Thomas White has just written a set of articles that are without question the best that TOQ has ever published. As you know, the Darwinist and atheist must borrow breath from God in order to curse God. And not just breath but every thought that passes between his ears. He wants his wife to believe that he loves her; he wants to believe that his ideas are ordered by logic; his heart swells to the music of Beethoven; he cries when his mother dies; and he is wholly incapable of explaining the existence of love, beauty, and logic with his naturalistic religion. For fear of acknowledging the sin that has infected his soul, he declares that the world around him created itself; but since there are no answers to be found in nature for what preceded the Big Bang, he must accept this on blind faith, even while pretending that he is not religious.

Therefore, how could the disappearance of the white race be considered bad or wrong, if we are simply meant to pass from the earth, unwept and unsung, like every other species that has succumbed to Survival of the Fittest? The Darwinist stands mute, much like his god, Nature.

The theme of these articles, which end with a marvelous tip of the hat to Reformed theology and homeschooling, is that the future belongs to those who are having children, and these folks will be drawn from those who enjoy reality rather than eschew it.

White nationalism, as it currently exists as a movement on the ground, is not sufficient to produce viable, high-fertility families.

I think there are several reasons for this. First, is my belief that an atheistic mindset, independent of its truth value, inevitably produces a sense of despair, a paralyzing emotion not conducive to the hope for the future necessary to motivate marriage and child-rearing.

After you read the enclosed Bertrand Russell quote, consider the biblical adage that wisdom is proved right by all her children (Luke 7:35). If we are blessed by God with life and a future, does this not prove that obedience reaps its own rewards? And if we abandon Him and are cursed with barrenness, I think we can safely infer that our ideology is in desperate need of reassessment. Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen. 18:25).

Atheism is dysgenic because it seems to cause high IQ people to have fewer children… For materialists [and logical positivists] who insist that all of their beliefs be proved, the choice is between what you perceive as truth and life, i.e. evolutionary success. The former is rational, the latter is meta-rational. What choice must a consistent Darwinian make?

Choose life, forsake atheism, and my apologies for being redundant. Mr. White explores some other interesting avenues: “fast food (or more generally, the obesity epidemic), pornography, and video games. The evolutionary cul-de-sac before us is represented by a 20 to 40-something male in our society who consumes Taco Bell for nutrition, Internet porn for sex, and seeks fulfillment through the simulated accomplishments of video games.” There are also excellent comments on feminism, the balance of capacity and drive which has made the West supreme, and the degeneracy of Jews.

Porn is an industry uniquely suited to the strengths of Jews. For its efficient production, it requires a level of exploitation and cruelty to women that most white males (in sufficient quantities to dominate a given industry) simply lack. It takes a cruel, Middle Eastern, woman-hating religion and culture to produce the stuff. This Jewish dominance leads to other consequences.

A friend of mine once pointed out that the degeneracy of Broadway plays and musicals, now almost obsessed with various sexual perversions and paraphilias (particularly homosexuality), cannot be attributed merely to a primarily homosexual market, a mere 10% at most of the Jewish population. He pointed out that the main market for Broadway productions actually consists of heterosexual Jews, and in this we see a key difference between Jews and non-Jews. Many Jewish heterosexual men enjoy watching homosexuals, transvestites, and other assorted freaks prance around a stage singing and dancing in mock irony. That which disgusts heterosexual European men entertains Jewish men.

So the variety which the porn market demands will inevitably be a Jewish variety. Some anti-pornography crusaders have claimed that the process of orgasm, with its intense chemical payload in the brain, causes a permanent imprinting of the sexual stimulus into the brain. If this is true, droves of Western men are having their minds imprinted with sexual stimuli produced from Jewish sexual deviancy.

In other words, the men of the West, who are bound to the Cross with a blood oath pledged by their noble sires, are becoming Christ-killers. This is like seeing Life gleaming on the horizon and running away from it, to hide in deep caves, far from the light of day.

Reap his old reward.

The Washington Post demands “at a minimum…monthly airlifts of 5,000 or 10,000″ Haitian pre-voters.

A Jew defends a Jew who defends race-mixing “missionaries” accused of trafficking. I detect a theme.

Read seven reasons why interracial adoption is a bad idea.

The unchecked compassion of Christian wives.

