preselected candidates who, if elected, are answerable to covert powers with their own Agenda.
That great Alumnus of the Grand Orient, Comrade Stalin said it best: “in a democracy all that matters is who counts the votes.”
In a feudal society, however, a noble house exercises overt power. It has a duty of state to answer the call to bear arms. This is what a warrior class or a knighted class is about. In the Christian polity, the baptised population calls upon the “all power in heaven and earth is given to me” which Christ communicates to his Apostolic Succession. A baptised nation consents to Apostolic Law and the government of that Law through a temporal arm which looks to Apostolic Law in the way a republican government would look to a constitution.
The idea of republicans that (having overthrown the Christian aristocracy), everyone is now ‘equal’ is one of the ways those in power keep the sheeple dazed and confused. While it is true that the Christian aristocracy which had duties of state to the Church and the nation is now overthrown, people have not been slow to idolize the aristocracy of the celebrity cults appointed for them by J-ollywood and the sports empires.
There is always going to be an aristocracy. The only question is: what kind of aristocracy?
Despite the accession to power of the JudeoMasonic Imperium in the EU, Scotland may yet escape the degenerate influence of promoted aristocracies simply because the national hero is Sir William Wallace.
The official anthem might be ‘Scotland the Brave’, but the true anthem remains Flur na h’ Alba: The Flower of Scotland – with pointed reference in the chorus to how Scotland sent king Edward’s Army back to England ‘to think again.’ But the most important idea in that anthem (and to the new world orderlies the most subversive) is expressed in the lines about “But we can still rise now and be the nation again.” What kind of nation? Well the kind of nation which recognizes Sir William Wallace as the national hero. This does not bode well for the republican trilateral of a Jew bank, a muppet prez and muppet legislature stage managed by the secret societies.
A nation which has Sir William Wallace for the national hero, could very definitely rise again even though the cost of that rising might be sacrifices of the common heroes for whom the pipes will never play ‘The Flowers of the Forrest’.
This is probably why no effort has been spared by the official revisionists to make Sir William Wallace into a ‘freedom fighter’ sort of hero who goes to war for Scottish independence – like in a Masonic war of independence e.g. French Revolution.
Sir Malcolm Wallace was of the traditional Scots nobility – the Craigies. William was his second son, born during the reign of Scottish King Alexander III. The Wallaces were not Plantagenet nobility – like so many Scottish nobles of the auld alliance. King Edward (Longshanks) I was Plantagenet. So were the Norman French. And the Plantagenets were hereditary Knights Templars.
The popular depiction of Scotland of the 1200s is just unbelievable to anyone who has actually been there or lived there. Scotland of the 13th century was a wealthy country and a jewel of Christendom. Many great stone cathedrals were raised from Glasgow to Dornoch – some of the most beautiful and unique gothic architecture in the world. The countryside was graced with magnificent abbeys built for the sevenfold office of prayer (the liturgical hours sung in plainchant), this was the setting for the schools, hospitals, libraries, chapels: Arbroath, Dunfermline, Cambushkenneth, etc. There were the stately homes of the Scottish nobility: Paisley, Kilwinning, Crossraguel, Holyrood, Melrose. Many of the landed estates had castles – regal, baronial fortified homes of the landed classes. During the reign of King Alexander III (when William Wallace was born approx 1272), these estates supported beautiful villages with their commons – esp in the Highlands. In the towns were prosperous merchant classes and professional and craft guilds. As a people, the Scots were artistically and culturally very advanced. In the 13th century, Scottish stained glass used ground gem stones. The light of Scotland has a silver quality to it and when it pours through that glass, the effect is like nothing you can imagine unless you have actually seen it.
In 1286 Alexander III died in a riding accident, yet none of his children survive to inherit the crown. (How odd is that, I would think if I was a conspiracy theorist). His young grand daughter Margaret in Norway becomes Queen of Scotland, but she is a child. When she dies in 1290, 13 nobles claim the Scottish crown.
Edward I, a Plantagenet takes advantage of the interim Scottish gov’t by attempting to buy off the Scottish nobles with English titles and lands. The Plantagenet council of nobles recognized the English crown as feudal superior. They say that the Bruce refused to submit to the will of the council. But Sir Robert the Bruce was an hereditary Knight Templar as was Edward Longshanks. They were brothers in the order.
By the oath of the Plantagent council of Scottish nobles and the War of Succession, English troops and nobles come to occupy Scotland and they plunder the nation.
