Pelvic Thrusts for Jesus, and Other Niggerisms
August 16, 2009 
33 Comments
Xtreme Worship! (Look for the Jew flag at 6:08.)
Hillary joins in. Perhaps Chelsea should consider the Kenyan’s marriage proposal. The offspring could be Obama 2.0.
That’s right, we’re talkin’ about The Good Life
In the food chain
Love among the ruins
I guess that you’ve finally come to accept
That there’s nothin’ you can do about it
It’s kinda like carvin’ the turkey
Kinda like mowin’ the lawn
Everything gets to this certain dimension
Winds up on a customer’s plate
And then gone
In just two short years, the national debt will exceed gross domestic product. If anyone out there is trying to prevent the government from collapsing, he’s not doing a very good job, and his task grows more improbable by the day. “An analysis of the national debt in 2008 showed that half of the debt is owed to the Federal Reserve. This is money that was created out of thin air and then loaned to the US government with interest.” The Federal Reserve is owned by the same race of men who are selling this pole dancing toy to little girls, to teach them to become strippers. All the Judeochristians out there should begin to study Proverbs 22:7: The borrower is slave to the lender.
“How much planning do whites do for our freedom – as opposed to merely waiting around for the system to self-destruct and for our enemies to undo themselves?”
“Military experts predict the costs of occupying Afghanistan will ‘probably eclipse that of the Iraq war,’ which is projected to reach over three trillion dollars.”
If I may quote Kipling:
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
You white boys can spill your guts in that faraway desert knowing that you haven’t done one whit of good for your own people, but just think of the glory! It would have been terrible if we “racists” had been heeded back in 2001. Even though we absolutely predicted everything that has happened, we’re racists! What we need is a good teachable moment.
The imperialists have already paved the way to put 400,000 troops in American cities, as is now being openly discussed. All they have to do is move the terror alert level to red, and they will be free to enforce martial law. A swine flu pandemic may be just the excuse they need.
Orwell versus Huxley. I think we must conclude that Huxley’s predictions have been more accurate.
This is an insult to Nazis.
When whites oppose socialism, it means that they are – you guessed it – racist. Chris Matthews slings some more buzzwords to associate “white” with “racist,” such as “less educated,” “rural,” “rustic,” “ethnic,” and “earthy.” (This brings to mind when Jew Michael Weisskopf wrote on the front page of the Washington Post in 1993 that Christian conservatives are “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.”) Even Zell Miller’s statement that Obama needs “gorilla glue” to stay in his chair is being condemned as racism, because Zell could have said “super glue” instead. My favorite part is when it is said that racists are those who “don’t like it that the country is changing.” That sure does cast a wide net, but we’re pleased to have so many of our white brethren and sistren joining us in the slough of Hate. It’s interesting that this old-school Irish Democrat, Matthews, chooses a Jew and a black for his panel of experts on what White America is thinking. But who better to invite when the objective is to slander 90% of all white people?
Nancy Pelosi calls the opponents of socialism “un-American.” Which is the same thing as racist, pretty much. Opponents of amnesty are “demagogues,” says Obama. James asks, “Why not just ban white people from saying anything about politics?”
Obama has brought change to the White House in the form of 20 attendants for his wife, a new record, and all for a woman with no official duties. She needs a few of them just to iron her hair.
This Fox News chick has one of Obama’s boys on the ropes for six painful minutes (painful for him, that is).
Francis Schaeffer’s idiot son analyzes the right-wing “lunatic fringe,” which is very much like a heckler at a comedy club thinking that the crowd came to hear his witty repartee. And in this case, MSNBC really did. Schaeffer also, in his quest to sell books, takes credit for founding the Religious Right, along with his father and C. Everett Koop. For his next trick, he will be handcuffed and submerged in a shark tank. The crowd gasps.
Jew Emanuel is keeping a list and checking it twice. And if you have been tagged as suspicious by the Judaic ruling class, you lose your rights. You are no longer “part of the American family,” as Jew Emanuel puts it. He refers to an oxymoronic ideological “family,” of course, which is quite different from the real family of flesh and blood to which we “racists” are loyal. Our Christian blood-forefathers denied that such a basic right as gun ownership was given by the state at all. “Emanuel’s argument that the government can determine whether you have rights reminds me of what happened to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he was arrested for criticizing Stalin. When Solzhenitsyn protested that the Soviet Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and right to a trial, he was informed that those rights only applied to ‘loyal’ Soviet citizens. He was no longer part of the Soviet family.”
“[W]hen the European exchanged his blood faith for a philosophical system, he lost the ability to recognize the difference between Satan’s clever trifles and the real things of consequence that flow from a heartfelt faith in the God-Man.”
Freedom of association is another right that government is not authorized to give or take, but race-mixers hate freedom of association. “A 64% white county stands in federal court accused of violating the civil rights of minorities, because too few blacks and Latinos voluntarily moved into small majority-white towns and villages in the county, many of which are heavily Italian and Jewish enclaves.” Now the county must spend $62.5 million to build low-cost housing, which will lower all other nearby property values. “The county must then ‘aggressively market’ these new house exclusively to blacks and Latinos.” Which of course means not only theft but also legal discrimination against whites who would love to live there.
Jew Saul Alinsky, who was Obama’s mentor in the Communist front known as “community organizing,” and who literally dedicated his book to Lucifer, defines racial integration for us: “A racially integrated community is a chronological term timed from the entrance of the first black family to the exit of the last white family.”
Listen to our partners in thoughtcrime, James Edwards and Bill Rolen, interview Nick Griffin of the BNP, who is also, much to the dismay of white-haters, a member of the European Parliament. But as Griffin admits, 80% of Britain’s laws now come from Brussels, and from the bureaucrats rather than the parliament. His chance of making an impact is open to question, but something is better than nothing. This seems to be how Griffin feels about the crown as well; it is utterly useless at the moment but could be succeeded in the near future by someone who will pledge to be defender of the faith rather than faiths.