Judeochristians have mobilized a massive operation, once again, to feed and clothe and “adopt” Negroes, who have never adequately done these things for themselves. They’re hoping that the money won’t be wasted this time if the gospel that accompanies the aid finally takes root. This enthusiasm for evangelism is certainly not a bad thing, we believe, but it’s remarkable to those of us who know that the same big-haired, toothy preachers, with their crisp new safari vestments from L.L. Bean, not only refuse to evangelize “racists” but do everything in their power to evade the recognition that we and our biblical way of thinking even exist.

Wheeler writes:

I challenge them to go to the white people whom they consider “racists” and take the gospel to such people. I challenge them to spend their money (and their supporters’ money) to build churches and missions and activity centers and food pantries and education centers for the skinheads, for the rednecks, for the “Rahowa!” pagans, for the Klansmen, for the trailer park denizens, for the thin-ribbed, snake-handling, sang-digging holler-dwellers in Appalachia, for the t-shirted Irish toughs in Hell’s Kitchen, for the Jamison’s-pounding Southies, for the quiet kinists who school and church their own red-haired children, for the beaten-down and confused high-schoolers whose brains and souls are festering sores under the scrape of the rasp of today’s relentlessly boundary-and-distinction-hating culture…

Why spill money traveling to far corners of the world to gain one shaky dark-skinned proselyte but refuse to puff even one lungful of good news to a young fellow in the same town who just happens to have white skin? Could it be that the Dave Blacks and the bean-counting seminarians don’t consider white people as valuable a “catch” as they do a strong black buck? Could it be that their self-hatred causes them to despise the redneck or the skinhead or the Christian Identity chick or the garage mechanic with the rebel flag on his front porch with a confusing intensity they’d rather not examine? Could it be that these people would rather put on a fair show in the flesh, spending God’s money to scramble after colored people who, deep inside, they know won’t ever require any real discipling, won’t ever require any real conversations, won’t ever require anything except more easy-and-guilty money?

We Kinists are living proof of this. We have dutifully tried to engage the sanctified race-mixers, and every time they bravely run away.

While “Focus on the Family” is focusing on Haitians instead, Colorado Springs, where the organization is headquartered, has run out of money.

Botswanans ask in horror, “What if there were no white people?”

Haiti is a land of black people. I would have expected the place to be swarming with black people helping their own. They were nowhere to be seen. I never saw any ships from black countries pulling into the harbour.

As the air traffic circled above the small airport, none of the planes was reported as coming from Africa. The blacks were nowhere to be found. They issued tepid statements of condolence to the people of Haiti and a few of the African countries donated small amounts of cash.

This relates closely to what Edmund Burke wrote in 1781: “A man that breeds a family without competent means of maintenance, encumbers other men with his children.” The same could be said of a race. And if large numbers of men who comprise that race profess to be Christians but rely for their very survival on perpetual alms from strangers, it’s obvious that they are making a mockery of their profession of faith.

Honduras, suddenly finding itself ignored, says, “Show me the money!” That’s Afro-Christianity for you.

“This was not an earthquake disaster… [This] was caused by people that didn’t know how to use codes, that built things in bad shape. These were the people that caused the tragedy.”

You can’t help but be impressed with the quality of Gary DeMar’s operation, but he is a racial imbecile. In recent podcasts, I’ve heard him and Joel McDurmon say that Haiti’s problems are a religious deficit, lack of a free market, no access to bank loans, and even inadequate building codes, which is kind of like saying that obesity is caused by big bones. Our people are plagued by false religion and socialism too, but the obvious differences aren’t enough to bring Judeochristians to even think of race.

Still, in fairness we must give credit where credit is due. We highly recommend the links here, here, and here, which are Joel McDurmon’s response to an article by Michael Horton in Christianity Today.

Horton, a racial imbecile himself of the highest order, contends that the only “Christian nation” is the body of Christ scattered throughout all nations. On the contrary, a man is much like a nation; without both racial and religious fidelity, he is unbalanced, double-minded, unstable in all his ways. Horton, in changing the meaning of the word “nation” by calling it the Church, is an example of why the Church has been a failure in our time. This robs us of cultural balance every bit as much as liberals who think that the collectivist state has the answer to every question.

According to Horton, there is no such thing as a Christian nation until Christ returns. Until then, equity and fraternalism are good enough for the civil realm. This is what Horton calls “justice.”

Only when Christ returns will He reign in a kingdom of glory, as the realms of this age are made subservient to His will.