The common saying: “proud as a Templar” has come down to us from Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe. And the Plantagent nobility were heriditary Knights Templars whether in France, England or Scotland.
The Plantagenet nobility have a Desposyniac legacy. They claim lineal descent from the House of David. Many of that kin were / are Christian – such as St Bernard of Clairveaux. However, many were crypto Jews and claim that their royal Davidic inheritance and messianic lineage (through Christ and Mary of Magdalene no less) places them above the Christian monarchies anointed by the Church. This is the Grail bloodline – of which much ado in books like the Da Vinci Code ( merely the introduction of a vast matter). And this plays a decisive role in world affairs today.
To make a long story short, the Flemish Grail family of de Bouillon founded the Ordre of Sion in Jerusalem 1099. Godefroi Bouillon took the hereditary title King of Jerusalem, a title that is today held by the House of Anjou (another Grail family).
According to accounts published for exoteric consumption, the Knights Templars were founded as the military arm of the Ordre of Sion in Jerusalem 1118 – official title Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon.
When the Plantagenet council of Scottish nobles swore an oath of fealty to Edward I, the Scottish nobility also had to swear. The Bruce did not swear – but then he was an hereditary Knight of the Temple. Undoubtedly, he had his own arrangements within the Plantagenet scheme of things.
Sir Malcolm, William’s father, would have had to swear the oath, even though he bore arms for the House of Bruce. But as a patriot and son of the Church, Sir Malcolm would not swear. The Wallace family had to go underground. William, then a teenager, took refuge from the War of Succession in the sanctuary of the Church. He went to his uncle, a priest at Cambuskenneth Abbey. Here he studied the liberal arts, martial arts and participated in the office of the Church – the liturgical hours of prayer. As a warrior knight, he led an essentially monastic life.
The conflict between the Church and the Knights of the Temple was certainly shaping up in the lifetime of William Wallace although it would not come to a head until after his death. But in that conflict, Sir William Wallace fought for the Scotland of Christendom against the English claim and the Plantagenet Templars of Scotland aligned with England.
In 1307, Oct 13 – King Phillipe of France with the assistance of the Pope Clement suppressed the Knights Templars. They were arrested and their properties were seized throughout France. The order was outlawed and in 1312, their grand master Jacques de Molay was burned at the stake. Edward the II of England ( a Plantagenet) published the papal Bull against the knights, but as a Templar, he saw to it that their confiscated lands and preceptories made their way into the hands of their proxie order: the Hospitallers of St John. Up until 1185, the Templar seat was in London, at Temple near The City’s Westminster Gate between Fleet St and the Strand.
In 1303, the Treaty of Paris ended intraPlantagenet hostilities between England and France. With the death of Sir William Wallace, the Plantagenet nobles give Robert the Bruce the Scottish crown in 1306. And it was to Scotland that the Templars who could escape the suppression fled after 1307. After the Bull of the suppression was published in England and on the continent, those who could escape fled to the Templar lands in Ballantradoch by the Firth of Forth (now the village of Temple). The seat of high St Clair at Rosslyn was a Templar stronghold, also around the Lothians and Aberdeen. This became the new seat of the order. Needless to say King Robert the Bruce (a Plantagenet King) made sure the Poor Knights (his brothers in the order) found a safe haven in Scotland. And from the new seat they would return to Europe as the Jacobite / Jacobin leaders of the Revolutions, the upheavals that as Albert Pike said would: “overturn both throne and altar on the tomb of Jacques de Molay”. And they did.
In the Lay of the Last Minstrel, Sir Walter Scott speaks of High St Clair and the Templar legacy which won the Honours of Scotland with the death of William Wallace (who was undoubtedly betrayed by Robert the Bruce – as shown in the movie Braveheart)
Seemed all on fire that chapel proud
Where Rosslyn’s chiefs uncoffined lie
Each Barron for a sable shroud
Wrought in iron panoply
And today, Prince Michael Stewart of Albany, an hereditary Knight Templar, presides over the European Council of Princes which organization is steering the EU into the New World Order.
The fire of “that chapel proud” roared into a conflagration with the French Revolution 1789 and the wholesale massacres of the French Catholic peasantry, the non Grail ‘aristos’. Every Catholic nation state in Europe and the New World fell to the power of the ‘Jacobites / Jacobins’ and their Revolution.
The end is not yet.
Fascinating!
Admin – thanks again for your reply.
You wrote:
“I get the feeling, from what Mark Horne said above and what I think you are saying, that success is the criterion of right. R.L. Dabney called this the credo of the atheist.”