A black Vanderbilt professor has written in the liberal Huffington Post that the SPLC’s recent report on racist militias is like all of their laughable “intelligence” reports – “full of vague generalities and unnamed sources. Most importantly, it made no serious effort to distinguish between individuals exercising their constitutional rights and groups that might actually pose a threat to society.” Well said!
The Promise Keepers act went viral, as the kids like to say, because it gave white men from effeminate churches a chance to gather in stadiums, press the sweaty flesh, and cry all over each other like schoolgirls to atone for their racism. It was the strangest way to pledge to become better fathers and husbands that the world has ever seen, and that’s because it was the offspring of interracial rape. Its founder, Bill McCartney, the former head football coach of the University of Colorado, saw his daughter get pregnant twice from his black players. He obviously could not learn the “racist” lesson from his parental negligence, because there isn’t much money to be made in patriotism. So he went in the opposite direction, calling for white men to offer up their own daughters likewise. This statement caught my eye: “Women tend to be faithless to men whose promises are no good, so if you don’t want to be cuckolded by your wife, you better keep your oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” But the needed oath is not merely to a now-meaningless piece of paper or a flag; it is to a people. It is a blood-oath.
Also very interesting is James Bowery’s comment that Obama’s “birth certificate is a red-herring issue. If there is a real issue with Obama’s eligibility it involves the legal definition of ‘natural born’ regarding the father’s citizenship. ‘Patriot’ has the same root as Latin for ‘father’ for a reason.” Our thoughts precisely! Colorblind “conservatives” will argue interminably about whether Obama meets some imperial requirement for being born on magical soil. Go look at WorldNetDaily; it’s all they ever talk about there. But this is not the issue at all. The real issue is whether Obama is our kin, and he most certainly is not. He is an abomination and a curse with a pleasant baritone voice.
The Grimm brothers knew that God is not an egalitarian. Today, we are called haters for believing in God.
“The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas.”
Read this winning TOQ essay. “White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc.” have all begun to call themselves “white nationalists.” As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.” All these white nationalists define the nation in terms of blood, as our Christian forefathers once did. There was not a man among them who ever intended his country to be a welcome mat for “the liberal fiction of humanity.” They all agreed with Thomas Jefferson that Americans are “the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; and on the other side, Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.” Unfortunately, it is now mistakenly believed that white nationalists desire to level ethnic identity and negate particularity and subsume all under a homogenized equivalent of the nation-state. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is precisely the opposite of what we desire. But what chance for success exists? “If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization… All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which ‘are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act’).”
As Kinists, we are duty-bound to point out how closely this meshes with Christian Reconstructionism. It’s unfortunate that CR sometimes comes across as slightly libertarian. The feeling is that government and society will be reconstructed only when everyone has willfully come around to the right way of thinking, never by coercion. But this is not how paradigm shifts have actually occurred in history (call them revolutions if you will, even if of the constitutional variety). For instance, if we are under threat racially, history tells us that a king is far more likely to enforce justice than the “people.” If we are under threat religiously, history tells us that it is far more likely that our oppressors will collapse under their own lard. Russians know this well. Of course, God’s hand moves in all these things. The point is that there is a healthy and holistic middle ground between pagan nationalism and the cop out of saying, “I am a citizen of heaven,” as most Reconstructionists do.
If you want to hear something quite memorable from two good friends of ours, listen to Chris Ortiz interview Michael Butler about Michael’s teacher and boss, the incomparable Greg Bahnsen. Michael is the closest thing we now have to Bahnsen, and it is fascinating to hear him explain why causation and induction are foreign concepts to unbelievers. This was a failure in Hume’s philosophy that Bahnsen employed to great effect in debates. The materialist can count but can’t account for his knowledge. Then, at the end, Chris says he loves to read First Word (which is now at firstword.us). So I guess he can be called a racist now too. Sexist, homophobe, and bigot are other words we relish.
Rushdoony’s good friend, John Lofton, and Michael Peroutka, who was the Constitution Party’s candidate for president in 2004, have repeatedly denounced the 2006 CP meeting at which chairman Howard Phillips refused to revoke the affiliate status of the Nevada party. The controversy swirled around the Nevada party’s Mormon allowances for abortion. It was very heated, and in retrospect we see that it sunk the party as a whole. Here are the final words of Paul DeParrie, shouted at Howard Phillips and everyone else who had left their senses. He was so angry that he stormed out of the room and fell over dead from a heart attack.
In similar fashion, Lofton doesn’t hide his opinions on anything, and when he raised the matter of this capitulation on abortion during an interview with Chris Ortiz [Play], Chris was apparently told to follow the show with another podcast [Play] to express Chalcedon’s neutrality in what Lofton had said about Howard Phillips. I have a good guess as to what happened: the Little Napoleon, Doug Phillips, got wind that his father was having his “character maligned and slandered” (translation from Dougspeak: criticized) on a Chalcedon broadcast, and this simply won’t do, because the Rushdoonys and Phillipses are old friends, etc., etc. In the same show, Lofton took aim at Doug himself for the insanity of idolizing Teddy Roosevelt. I would bet my fedora that Doug fired off an email to Mark Rushdoony is his trademark capital subheadings, pompous legalese peppered with the word “actionable,” and copious footnotes. Chris then had to waste his time defending these lunatics, saying more than once that the subject was only discussed for 2 1/2 minutes on the air.
At about the same time as this, Doug Corleone was widely criticized for bullying a family out of his church. He knew which friends to call upon to defend him, and some savvy young admirers were more than happy to hack into the servers of his enemies. When the unethical publication of the couple’s long-confessed sexual sins failed to stick, an elaborate mythology was written up, starring The Four Ringwraiths of the Apocalypse, all of whom are RACISTS! Apparently, those who talk the most about honor and chivalry have the least of it. It’s also interesting that the all-purpose slander of racism has a limited audience when the accusers would be considered both sexists and racists by anyone outside their circles – bigots protesting bigotry. But hey, whatever sticks to the wall.