No, Christ will rule until all enemies are made His footstool. He will not return and then conquer; He will conquer and then return. As McDurmon asks, “How can the gospel conquer the earth through the word and the power of the spirit and not have a visible effect overall in the secular powers and cultural labors?” He has a good term for Horton’s desire to keep Christianity in the churches and out of the public square: “militant amillennialism.” This also has a lot to do with Horton’s strange belief that “living the gospel” through “faithful obedience” is legalism.

Church and state should be married in purpose, with distinct spheres of authority but never under different laws. Horton disagrees, saying that “Christendom is a contrived empire” rather than the charter on which all white nations have been founded and derive their authority. If Cortez had agreed with our presbyterian imbeciles today, he would have called the Aztec government legitimate and their culture equal to all others.

John Calvin is no help here because he contradicts himself. In one place he says that nations can legitimately govern themselves differently, depending on their circumstances, as long as they conform to the “moral” law of the Bible, natural law, and conscience. In another place he writes that “barbarous and savage laws, such as give honor to thieves,” are illegitimate. In other words, he holds that theonomic law is unnecessary (and could even be called “seditious”!), but laws by any other standard are not laws at all. McDurmon chides: “Even if Old Testament law did not supply the most biblical and ideal legislation for modern states (though I believe it does), could he rightfully argue that such a notion was seditious and foolish? Are they really fools who hold God’s prescribed judgments and punishments for theft, etc., in higher esteem than man’s?” In Calvin’s defense, most of the theologians on which we rely had a narrower, monoracial field of vision. We easily forget this because we don’t have the same luxury.

Calvin’s other major blunder extends from this. “Usury is not now unlawful,” he writes, “except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union.”

Kinship counts for more than the laws of men.

Here’s a superb question that a reader sent in, and if anyone knows the answer, do tell:

I have a question regarding the genealogy of the Kings of Israel & Judah which ultimately relates to the ancestry of Christ. The Bible says that Jezebel was the daughter of King Ithobaal (or Ethbaal) of Tyre and of the Sidonians (1 Kings 16:31), presumably making her a Canaanite. Athaliah, the wife of King Jehoram of Judah and mother of King Ahaziah of Judah was described as being the daughter of King Ahab, presumably with Jezebel, thus making Ahaziah (who is listed in the genealogy of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew) of mixed Israelite and Canaanite descent. Can you help me find an answer to this apparent dilemma?

So Ahab married a Phoenician, Jezebel. Their daughter was Athaliah, and she married Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram. She gave birth to several children, and all but Ahaziah were killed. Later, Ahaziah and his uncle, Joram, were killed by Jehu, who was doing God’s work for the prophet Elisha. It was significant that Athaliah lost her brother and her son on the same day, and both of them were kings. Then Jehu killed Jezebel, and dogs ate her corpse. Athaliah then murdered any possible successors to the crown (her own grandchildren), but Ahaziah’s infant son, Joash, was kept in hiding. Meanwhile, Athaliah became history’s only ruling queen of either Judah or Israel. When Joash was brought out of hiding years later and acclaimed as king, Athaliah tried to stop the “treason” but was captured and executed. Joash himself was later assassinated for his most infamous deed, which was denounced by Jesus Himself in Matthew 23:35. When his own cousin, Zechariah, spoke out against him, Joash had him stoned. This is kind of the opposite of John the Baptist preparing the way for his cousin, Jesus. Apparently, the two assassins of Joash were an Ammonite and a Moabite, which is also significant (the two peoples of incest). Joash’s son Amaziah then became king, but the three kings who were closely descended from Athaliah (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah) are omitted from Christ’s genealogy in the first chapter of Matthew.

Getting back to the question then: Was Jezebel a Canaanite? If so, her marriage to Ahab was forbidden, yet Christ apparently descended through their offspring. There are two possibilities.

Perhaps Jezebel was a Canaanite. We know that God drowned the earth for prohibited marriages (Gen. 6:1-7), and we know that God hated Jezebel (2 Chron. 19:2). We know that in such cases, God swore to visit the iniquities of parents to the children of the third and fourth generations and to blot out their names from remembrance (Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; Ps. 69:28; 109:13-15: Jer. 32:18; Ezek. 13:9). There were plenty of idolaters who never received such a harsh penalty, but if this was an adulterous union we can see why Christ’s genealogy skips the names, going from Asa to Jehoshaphat to Jehoram to Uzziah. Uzziah is considered cleansed of the wicked blood line, because Jehoram is actually his great-great-grandfather, not his father. This presents a conundrum, however, because Matthew 1:17 states very clearly: “There were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.” We’ll assume that there were real generations being skipped here, but it does seem very strange. To insert gaps in a definite timeline actually lends credence to dispensationalists, who insert a millennia-long gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy.