I agree with the Dabney quote (which in fact may be applied to the vigilante). My point was that war against the magistrate needs to have some possibility of success – we are called to good stewardship of our own lives. Anyway, since you raised Dabney, I think he makes my points much better that I do against vigilanteism and for the need for revolution to be supported by the people, not solely the individual (though he admittedly questions the need for possibility of success of revolution by the community, as shown below). The whole lecture is worth reading but here are two pertinent excerpts.
From R.L.Dabney – Systematic Theology
http://www.dabneyarchive.com/Systematic%20Theology/Lecture%2073%20-%20The%20Civil%20Magistrate.pdf
(No Natural Right Sacrificed to Just Government pg 868)
“The instance most commonly cited, as one of a natural right surrendered to civil society, is the right of self-defence. We accept the instance, and assert that it fully confirms our view. For if it means the liberty of forcible defence at the time the unprovoked aggression is made, that is not surrendered; it is allowed under all enlightened governments fully. If it mean the privilege of a savage’s retaliation, I deny that any human ever had such a right by nature. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” If it mean the privilege to attach the righteous temporal penalty, and execute it ourselves, on the aggressor, so as to deter him and others from similar assaults, I deny that this is naturally a personal right; for nothing is more unnatural than for a man to be judge in his own case.”
(Argument for Passive Obedience Refuted pg 872)
“We have seen that the sovereignty is in the people rather than the rulers ; and that the power the rulers hold is delegated. May the people never resume their own, when it is wholly abused to their injury? There may be obviously a point then where “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” The meaning of the apostle is, that this resistance must be the act, not of the individual, but of the people. The insubordination which he condemns, is that which arrays against a government, bad like that of the Caesars perhaps, the worse anarchy of the individual will. But the body of the citizens is the commonwealth ; and when the commonwealth arises and supersedes the abused authority of her public servants, the allegiance of the individual is due to her, just as before to her servants. But it may be asked, How can the commonwealth move to do this, except by the personal movement of individuals against the ” powers that be ? ” I answer, (and this explains the true nature of the right of revolution): true : but if the individual moves, when he is not inspired by the movement of the popular heart; when his motion is not the exponent, as well as the occasion, of theirs, he has made a mistake—he has done wrong—he must bear his guilt. It is usually said, as by Paley, that a revolution is only justifiable when the evils of the government are worse than the probable evils of the convulsive change ; and when there is a reasonable prospect of success. The latter point is doubtful. Some of the noblest revolutions, as that of the Swiss, were rather the result of indignation at intolerable wrong, and a generous despair, than of this calculation of chances of success.”
Very interesting quotes. So before an individual is able to act, he must be “inspired by the movement of the popular heart.” That’s democracy again, not law, and a rather subjective measurement. But we know what Dabney is trying to say, especially when we consider the context.
States were able to secede if they could actually meet in their own Congresses. At the time, Missourians were begging Jefferson Davis for support because they were being raped, murdered, and arsoned, but Davis refused until articles of secession were signed and Missouri formally entered the Confederacy. This was easier said than done because Yankees prevented Missouri Confederates from assembling. Those states which had already seceded knew that they were in the right constitutionally and that laws to repel invaders could be followed in good conscience. Thus, Dabney joined Stonewall’s army and knew that he was not a traitor.
But here’s the question: Could Missouri irregulars, who were entirely cut off from constitutional independence for a time but lived every day of their lives with terrorism from Kansas Jayhawkers, respond in good conscience? I give it two thumbs up. Popular heart? It was so bad in Missouri that the phrase “show me” was used frequently. A person had to signal his allegiance to every stranger he came across. The war dragged on for 20 years there instead of just four, and Jesse James had no intention of surrendering to anyone. He was what most would call a “vigilante” and we would call a great hero. He made the lives of Unionists, Jew bankers, and railroad men a living hell. Popular heart? The fine people of Missouri absolutely refused to punish his brother Frank in any way. They knew why Frank and Jesse fought, and so did Robert Ford, who had to wake up every morning in his few remaining years knowing that his life was not worth the scum around the rim of a spittoon. George Tiller probably felt the same way.
I don’t dispute that what Dabney writes here is the norm. I don’t even think that he is contradicting the law of communal preservation, which is Rutherford’s focus. I am saying that the community is not always able to express itself formally. And since this is the case, the very people we call “vigilantes” are often better representatives of “the popular heart” than elected officials.
Excellent comments on Missouri and Jesse James.
re an earlier commetn: I had never heard that Stauffenberg might have said …secret Germany, but I see Wiki supports you.