This is a fascinating article on how child-rearing has changed. Parents of a hundred years ago were “racists,” which means they lived in safe and peaceful communities. Children were free to roam all over town, play ball with friends, etc. There was little or no parental supervision needed. Now, as we all know, every minute of a child’s life is supervised and scutinized. Children are no longer free to explore, mainly because their parents don’t want them to become statistics in the Babel they have helped to build. To compensate, parents let them go wild at home and shower them with luxuries. This shocks grandparents, who believe that kids today are out of control and soft. Children view chores as abusive and view parents as their peers. But in generations past, children had a structured and disciplined home life. The “father knows best” lifestyle of the “racist” 1950s is now considered archaic, and even spanking a child can get a parent arrested.
A pioneer of Aztlan expresses his views on child-rearing.
In the latest outbreak of remorse flu, whites in California have apologized to one-fifth of the world’s population “for racist laws…[that] barred Chinese from owning land or property, marrying whites, working in the public sector and testifying against whites in court.” These were excellent laws, and quite biblical. Foreigners should most definitely not own our land, run our government, marry our people, or bias our courts. In a more “racist” and civilized age, this was all considered common sense. Once the boundaries of race have been chipped away, national boundaries exist purely by coincidence, if at all. Trust me – you do not want to hold your breath waiting for one-fifth of the world’s population to apologize to whites for anything whatsoever.
The Han, who comprise 92% of China, are, shall we say, not too impressed with Negroes. But the natives of the world’s largest country are said merely to “remain relatively cool to foreign ways,” even though anything of the kind in this country would be denounced as wicked racism. Can you imagine the Jews at the $PLC writing that the CofCC “remains relatively cool to foreign ways”?
I wonder if white women consider the old “racist” Birmingham to have been safer and more hospitable. I wonder how white women in South Africa feel about rats.
The Diversity Industry has tactically moved beyond the language of neutering whites to teaching companies that hiring non-whites is good for business, and awarding them when they do. If companies don’t take the hint willingly, the government mandates it.
By “disadvantaged,” I mean no disrespect. For that is the actual language of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program, which equates minority status with having a handicap. [And we're the white supremacists?] To qualify for 8(a) status – what one federal procurement consultant calls the “golden ticket” – companies must prove themselves either socially or economically disadvantaged. And who are “socially disadvantaged individuals?” Well, pretty much every nonwhite person in America, according to the SBA.
It’s not just the province of blacks, whom the program, born in the 1960s, was originally intended to help, nor just that of Hispanic or Native Americans. The roll call of SBA-designated sufferers has become rather long and grows ever longer, lately including persons with origins from Samoa, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Bhutan, and the Maldives. “In the absence of evidence to the contrary,” says the SBA, “individuals who are members” of these “designated groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged”…
And if you don’t think these [awards] are important to companies, you haven’t read their press releases. Even companies about to go down the chute, like Chrysler (a regular DiversityBusiness.com winner which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy during the conference), constantly extol their supplier-diversity awards and initiatives, no matter how minor or obscure… Chrysler also listed 56 other diversity awards it had won since 1998, coming from such distinguished entities as the Wisconsin Minority Supplier Development Council and OnWheels magazine.
My wife dropping off some laundry at the diversity-owned cleaners:
The aforementioned subsidies began as compensation for slavery, but they have been extended to every non-white person in the country, regardless of circumstances. It shows, yet again, that while racial identity is said to be a bad thing for whites, it is absolutely crucial for everyone else. Somehow, those of us who believe that race is a positive blessing are called supremacists, while those who consider it a handicap to not be white are called compassionate, even as they game the system. Worst of all is the white man who insists that race does not exist yet taciturnly allows race-based, state-mandated thuggery and theft.
A zoological curiosity. Confederates tried to prevent these beasts from roaming free. Y’urr me? This is why Stonewall Jackson said he did not wish to survive the independence of his country.
“You can’t say the word monkey around a black person, so why did Costco think they could get away with selling a black doll with her own pet monkey?”
The jurors for the Knoxville murders are being bussed in from Nashville and have been “quizzed on topics such as politics and racism.” Because if there is one thing we want to avoid at all costs, it is saddling an innocent murderer with the tar baby of racism! The trial starts tomorrow, and there is only one white man on the jury. The twelve jurors are two black men, five black women, one white man, two white women, one Asian man, and one Hispanic man. Knoxville is only about 16% black, but the jury is 58% black. Isn’t that lovely?
Killers on North Carolina’s death row can now sue the state, claiming that they are victims of racism. It’s amazing that a word invented by Communists and cherished by preachers has so much legal cachet.
Those who promote hoaxes are always the first to complain about racial profiling.
“Clean Jim Crowley…may be the finest officer in Cambridge, in Massachusetts, in the whole United States, but in promoting racial sensitivity and opposing racial profiling, he is defending a leftist political system and not the citizens of America who are robbed, raped, and murdered by ‘ethnically diverse’ criminals.”
Chicago “schools” hire a black scholar.
Are the white times really over for good?
He said way down yonder in the land of cotton
Old times there ain’t near as rotten as they are
On this damned old L.A. street
Then he drew a dying breath
And laid his head against my chest
Please Lord take his soul back home to Dixie
Meet Willard Wigan, a black man who can do something amazing. Without detracting from his feats, it bears observing that this is not art but athleticism. Blacks often excel at athletics, but we would sincerely like to see evidence that they are capable of astounding the world in better ways. Unfortunately, experience rarely deviates from that of senior officers at the U.S. Army War College in 1937: “As an individual the Negro is docile, tractable, lighthearted, care free and good natured. If unjustly treated he is likely to become surly and stubborn, though this is usually a temporary phase. He is careless, shiftless, irresponsible and secretive. He resents censure and is best handled with praise and by ridicule. He is unmoral, untruthful, and his sense of right doing is relatively inferior.”