Perhaps Jezebel was not a Canaanite. Many scholars teach that the Phoenicians were related to Trojans and Cretans. Others say that the tribe of Dan joined with Edomites to form the Phoenician empire. Justin, Pliny, Ptolemy, and Strabo considered it to be a known fact that the Phoenicians originally came from Bahrain, far away in the Persian Gulf. See the bottom of this page, under the heading The Phoenicians, and you’ll see that the modern Lebanese, who are believed to have descended from the Phoenicians, have DNA markers that are Tarshish Japhethite, not Canaanite. We know that Canaanites did not trade with Israelites, yet Hiram had a very close business relationship with Solomon before Jezebel was born. They could very likely have been distant relatives.

It’s not very helpful to answer a question with so many indecisive words, but let’s see if anyone else can shed some light.

Some criticism of certain Kinists from Generation5.

We disagree that words should not be used just because a sizeable number of people don’t like hearing them. Sodomites don’t like the word “faggot,” but it suits them well. On the other hand, we agree that there is no need to offend unnecessarily. There are better words than “nigger” or “whatever the name was in those days” to use as labels for blacks, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the word. In fact, it needs to be heard by those who get more upset about words than about crime statistics. This is at least no worse than the use of the word by some blacks who seek to blunt its impact. For instance, a black “singer” recently released an album called Nigger and a hit song called “Be a Nigger Too,” set to the tune of the old Dr. Pepper commercial. He obviously intends to shock his listeners into realizing that anyone can be a “nigger” because all people are equal. Far from encountering resistance, he is given millions of dollars to preach this message. Why is it wrong to use the same word for shock value to teach a quite different lesson?

Generation5 writes: “I call ‘Christian Scientists’ by their preferred name even though they’re neither Christian nor scientific, but quite the contrary!” Me too, but a more accurate word for a “Christian Scientist” is “cultist” or “heretic.” We should never shy away from words that are more accurate. I can truly say that we have never been concerned here with “alienat[ing] potential readers.” This explains why we would make terrible politicians. But again, the point is well made and well taken: Why grate on someone’s nerves with unbecoming speech if the context does not call for it? The final clause makes all the difference. “[I]f it makes no difference to your essential argument, why advertise low status?” There probably isn’t a reason in most cases, other than to be anachronistic, but the reference to “low status” is offensive in itself. The assumption is that the way our grandparents casually spoke is now to be shunned on the authority of those who just happen to be alive. I don’t follow the reasoning, but I suppose it has something to do with the widely-held belief that our grandparents invalidated their credibility by owning slaves, not allowing blacks to vote, etc. We could not disagree more vehemently. And what have the living done to deserve such respect? If I may quote Chesterton, “Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” We are surrounded by too great a cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1) to credit the living with undue esteem. Instead, we should have the mind of King Theoden, who could say when he died, “I go to my fathers, in whose mighty company I shall not now feel ashamed.”

Nor do I follow the reasoning that, for expediency, we should “Stop talking about ‘loving your own race’… Stop talking about the achievements of the white race… Stop talking about genetic differences,” etc., as our good friend Yggdrasil recommends. I think we have far too many people making far too many rules about what can and can’t be said and written. There is no dispute if the objective is ease of communication, but this is hardly ever the true objective. Refusal to talk about loving your race, when you really do, is simply spin of an ignoble nature.

As for the sin of miscegenation, mentioned in the critique, I think we’ve adequately covered that ground elsewhere. The main criticism in this area is that God tolerates improper marriages, so we have no authority to try to nullify them. This could only be logically argued (before we even touch upon Scripture) if one is willing to weigh every other form of marriage nullification on the scales of justice. Does the state have any reason at all to nullify some marriages as having been unlawfully joined? Obviously, yes. I think you can see where I’m going with this.

Generation5 insinuates that a “theonomic interpretation of Nehemiah” is illegitimate if there is not unambiguous agreement from “mainstream theologians” and “specifically in the New Testament.” As I say, we’ve covered this ground thoroughly, but it needs to be stated here that this objection breaks the hermeneutic of continuity between the testaments. In other words, it is not necessary for the New Testament to condemn bestiality; it is sufficiently condemned in the Old. Ditto for usury. The NT has a great deal to say about the subject of marriage as well, but this is not really the issue at hand. Here’s the real issue: “This particular doctrine will also be flown as a bloody shirt by liberals…” We hope so.