In favor of sacred (or holy) Germany would be the expression for the “Holy Roman Empire” as is still well-known as I have seen with my own eyes amongst older Germans. The actual expression is “Das heilige römische Reich deutscher Nation” — The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. For some reason, the last phrase is left out of English translations.
I believe I have also seen the expression “holy Germany” used in some of the work done by the excellent Horst Mahler as well.
I’m not sure where the “secret” story came from. In German, “sacred” is “heilig” and “secret” is “geheimnis,” right? If so, they don’t sound the same, as they do in English, so it’s doubtful that Stauffenberg’s firing squad misunderstood him. I’m sure you’re right – it was “sacred Germany.” This is what Tom Cruise said in the movie. And then he launched into a 30 minute ramble on the therapeutic benefits of Scientology.
Now, this is something I didn’t know – “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” Can you tell us any more about this?
I’m no expert on the subject, but I will tell you what I know. The German “barbarians” under Aleric sacked Rome. They were Christians of a sort, albeit suffering under the Arian heresy. This led to several centuries of confusion, Viking sackings, etc., often called the “dark ages.” Later Boniface thoroughly converted the German nations. The Holy Roman Empire was established with the coronation of Charlemagne. History professors — most of whom would be better known as wags — love to say “it was neither holy, Roman, nor an Empire.” It was seen as the revivification of the Roman Empire (hence römishes Reich) and of Christendom (hence, holy). But now, it was located in Germany — hence “of the German nation.” Sometimes it included parts of northern Italy (which of course is basically Italian-speaking Germans) and France. More or less it WAS Germany. The local kings authorized to elect the Emperor were called Electors (e.g. Luther’s Elector of Saxony) and met in parliaments or Diets. It was the “first Reich” and lasted until the Napoleonic victory at Jena in 1806 — thus, lasting over a millennium! Germany was then broken up again until the Bismarkian unification (Second Reich) a half-century later. For some reason Western historians leave off “of the German nation.” The memory however lingers of Germany as the bastion and anchor of Christendom and civilization.
You are a gifted writer and defender of our race.
YHWH Bless!
When I first saw the headlines about Tiller, I would have thought to myself (if I were a conspiracy theorist) now isn’t that odd. Kennedy’s Hate Bill is stalled in the Senate. Pro-lifers will definitely come into the purview this legislation. Pedophiles will be protected. This constitutes a problem. A plumbing problem to be exact.
Even the Senate is aware: this turd will never withstand the scrutiny of a Judiciary hearing. The longer it just floats there in the bowl the worse the stench. How to flush this thing into the American legal system. Aha! Maybe it can be flushed as an amendment if the entire nation is in an uproar over hate crimes – I would have thought to myself (if I were a conspiracy theorist).
What this movie needs are crimes that cover the entire spectrum of hate crime victims from the worst: Tiller (that demon of the pro-lifers) to the most lovable (the loyal black guard at the Holocaust Museum who loves to hug the nice Jewish grandmother). I think that about covers spectrum America. So a spectre is haunting the spectrum of America. The spectre of Hate Crimes.
So. Crank up the smoke and fog machine. Send in the lone nutters.
This is a bad movie. For something this important they should have hired a professional scriptwriter from J-ollywood to at least write them a decent script for crying out loud.
And now we have the important message from the record. Comrade U.S. Attorney General Ziobot Eric Holder: “We will not tolerate murder or threat of violence masquerading as political action.” Ha Ha. What of the political activism of the gov’t and its inside jobs like 9-11 and their war of terror?
Yes, we the people need the Kennedy Hate Bill (like a hole in the head) because of the recent hate killings in Kansas and Washington D.C. And to prevent (cover your ears boys and girls) Holocaust Denial.
Now that they have applied the plunger: will the Senate get this turd to flush?
admin:
This is the Best of the Best! Many of the responses here are a MUST Read!
I would add, “On the Right to Rebel against Governors”, Samuel West (1776) http://users.frii.com/gosplow/west.html
West preached Romans 13, as the apologetic for resistance to tyranny. I read his sermon once, several years ago, he states that in Romans 13, God commissions the magistrate to punish the wicked and protect the innocent. Amen! West states that if the magistrate is punishing the innocent and protecting the wicked, that Government is NOT a legitimate Romans 13 government. Romans 13 interprets Romans 13.