Calling the president a nagger is racist.
A crime victim in negrified Camden, NJ, was handcuffed, arrested, and jailed by a black cop for twice calling the men who took her backpack, purse, car keys, money, and cell phone “niggers.” Wait a minute! A man who believes that name-calling is at least as serious as violent crime, if not more so, is a cop? Tell that guy he needs to become a presbyterian preacher!
“No white person is ever allowed to express any feelings about any black person except for utmost respect and deep admiration.”
This just in: David Duke hates lepers. I am outraged! It must be true if the accusation is in print. And Glenn Spencer is beating migrant workers. Yes, Porky Beirich is lying again. I’m not saying Porky is ugly, but if you placed a dog’s ass on her neck, Mark Potok would be jealous of the makeover.
This is kind of funny. A guy snatches a poster of Rosa Parks from a black woman and rips it up. I’m pretty sure Rosa is like the third or fourth person of the Trinity. In Nashville, Rosa Parks Boulevard runs right through the country music district, and there is a place on that road, at the other end of town, where there are at least four fried chicken joints on one small block.
Ken Burns is the fruity white liberal documentarian who has loaded his work with black history. Now he’s saying that the national parks are “America’s best idea,” and he has to scrape the barrel to make blacks and mestizos feel included. His writer admits, “It is indisputable that for generations, the national parks have been viewed as the bastion of predominantly white, upper middle-class Americans.” One could argue that the parks are America’s best idea if there were something called “America” that could think. Instead, the national parks were established by masculine white conservationists who were also immigration restrictionists. But don’t feel bad, Ken. Your hairpiece looks fabulous.
TOQ has published a snip from Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ in which the anti-Christ himself denounces revelation and tradition as the two walls that constrain liberal experimentation. I would love to know how any conservative racialist could ever possibly agree with such doggerel.
Here’s one of God’s Chosen Racialists who “makes it clear that his site is concerned with ‘the fate of the Jews as a people, not as religious adherents.’ If the word ‘people’ were changed to ‘race,’ would the meaning of that statement be any different?” He is one of the typical liars for whom the actions of Southerners hundreds of years ago are relevant to the condition of blacks today, and the actions of Germans 60 years ago are relevant to the condition of Jews today, but the actions of blacks and Jews in the here-and-now have no relevance at all for the future of whites in their own homeland.
In this video, the Jewish wife of Robert Crumb recalls her revulsion at her parents wanting her to straighten her nose and hair in order to appear more white.
To Hasidic Jews, a woman who “wears a jean skirt, or nail polish, or lipstick, or even if she just has exceptionally rosy cheeks…is toeing the line, imitating the norm that pornography has introduced into the minds of hasidic men, and so is automatically a whore and available for sex… She is either a saint, and therefore worthy of my self-control, or a whore, and therefore available for my use and abuse.” Hence, the pornography and sex slavery industries. Muslims view femininity (and the lack of it) in much the same way, which is why it is beyond insane that white women are not the most vociferous of Kinists. But there is also a feminine instinct for stability. They will try to make the best of any bad situation. They need men to save them from themselves, and vice versa. Just as children are far more likely to be abused by live-in men who are not their fathers, white women and children are far more likely to be abused by blood strangers who are legally equated as kin.
Blackface is Hollywood’s idea of originality.
Roger Ebert ripped into Ben Stein for promoting intelligent design in the Expelled documentary, but Race-Mixing Roger loves the movie Watchmen (two glowing reviews) for promoting intelligent design from an evolutionary perspective. In the latter trash, the main subject becomes pure energy, says he doesn’t think God exists, and then moves on to a parallel universe to do some creating of his own, but not before recognizing that the human herd must be periodically culled to reinvigorate a sense of altruism. He says the living are pretty much the same as the dead because their bodies have the same number of particles. He admires the barren landscape of Mars because it “gets along” just fine without shopping malls. Evolutionists consider such tripe to be genuinely profound, and it gives the rest of us a good clue as to how they view humanity. “In a cosmic sense,” writes Ebert, “nothing really matters…” And if nothing really matters, “love” is a virus, as we said earlier. These fools adore their own intelligence and are more than willing to worship an extra-terrestrial intelligence, as long as “it” doesn’t resemble the God of the Bible, which is another way of saying that “it” must be confined by space and time, just as we are. But since these people are the ultimate copycats, they are forced to use biblical themes in their dreams. Thus, Ebert recognizes that the pseudo-god in Watchmen returns from his 40 days in the Martian desert to be the savior of the earth, and arrives too late.
This is a perfect paragraph from our friend Yggdrasil’s review of Jew Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange:
The evolutionist in Kubrick surfaces, as the newly pacified and denatured Alex is incapable of defending himself. The “true Christian” of Brodsky’s creation cannot survive. And ironically, that is exactly the state that the IP [inner party of Jews] has left us in after 70 years of effort invested addicting us to passive entertainment and then desensitizing us to vice, crudeness, and ugliness while attacking Christian mores of sexual chastity and fidelity which held sway 50 years ago. Thus our own collective racial reconditioning has been much more complex and thoroughgoing than Alex’s relatively simple aversion therapy, but has brought us collectively to the same sad conclusion as we are now incapable of defending ourselves and incapable of reproducing.
All of us come to the realization, sooner or later, that we will never be Sam Dickson. Oh, we can try to attain to it, but in the end we always learn to be at peace with our limitations. Read this to see what I mean.