Here are several links worth reading:
Romans 13 and the American Revolution:
The Founding Fathers Believed Government was of God
and UnGodly Tyranny Must be Resisted
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/romans13rev.htm
Sola Deo Gloria
Sic Semper Tyrannis
You’ll hear it said again and again in these BNP interviews that the party only won seats because the Labor vote collapsed. But they don’t tell you anything about how the BNP has to scrape for every vote they get. There was more anti-BNP literature distributed in this campaign than for any other party. As every billionaire in this country knows, money gets out the vote, or suppresses it, as the case may be.
They will also claim the BNP vote went down, which is an outright lie. It did go down slightly in the areas where the BNP won seats but those are also the areas where the anti-BNP campaigning was most intense.
In fact the overall BNP vote went up in absolute terms and up in percentage terms. Though the collapsed Labour vote will have magnified the percentage effect.
BBC table of 2004 Euro results gives the following:
BNP 808,200 votes = 4.9% of the vote
BBC table of 2009 Euro results gives the following:
BNP 943,598 votes = 6.2% of the vote
A numerical rise of 135,398 votes from 2004 to 2009.
Lynda,
Interesting comments on Sir Wm Wallace.
I do have some questions about some items.
According to David R. Ross, Scottish nationalist, author and Wm. Wallace expert,
http://www.davidrross.org/, states:
“Our national anthem is actually ‘Scots Wha Hae”, not Scotland the Brave or
Flower of Scotland, although soccer fans tend to sing the latter.”
“Wallace’s father’s name was Alan, not Malcolm as she states.”
Please clarify. Thank you.
Dear CWRWinger,
A good way to start a fight in a highland pub is to start making statements about William Wallace – esp if you are lowland or a foreigner.
Therefore with some trepidation, I will say the matter is far from settled, even among the experts. And it is intensely politicized.
Those who wish to place Wallace with the Stewarts and the Jacobites (later Jacobins – of the auld alliance with France) claim that his father’s name was Alan – as a follower of Walter Fitzalan. This places him with the Grail lineages of the Scottish nobility, if not in a succession – at least in family alliance.
But Clan Wallace was / is not a Jacobite Clan. Look at the Roll of ’45 or any of the Battle Orders – Clan Wallace isn’t given with the Jacobite Clans.
Not unrelated to this matter, the Earls of Ross did their share of politicking with the Plantagent Council of Scottish nobles and the Plantagent English kings in the matter of the division of lands north of the Forth. And in the vote for the Union of Scottish and English Parliaments – Lord Ross voted with the Jacobites.
What is undisputed is that Wallace was at war with the auld alliance: the Plantagenet Council of the Scottish nobles which swore oath to Edward I – a Plantagenet king and his claims over Scotland.
Of the six branches of Clan Wallace, the Wallace Clan of Cragie are the Wallaces of Elerslie which claims to be his birthplace. The Wallaces of Cragie bore arms for the House of Bruce. To me this explains a lot of history.
In the conflict between the Knights Templars and the Church, Wallace was on the side of the Scotland of Christendom. The Plantagenet Council was on the side of the Plantagenet pre-eminence in the Ordre of Sion and its requirements for the Scottish fief and Templar stronghold.
I think the line in Gibson’s movie Braveheart where Wallace tells the Bruce: “You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position and titles” a line that Randall Wallace who helped to write that script certainly would have approved (if he did not write it himself – to me this rings very true and comes from family history.
I also note that the definitive text of the Grail lineage and mythology: The Bloodline of the Holy Grail (The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed) by Laurence Gardner – the Jacobite Historiographer Royal gives one brief line in his entire gnostic tome (all 615 turgid pages of it) to William Wallace – the undisputed national hero of Scotland. So is Wallace related to or associated with the Stewart or Jacobite interests? For my money no. If they could have proved a relation, I think they would have hyped it to the hilt.
Gardner or rather Sir Laurence Gardner Le Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain is a Knight of the Temple. His brief mention of Scotland’s national hero is in keeping with the disdain of a Templar and a Son of the Widow for a Son of the Church.
I pay no attention at all to the anthems that the Elites say are the official national anthems. Australia, for example, supposedly elected ‘Advance Australia Fair’ (which no one had ever heard) in the 1980s. Whereas, everyone knows the anthem that captures the spirit of Australia is Waltzing Matilda. And at Gallipoli and Kokoda – the crucible of the nation – the anthem was Waltzing Matilda. You wouldn’t hear that at the Isurava national monument now – the black monoliths on Isurava ridge (which resemble the Kubrick monolith in 2001). The Masons in the Aust War Memorial raised those stones to the stoic virtues. They have higacked the history of Kokoda. All the Christian stories and poetry that came out of the Kokoda campaign and is still living history has been completely suppressed. This is so important, I think I shall find a back post somewhere and put some of it in the comment section.