Aged 111 years, Harry Patch was the last surviving British soldier from our race’s First Peloponnesian War of the last century (World War I). These two fratricidal wars—like the original ones among the Greeks of Antiquity—pretty much accomplished the complete and possibly fatal wreck of our race and civilization…
White Christian Europeans just love to fight each other. It is a sublimated subconscious form of racism, that causes whites to believe that only a victory over a kindred white nation is worthy of pride.
All over Britain today one sees the innumerable monuments commemorating victories over other whites. Almost nowhere does one see a monument commemorating a victory over Sikhs, Hindus, Zulus, etc.
In every lifetime, we’re only given a few like Sams Francis and Dickson. I know the article is about a soldier, not about Sam, but you’ll kindly indulge us second-rate, starstruck writers.
Man, I am in awe of what You do, don’t sell Yourself short.
If I could ask a thing: could I have a link to that “aaafreeka-skull” in better resolution? It makes a HELL of a desktop.
Thanx!
Thanks. Actually, like many other things, it was sent to us. Someone else might leave a comment who knows.
Go here for hourly tweets on the Knoxville trial:
http://twitter.com/jamiescoop
Amen to all my yard niggers. Don’t get me started on the church niggerisms. Spirit of Truth is full of sweet pelvic thrusts, you just need to back the camera off so you can catch the dance moves.
Also if you’re feeling a little bit drunk tonight and you get the chance to drop acid and visit the Baptazia church, it comes highly recommended.
If you’re a true Christian and you carry a sidearm, or a “gat” in niggerism, you’ll most assuredly want to be packing when you visit this church. Black gun culture is just so much more exciting than anything whites can come up with.
These are excellent examples of niggerisms, Chad.
I don’t know if I’d call ‘em “niggerisms” but whatever they are I’m praying for a total meltdown of the electrical power grid in their part of the country every time they gather for “whoreship.”
On a different note –
“. . . when we look to our fathers in history, we are looking up not down. We are the children; they are the fathers. Does this mean that children cannot grow beyond where their fathers were? Do we arbitrarily pick some moment in the past as the high water mark of all human achievement? Of course not — every parent dreams of his children surpassing him, and prays and labors for it. It would be an ungrateful child indeed who refused to receive it. But, as Chesterton would be quick to point out, such progress only seems to happen to those children who really do honor their parents. The command with a promise is for those who love and honor their parents, their grandparents, their heritage, their history, their people, faults and all. . . .
“Charles Spurgeon once said that faults are thick where love is thin, and nowhere is this more apparent when it comes to the kind of honor we are trying to inculcate here. There is a cluster of virtues that is necessary for every student to grasp in the first place, and no wisdom is possible without this cluster of virtues. What do I mean? I am referring to love, gratitude, honor, humility, respect, and thanksgiving, and all of these directed toward your people. Unless you are loyal to your people, you cannot be part of a loyal people. With these virtues, you have inherited cuttings from the family vineyard, and we look forward with great anticipation to the wines you will produce. Without them, you are merely in the avant garde of that great duncical parade of ungrateful sons.
“C.S. Lewis once said that whatever is not eternal is eternally out of date. We should add to this an understanding that gratitude, loyalty, love are all the bonds that shape and form a community, and in the love that is our triune God, community is eternal. Love is eternal. And the boundaries of this community are not limited to those who merely happen to be alive at the time. The Christian authors you will be reading are all part of this community. They are part of it now. They are your people. They showed their loyalty to you by handing down precious things. Show your loyalty to them by receiving those things.”
– From the New Saint Andrews College convocation 2009
A lot of food for thought in this hour-long talk, although ocassionally he completely strikes out, such as near the end when he discusses the possibility of arbitration in legal disputes between adherents to totally different law systems, such as Islamic law and biblical law. (I would say that since such confrontations are in fact confrontations between different deities, the only possibilities are for people to betray one or the other deity by violating the law code(s) thereof, or avoid contact with the other group, or go to war, or submit to persecution at the hands of the other group without compromising. When Hoppe calls for arbitration he is proposing the first approach mentioned above.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2009-08-18_130_the_economics_of_world_government.mp3
I wonder if there is a connection with this very similar drawing? –
http://ffffound.com/image/3a0e69e4826756fe0f19125920a5572e30c0170d?c=3460555
Good find, Chris. Once I had the name Fernando Vicente, I found this:
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/07/15/atlas-by-fernando-vicente/
and these interesting shots:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1Z38tlkkPBY/Sf3px44LzfI/AAAAAAAAA_0/ajOqKLVKF3E/s1600-h/Mono.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1Z38tlkkPBY/Sf3qQ_FapQI/AAAAAAAABAE/AhENcLWxC7s/s1600-h/craneo.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1Z38tlkkPBY/Sf3opx0-LNI/AAAAAAAAA_k/05oIsBeDP7A/s1600-h/Explosi%C3%B3n.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1Z38tlkkPBY/Sf3D-7bZaSI/AAAAAAAAA8s/_l5XiS-7F4A/s1600-h/Paleocraneo.jpg
Chris, on arbitration, I agree, and separation is by far the most peaceful resolution. I also agree with Steve Schlissel that Christians need courts of divested authority, or what Jews call Beth Din:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din
This is really just a return to 1 Corinthians 6:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%20;&version=50;
That’s a very good quote from New St Andrews College. It’s a good rule for living that those who hope to surpass their parents had better honor them. And I’m glad he (Doug Wilson?) pointed out that the honor is not just accorded to their parents but to “their grandparents, their heritage, their history, their people, faults and all.” And this line is especially rich: “Unless you are loyal to your people, you cannot be part of a loyal people.” But this begs the question, Who are our people? I take him to mean that Christians are the people of Christians, and as the world is converted, the world will be One People. In a sense, this is the hope. 1 Peter 2:9 refers figuratively to the Christians of the world as “a holy nation.” But the word “heritage” is a blood term, and so is the word “nation,” and God has chosen to make history a story of blood just as much as a story of the gospel. So I think Christians always run the risk of ignoring this fact to their detriment. It has led to all kinds of trouble for us in 21st century America.
Yes, the person addressing New Saint Andrews is Doug Wilson, and although I don’t know whether he might want to nuance things differently from what you said, I think the gist of the difference between his thinking and yours is probably more or less as you put it.
Suppose we run a thought experiment. All the non-Whites and infidels leave America and take up residence elsewhere, so that all that’s left are White Christian theocrats. Furthermore, let’s say that it’s a hereditary monarchy with Admin as head of state. It’s probably safe to say that somewhere down the line, not everyone would continue to believe in the religion. Let’s assume that, after 100 years, about 15% of the population. We’ve touched on this before and I understand that they would be ineligible for any office, which doesn’t particularly bother me, but what else?
I’m just really curious about the specifics. Like, would they be able to express doubt and dissent in any way, whether in private between spouses, sibling, friends or publicly through books, magazines, radio etc.? If not, what would the penalty be for doing so?
It’s an honest question and I’m asking because I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer from any theocrat on this that didn’t dissemble and dance all around the issue, but I’m sure they must’ve give it a lot of thought. Thanks.
Admin: Your comment on Christian Reconstructionists and Rothbardianism is right on the mark. I cringe every time I hear from our fellow Reconstructionists that we need to have a “majority Christian population” until we start the task of enforcing God’s Law. This idea strikes me as a firm endorsement to the error of the despotism of the majority (i.e. Democracy).
Rudyard Kipling was a prophet. Having been born in India, he was very well aware of the darkie mindset. His books, originally printed long before the world wars, were always adorned with the Aryan good-luck symbols. Now, we see history repeating itself as the blood of our sons and daughters flows freely into the foreign soil of Afghanistan, to join that of our long-dead slaughtered British kinfolk. 5 American soldiers died today to bring “democracy” to a tribal land which will never understand it. It’s a murderous sham, then, and now, today.
Walsingham, your thought experiments are entertaining. I don’t see what they have to do with reality, but they’re certainly a gas. I’m not familiar with your parallel universe in which dissent is outlawed. As I look around the real world, I see that thought crimes are being enforced by Christ-haters. The real world is nothing like your John Lennon world (“imagine no religion”). Here in the non-theoretical world, there is always a theocracy, always a dominant religion.
Oscar, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard the alleged lovers of the revealed law bow and curtsy, saying, “Oh no, you have nothing to fear from us! We’re just harmless Christians. We’re not actually going to enforce the law for 500 years, because it will take that long for our societies to be regenerated.”
Doug Wilson runs for the tall grass every time someone tries to link him to Rushdoony. He once said, for instance, “Let’s set up the Christian worldview, and our descendants 500 years from now can work out the knotty problems.” And by pushing the “knotty” work 500 years into the future, he thinks he’s going to put himself well beyond criticism for wanting to execute fags and baby-killers right now. But he doesn’t escape the criticism at all. This quote was a major exhibit in the New York Times article about him:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30Christian-t.html?pagewanted=print
and in Jew Mark Potok’s “intelligence” on him:
http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Tal_Pal.htm
This shows what really frightens our enemies, and it is they who are shameful, not the law of God.
For those who don’t know, the “Aryan good-luck symbols” to which k&k refers are swastikas. The symbol of the swastika has been cherished worldwide, but its very first appearance (as far as we know) was in the ancient city of Troy. It’s a white man’s symbol.
This is one white man who can do just fine without swastikas . . . I have to reject those symbols as somehow representative of me as a Christian white man because of their connections with the Nazis. Although the Nazis have gotten a bum rap there was far too much in Nazi ideology that is detestable for the Christian.
For an example on the question of inter-faith arbitration, how can fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims possibly find a solution through arbitration on something like this? –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0P5IaIE_LI
It’s too bad that the Florida pastor didn’t have the good sense to hide her better. Just keep her in hiding until she turns 18 and then it’s no longer a matter for the courts to decide. But that’s neither here nor there; this sort of thing shows the utter impossibility of having multiple religious systems accorded equal status in a society. The U.K. is already destroyed and the USA is not far behind, thanks to this sort of insanity.
This book (Lincoln Uber Alles) sounds very interesting –
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1441/INTERVIEW__John_Avery_Emison_On_How__Dishonest_Abe__Brought_Dictatorship_To_America.mp3
Chris, on swastikas, that’s your business, but I hope you would agree that one can admire them, as Rudyard Kipling did, without ever giving a thought to Nazis. The problem is that even to display them now is a hate crime. I’m thinking of that child in Canada (?) who went to school with a swastika drawn on his arm and was taken away from his parents. I would love to know how one of the oldest symbols known to the West justifies state-sponsored kidnapping.
That’s a heart-breaking video. You’re right, light has no fellowship with darkness.
To Christopher Witmer, that particular design that Rudyard Kipling placed on all his books, predated Nazi Germany by many years. It is an ancient Aryan symbol of good luck. In many ways Kipling was prophetic of things to come, such as our fighting in Afghanistan, where the British army was brutally slaughtered, down to the very last man. That last man was allowed to live, in order to tell the tale of the defeat of the ‘superpower’ of the day, Britain. No offence was intended.
I certainly don’t hold anything against Kipling. In fact, I guess I’m angriest at the occultic Nazis who took a lot of perfectly good symbolism and invested it with some very serious liabilities. The fact that the Nazis have consistently been portrayed as far worse than they actually were doesn’t mitigate matters very much — and I’m not about to invest any time and effort in trying to recover such symbolism that was never of central significance to the Christian faith to begin with. If one of the crosses widely used by orthodox Christianity had been similarly misappropriated and subsequently maligned I might feel very differently about that. And the much-maligned flags of the Confederacy are definitely in a different category of symbols — those are worth fighting for.