The Flower of Scotland. Here the national game is rugby: union and league. This is essentially a game of combat. And you can hear a lot of great anthems sung at the Union games. But it isn’t too hard to distinguish the real national anthem when it is sung by 50,00 people. And when Australia is playing, the anthem isn’t Advance Australia Fair. Scotland also plays union and it isn’t too difficult to hear that something special which characterizes the true anthem of the nation when the fans sing The Flower of Scotland in English and Gaelic.
I think it is important that The Flower of Scotland makes reference to King Edward’s defeat at Stirling as the national victory. And of course the Jacobites who think Bannockburn is the national victory will dispute Flur na h’ Alba as the people’s choice – the choice which will be the true national anthem.
Lynda,
On the Nat’l Anthem:
It appears the official anthem is ‘Scots Wha Hae”. True, “The Flower of Scotland” no doubt, embraces the spirit of Scotland.
On Wm’s Father’s Name:
In i999, a seal by Wm Wallace’s father was translated from arcaic Latin, even though most sources still refer to him as Malcolm. Wm had an older brother named Sir Malcolm Wallace.
“[Note: in 1999 the seal of Sir Wallace was translated from the archaic latin. On his seal it says he is the son of 'Alan'.]”
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/william_wallace.htm
There is also dispute and confusion concerning Wm Wallace’s bloodline coming thru the
Cragies:
“Documented historical evidence of the line of Wallace is confusingly split. Some say he is descended from Richard the Welshman, dating back to the times of William the Conqueror – others have him traced back to the traditional Scots line of the Cragies. For reasons of simplicity and to keep with the theme of these pages, which focus manly on William Wallace and the reasons and situations that made him ‘Scotland’s greatest hero’, we’ll keep to the facts that are well known and true as much as is possible.”
http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/truth3.htm
And David R. Ross states:
“The Wallace family did not come from the line of Craigie- or at least
William did not. The Wallaces inherited Craigie around 1370, when a male
Wallace married the Lindsay heiress. As William died in 1305, you will
see this is 65 years out.”
(A side-bar comment: I find it interesting Wm Wallace was home schooled by his mother)
I agree, such a hero as Wallace will be politisied and skewed by the wrong people who would have much to lose if Scotland became an independent nation. As the yankees have rewritten Southern history, so the English will rewrite and downplay Wm Wallace.
I do agree with your accessment of the spiritual battle between god and evil in Scotland. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Thank you for your reply.
Dear CWRWinger,
Thank you for your links. I have read through them all with great interest – as I do with all things Scottish or about Scotland.
The dispute we are corresponding about is nothing if not ongoing. At the Home School in my shire we have definitely heard from our shire Alban Society on this subject. Our experience would seem to be a microcosm of the debate that is within Scotland itself and on the NET.
The matter of the Seal has not caused any revision in http://www.royal.gov.uk/…/Descendants ofMalcolmIII/WiliamWallaceGuardianofScotland.aspx or http://www.britannica.com.
In thinking about such matters, I try to take due consideration of Clan History that is often a matter of family, community and oral history – passed down. And often this is the only correction against official spins and revisions with Agenda.
No history is without bias. Clan Wallace definitely has their version of events as do the good Scots of Elderslie and I heard a deal of it when I was there.
As an aside. I was first made aware of the importance of oral history when I attended grade school. My home state is Missouri and the history of the Civil War that we had to study diverged considerably from the family and local histories. In the public school you had to learn that Missouri was like a microcosm of the War itself: you had your progressives and winners who were upholding the Federal ‘which desired to extend the Consitutional blessings of liberty to all Americans regardless of colour’ and you had ‘Little Dixie’ the losers, bigots and slaveowners of the counties like Boone and Clay and LaFayette etc. This version of events goes on to narrate that in Mo., the War lasted for decades as it degenerated into a guerrilla war (or ‘Indian fighting’) between the JayHawkers and the Bushwhackers.
The more appropriate term, however, would have been ‘Highland Way’, given the nature of the population of S Missouri and N Arkansas. And Highland War can go on for hundreds of years not decades. When I was growing up, down at the courthouse, if the subject of Lee’s Surrender came up, you would hear the comment: ‘Still not a bad strategy. Only a Yankee or Carpetbagger thinks this will be over anytime soon.” Followed by a general laugh.