Admin, no need for all that. I am just trying to understand theocrats’ thoughts and opinions, not be combative. Why I cannot get a straight answer out of any of them on this is a bit strange.
You don’t see what my questions have to do with reality? Well, everything, if Reconstructionists actually believe that one day there will be such a society. They do, right? I assume it’s not just a pastime that permits them to engage in theorizing about eventualities they know are really never going to occur.
“I’m not familiar with your parallel universe in which dissent is outlawed. As I look around the real world, I see that thought crimes are being enforced by Christ-haters. The real world is nothing like your John Lennon world (”imagine no religion”). Here in the non-theoretical world, there is always a theocracy, always a dominant religion.”
I didn’t say dissent was outlawed, I’m trying to find out it would be. Of course, thought-crimes of a certain variety are CURRENTLY enforced, but that has nothing to do with my question. It’s a deflection. Christian theocrats don’t enforce anything (like anti-blasphemy laws) critical of their religion CURRENTLY because they have no power to do so. That is, if that would be their inclination, which is what I’m asking, but can’t seem to ever get an answer. Therefore, I have to assume that the answer is that unbelievers would be second or third-class citizens and that disssent and criticism of the religion itself would be illegal, subject to a range of punishments from heavy fines, to public humiliation, to the death penalty, depending. Bear in mind, I’m not trying to put words into anyone’s mouth, but since no one apparently has the stones go on record and say, “Yes, we will kill blasphemers,” I have to draw my own conclusions.
Walsingham,
The dominant ‘religion’ in the west for at least 200 years has been secular pluralism. You should be asking yourself this question: Do our people benefit more from a self-consciously secular order, or historically, did they benefit more from a self-consciously christian order? I believe the christian faith made the nations of Europe great, not the other way around. And I’ll gladly compare the sins and excesses of christian europe with the supposedly ‘religiously neutral’ governments of the last 200 years.
But I can understand your fear of biblical law. Welcome to our world. We fear and loathe secular law; which is a man-centered religious order that I’ve had to live under my whole life, despite my personal allegiance to King Jesus. You worry christians might prohibit public expression of that which you consider good. The decalogue prohibits blasphemy, false worship, dishonoring parents, all forms of murder, all forms of theft, all expressions of sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, all forms of dishonesty and all forms of covetousness and greed. The ball is now in your court. Which of these offends you? Which of these do you regard as detrimental to our people, and the proper ordering of society? I’m not trying to be provocative here, I honestly want to know. Historically, christian europe has been far more free and tolerant of dissent then any muslim, hindu, buddhist or secular order. With respect, I believe your fears are misdirected. You should rightly fear any civil order that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I’ll go on record saying that public blasphemers should be killed.
Most of Hollywood will be emptied out the first week. What a blessing that will be!
Walsingham, maybe you should be making your argument more generally and point out how rare genuine tolerance is in the world. Some the least tolerant people I’ve encountered have been people whose favorite refrain was “Tolerance, sweet tolerance.” They are all for diversity until they actually encounter some. It turns out that only the songs in their song book are allowed, and they must be sung in unison. Those people are the ones who tend to howl loudest about the evil, oppressive Theocrats. The psychiatrists’ concept of “projection” always springs to mind.
Nota bene, the most fundamental tenet of the various flavors of “Theocracy” is that God rules, not that God should rule. My own take is that to the extent that true tolerance is possible, a biblical, consistently Christian commonwealth has the potential to be the most tolerant society of all. That is because all societies that conflict with God’s revealed will are inevitably oppressive. A good book-length argument can be found in Rushdoony’s The Foundations of Social Order.
Having said that, it is impossible for any law-order to embrace its antithesis and prosper. If tolerance has to be defined as open-ended acceptance of anything without limits, that’s problematic for the Christian society. And it’s just as problematic for the non-christian society. Where does one draw the line? At least the Bible gives us more objective guidelines than anything man has been able to produce.
Well said, Chris, but it’s too logical for Walsingham’s theoretical world of unbridled libertinism, free from all oppression.
This is where it leads — these people are oh so tolerant and they can’t even form a coherent sentence due to all the banned phrases. Oops, I suppose using “coherent” probably makes me a racist . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6806502.ece
Admin,
Not sure where you get the idea that I’m advocating for unbridled libertinism, but you’re right- I don’t think anyone has the right to oppress me or mine by the forced imposition of what in the end is only their set of mortal, human opinions on morality, not God’s. Christians don’t have access to a book written by God, nor does anyone else, because God doesn’t write books. The Bible is NOT God’s word, and that’s just a simple fact. I’m not trying to antagonize or incite a riot. I know this is considered taboo to ssy out loud, but it is just a nutty belief (which I admittedly used to share) that we have to get beyond. A spade needs to be labeled a spade.
Randall, et al.,
I can’t see any reason to FEAR a Christian theocracy, primarily because there’s no indication there will ever be another one, at least not within my lifetime. Even if one were unambiguously looming on the horizon, it would inevitably be the result of the Jews having been either expelled or totally dispossessed, which would also probably mean that “pagan” Nationalists, who I believe make up half (if not more) of the movement, would be in the process of forming their own alternatives, which relates back to my question.
Initially, a Christian theocracy should be extremely homogeneous, subject to slow, but steady and inevitable erosion as the number of unbelievers rises every generation, and it’s the implications of this that I wonder if theocrats have carefully considered.
What would they do if their mother or son or grandchild told them that they just no longer believed in Christianity? What if their conviction was so strong that they decided to (against the law) take their objections public? Would Randall, Christopher, Tim or Admin REALLY be willing to stand by and watch their loved one shunned, harshly punished or even possibly executed for the “sin” of “blasphemy”?
“I know this is considered taboo to ssy out loud, but it is just a nutty belief (which I admittedly used to share) that we have to get beyond. A spade needs to be labeled a spade.”
Ok. You don’t believe in Christ and are now compelled to evangel this to all.
Plus, in your vision of the future, there will be pagan theocracy alternatives – which you will happily join. Why then the obsession with arguing against christian theocracy? According to you it will die, it is nutty, meaningless etc, etc.
Why then the need to argue against it? Why this obsession?
“What would they do if their mother or son or grandchild told them that they just no longer believed in Christianity? What if their conviction was so strong that they decided to (against the law) take their objections public?”
If memory serves correctly, blasphemy would be cursing/slandering God – not the situation you described. This blog speaks from a christian kinist perspective. Your objections are not going to make anyone give up their faith. Indeed, one could characterise them as “nutty, meaningless etc, etc”. Why not go to Majority rights, stormfront, vnn etc, and heap up your disdain for the faith there? I honestly don’t understand.
Substitute “child molester” or any currently-popular sin for “blasphemy” and repeat the thought-experiment, and therein will lie the answer.
Note also that “expression of unbelief” is not blasphemy. Blasphemy has to do with causing the name of God to be despised or dragged through the mud.
As Schlissel observed, every society eventually protects the name of that which is its god, even when a false god is installed. We are seeing this slowly come to fruition since the 60′s revolution, as it will soon be illegal to insult kikes or fags publicly.
Well I got back from vacation yesterday and logged on this lively message board to see if our old pal Walsingham was still whining over his usual quandry of morals vs values. And yes. Of course he is.
IN a world of fallen and unregenerate men, there is no such thing Walsingham, as a purely secular society where everybody respects everyone else’s values. This is a myth. Moreover, the principles of this myth are principles stated clearly in the Protocols of Zion as “known to be false.”
The liberal societies were founded upon the violent overthrow of Catholic nation states by the organized force of Judeo-Masonry. This entailed wholesale massacres of the Catholic population and the establishment of republican government supposedly based supposedly on the rights of man, but in reality upon the Talmud – such as the Jacobin Committes of Public Saftety and the jurisprudence of US Maritime or Emergency Law.
What these republics are in fact is a Crypto-plutocracy whereby we have a charade of people’s choices, restricted economic activities, elections and so forth; but behind the Curtain is the real business of a statecraft which governs by dictate to the stooges who are preselected to enact the rhetoric of liberty, fraternity and equality upon the political stage. Different scripts for different stooges – but the business of shearing, herding, fleecing and killing the sheeple always goes forward.
For difficult and exasperating cases (such as yourself, Walsingham) who persist in believing there is a reality base to this rhetorical lobotomy for the goyim – Today’s Catholic World has helpfully set out a compare and contrast in their July 09 post. The Rights of God Vs the Rights of Man. TCW is the approbated website of the Church in Eclipse and its hierarchy connected with Pope Gregory XVII – who was taken hostage when the Revolution inaugurated in 1789 realized one of its prime objectives in the overthrow of the Holy See in Rome.
Please refer to the TCW Archives for July 09 – The Rights of God vs the Rights of Man http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jul09tcw.htm.
And again, in the Catholic state – there were penalities for blasphemy of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and the Saints; just as today there are penalties for anti-Semitism – which is legally defined as any criticism (evidence based or otherwise) leveled against the J_w. If anyone disbelieves that penalties up to and including the death penalty have not been historically enforced against those who attempted to document the reality of the American Cryptocracy and its power – contemplate the grave of Capt Morgan. Or better yet, contemplate the anti-Semetic laws of the Bolshevik (Judaic) Revolution in Russia – 1917.
This contrasts with the Christian polity which at its best tolerated heterodox opinions – pagans carried on in these socieites, as did Jews and Gypsies and nominals who believed in themselves or just materialism or nothing. However, government, education, publication, land ownership and the professions were barred to those not of the Holy Faith for the obvious reason that a Christian polity would not tolerate infiltration and subversion. Nor would it tolerate its offices being occupied by a parasite class. This is why Christendom reached such a high level of civilization and culture.
And realistically, what polity does tolerate infiltration and subversion by those who believe and think outside to the fundamentals of the polity?
Even a society like medicine – which in the West is merely an instrument of Big Pharma. If you want to get into medical school, see how far you get (even if you have the right connections, sterling recommendations and straight As) if you say you believe that traditional Chinese medicine can cure or that homeopathy is the way to go.
IN the Christian polity, however, the common law institution of the Commons, the sanctuary of the highways, the byeways and the woodland preserves meant that those outside the law could have the means to cultivate a life. They might not have been permitted to proselytize or to blaspheme or organize themselves as revolutionaries; but the history of England up until the Reformation provides for those outside the law, so did France, so did Italy.
FYI, The Inquisition was not directed to those outside the law. It was directed towards the baptised; those claiming to be Christians and enjoying / exercising the rights of Christians in a Christian polity. But the penalty for being a Crypto, practising a faith counter to Christianity and working the subversion of the society from within – was death.
By way of contrast, in the US, however, an agent of a foreign government can be caught red-handed passing highly classified US information and technology to his government and be given a jail term. Dual natinals can commit atrocities upon the American people such as the 9-11 false flag and be rewarded with government posts.
I think it interesting Walsingham that you confine your posts to lambasting the integrity of what was once Christendom. Talk about living in the past.
Yet, you are ominously silent on the hate laws and their bureaucracy which will soon be rounding up and incarcerating (or worse) anyone who dares express opinion critical of the true power elite. Why is this so?
Whereas the Christians fearlessly name names and expose the truth about the ZOG.
You are supposedly “just trying to understand theocrats’ thoughts and opinions”
Well, the Judaic Imperium is a theocracy. It is a ruling theocracy. Why in the face of this most clear and present American crisis is your interest so focused upon the Christendom’s jurisprudence?