Most in Missouri were small farmers working their own lands and farms, small self employed family business and trade and craft. They were independent, they did not own slaves and were never happy about seeing them imported into Little Dixie. Ethnically they were Celts. Their people came out of the Highland Clearances in Scotland (again the Jacobite nobility), the Troubles and the Potato Faminine in Ireland (the Orange Lodges and Protestant Landlords) and the Coal Mine lockouts in Wales. This is the traditional white population of Southern and much of Central Mo and N Arkansas. They were fiercely loyal to the Confederacy because Dixie represented the Constitutional position of America which was a united states. They opposed the Federal as the overlordship of big government superceding the States and running roughshod over local and state gov’t. They fought as Americans with ties to ain countrie.
History is not only written by the victors, it is hijacked by their Agendas. I suppose that for my part, it is this background which is my bias to the claim of Clan Wallace.
I am retracting something I posted above. I now agree with your selection of “Flower of Scotland” as the closest song to a nat’l anthem. According to Wikipedia, there is no official anthem.
Wikipedia has this to say:
“Although Scotland has no official national anthem, Flower of Scotland is one of a number of songs which unofficially fulfil this role, along with Highland Cathedral and the older Scotland the Brave.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Scotland
There is a poll listed showing Flower of Scotland in first place.
I have read Wikipedia can be wrong, too. So, I will go with what you wrote.
************************************
L: “The dispute we are corresponding about is nothing if not ongoing.”
I agree. Sometimes the devil is in the details. Sometimes the Devil fabricates the details.
Dear CWRWinger,
Go with the Scots. Say you have 50,000 Scots assembled for the World Cup and Scotland is tied with the opposing team in the dying minutes of the game. Let’s say the Scots (our heros) have maybe 5 minutes to score the winning goal and take the Cup.
Fifty thousand Scots are not just going to sit there. They are going to stand up and with one voice and song, they are going to pipe in that goal. To electrify the team and give them whatever it takes to score – what are they going to sing?
That will be the national anthem.
“There may be better analogies from church history but I’m going to suggest this situation is similar to the persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire. Do we have any records of Christians resisting their oppressors by force and killing them?”
Christopher- as a Catholic, this is THE issue that both RC’s and Orthodox seem always to revert to, and it makes me hopping mad (as a Scot, I’m not used to bull!) in that; a) in the Beginning, Rome was the main authority- and yes, it was pagan. So, Christians had to do what they could in a pagan empire
but
Rome (east and west) became a Christian empire, and THEN, the shoe was on the other foot! We then had ‘built thy kingdom come’ on Earth, and needed never to feel ‘sorry’ we had converted it to True Religion.
So, if an empire (or a nation) is pagan, then Christians should be subservient, for building the kingdom is a matter of Grace.
But DEFENDING CHRISTENDOM is EVERY MAN’S DUTY. TO blithely think we are all limpwristed pantiwaists in this fashion, is to say Satan is our master, not Christ the King.
I think defense of Jerusalem is clearly visible in Ezra and Nehemiah, when it was their own.
I think defense of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse is clearly how Christians should proceed (by evacuation and stealth) when a Pagan Empire overtakes the Church.
But to equate the passivity of the NT as normative when it is OUR land, OUR Culture, OUR religion that is being destroyed, aborted, and legislated out of existence, is to partake of the blasphemous ‘two kingdoms’ theology of Luther’s wish to be non-confrontational in the aggregate, though that doughty German was pretty confrontational in the individual realms.
And no Westminster devotee, would ever say they are in favor of some Lutheran’s theology! LOL
Lynda,
Do you believe the spirited support of a sport team will morph into genuine Scottish nationalism once the spectators leave the stadium?
On another subject, why did/do the English hate the clan structure so much? What was the threat to them?
From Wikipedia:
“The Act of Proscription of 1746 incorporating the Dress Act required all swords to be surrendered to the government and prohibited the wearing of tartans or kilts. The Tenures Abolition Act ended the feudal bond of military service and the Heritable Jurisdictions Act removed the virtually sovereign power the chiefs held over their clan.
The extent of enforcement of the prohibitions varied and related to a clan’s support of the government during the rebellion, but overall led to the destruction of the traditional clan system and of the supportive social structures of small agricultural townships.”
Do you have a suggested reading on the history and culture of the ancient Scottish clans?
Dear CWRWinger
I regret that I lost track of this thread when the new one was posted and I missed your comment and inquiry.
Your comment / question is an excellent insight.
From personal experience, it went like this.
I was in the crowd at that soccer game. I was there when the Scottish nation in the stadium arose as one and sang “Flur na h’Alba”. And I don’t mean just the Scottish fans in the team colours. I mean fans from the opposing team dressed in the colours of the opposing team – if they were Scots, they stood as one and sang The Flower of Scotland.
What this tells me CWRWinger is that you are into the gold. The national game (by whatever name) is nationalism – probably the only free expression of it we can at present observe and participate in.
The only other time I have seen anything like it was on the documentaries of the making of The Lord of the Rings.
The scene where Rohan rides onto the field of the Pelennor. By all accounts, Jackson could not keep the N.Z. Light Horse out of it. The capital that new world nation is called Dunedin (pronounced in Gaelic: Dun Eden). This is the true Gaelic name of Edinborough. So the whites of N.Z. are of course – Scots. And where does Peter Jackson shoot The Lord of the Rings? In N.Z.
So, in the scene where the Rohirrim ride onto the field of the Pelennor, Jackson rented time after a N.Z. rugby union match. He had a stadium full of Scots and some Maori. And he said: “Now in answer to Theoden’s ‘a sword day, a red day, ere the sun rises’ – the crowd must shout to the Orc lines: ‘Death!’ Lots of great footage of Jackson there in the middle of the stadium coaching the crowd onto their dialogue.
The roar was deafening – even more impressive than an Australian vs New Zealand game.
The Clan history is a minefield because the masonic historians have hijacked it. For anyone getting into this subject, I would recommend starting with the history of the Highland Clearances (Fuadach nan Gaidheal – expulsion of the Gael). This was when the ancient Scottish Clan system was destroyed on ancestral land. And in its dismemberment, its organism can be seen clearly. Like in an autopsy, there isn’t a lot of room for bias. So it doesn’t matter whether you are reading a Jacobite or non-Jacobite historian. All report valuable information.
But the living spirit of the Clans went to the new world on the transports. Of that I am convinced.
The book we use in our shire home school is The Highland Clearances by John Prebble because he has a whole chapter on Clan Ross and we have many folk of that noble family in our shire.
Lynda,
How does this display of Scottish Nationalism, of which you speak, manifest itself outside of the context of a game?
Or is it forbidden? If so, who is forbidding it? The weak heart, or some PTB?
In Australia and New Zealand there are many Alban, Celtic, Hibernian societies.
The shire in which I reside has an Alban society and people with family history in the Clans are members of it.
Through various gatherings we support a Highland pipe and drum band, a school of Highland dancing, Scottish country dancing, home schools, Gaelic language, art and craft, geneological societies, tartan societies and games like Hurling and AFL (Australian Football League) which is a Gaelic code.
It is important for children of Scottish descent to know their Gaelic culture, language and family history. It is important for their parents to live the culture of their ancestors in the new world. It is important to know the contribution that culture has made to the new world.
Like most associations, we rely on the freedom of association. And in a liberal demonocratic society this is under threat.
The societies of which I speak reserve the right to limit membership to those who have Scottish ancestry. And the right to freely associate is being tested by those who oppose cultural unity for Whites.
If we were Aboriginals the right of our societies to include members of a specific racial ethnicity would never be questioned. But because we are white – our right to our own exclusivity is challenged.
The Scottish nation is one throughout the world because it is one people. Members of that nation might give loyalty to the country of the their birth – for example – in the new world, like New Zealand. But my feeling is that the nation of Scotia in its Clans transcends citizenship of the birth country. The nation of Scotia migrated out of Scythia and Galatia right across Europe, was long in Scotland and is now in diaspora. Yet it is still one nation and one tongue.
And the members of that nation have a unique contribution to make in any country where they are born and reside.
In the wider community, our Highland pipes are in constant demand for social and patriotic occasions – and it requires a huge support network from the societies to meet the outside demands for our unique cultural contributions.
When young people from our community home schools walked Kokoda a few years ago, they walked as Scots. They wore the national dress and at the Isurava memorial after the multicult stuff of the official ceremony was over – they sang Scotland the Brave in a capella in the bardic 10 part harmony of our people. They ditched the official masonic hijack of Kokoda and tribute to the stoic virtues that are part of these ceremonies and prayed the Lord’s Prayer in Latin. The Papua Nui Guineans were the only others there who could sing in 10 part harmony and they sang some of their beautiful songs too.
Whereever the Scots reside in the world, the blood is strong and the nation will honour the citizenship of the country where they are born. But they remain Scots.