Bret McAtee is devastating anti-Kinist arguments on Facebook. Get a load:

There probably is no one single magic bullet that heals all that ails Western Christianity. However, I would suggest that any answer must include a Gospel message that has the implications that the heart of the Fathers are turned back to the children. Further I would contend that kinism is a doctrine that emphasizes that truth. Certainly you would agree that the primary social unit that is the Family is being assaulted and one indication of the success of the proclamation of Christ Crucified would be a healing of the family of all people groups.

I can’t speak for Kerry but when he speaks of procedural precedent for families, I understand him to be saying that only if and when the family is rightly ordered can we expect proper ordering being achieved in other social order dynamics.

Yes, I think the concentric circles are normative. For example we find Greek deacons being elected to take care of Greek widows. We find the command that if a man does not provide for his own [, and especially his own] household he is worse than an infidel. We find the Apostle Paul’s intense lament for His own people. We find the mother of Jesus at his crucifixion. Indeed, even when Paul is on his missionary journeys it is his habit to go to his people first in the Synagogues. Even God followed these concentric circles in coming to the Jew first (His own elect nation) and then to the Gentiles. The Gospel moves in familial concentric circles. First to Judea, then to Samaria and then the uttermost parts. So yes…I find the concentric circles normative. Now, normative allows for exceptions but exceptions are just that…exceptions.

Throughout God’s revelation we find the promise of the NationS being affected by the Gospel. From the Abrahamic promise where “through you all the NationS will be blessed, to the prophecies in Isaiah and Amos of the NationS going to Holy Zion, to Jesus’ commission to go to all the NationS, to the hearing of the Gospel in the language of many different NationS, to the Revelator’s vision of the NationS flowing into the New Jerusalem, to the promise that the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the NationS and finally in Rev. 21:22f, at nearly the end of John’s book we read, “I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nationS will walk by its light, and the kingS of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nationS will be brought into it.”

Clearly throughout Scripture the witness is that the Kingdom is expressed in ethnic plurality. The Church is a Nation of NationS. Such a reality supports the reality of God’s one and many character as we find unity in diversity. Many parts…one body.

The contrary vision of this is the Satanic vision that was expressed at Babel where all bleeds into one. I know of no vision or representation in Scripture where diversity of peoples is swallowed in uniformity. Such a vision strikes me as the vision of a person who believes in a Unitarian God.

Jews and Gentiles are of course required to get along. But they get along as Jews and as Gentiles. Much of Paul’s labor in Galatians is to show that Gentiles don’t need to become religiously or culturally Jews in order to be Christians. I would take that same argument today and tell people that I was serving as a missionary for that they do not have to become culturally white or western in order to become Christian. Christ receives all people groups upon repentance but He does not require them to have identical cultural expressions of Christian culture. God loves diversity.

So yes, I think Kinism is normative, or at least should be. I think it is normative for people to love their kin. Now, of course, it goes without saying that love for Christ must rise above love for family, so that if family would tear one away from Christ, family must be torn away from instead. However, realizing that making family an idol is grievous sin does not mean that having family as a priority under sovereign God isn’t profoundly normative.

Serving as a Pastor in a Dutch Reformed Church, I can promise you that the Dutch are doing everything possible to throw off their Dutch-ness. The results of seeking to become a multicultural church are not promising.

In my estimation the Dutch lost their delightful inheritance not because of their love for kin but because the spirit of the age began to dominate in their thinking. So it wasn’t their familial relations that enervated them but rather their belief system being fouled.

Well, Craig, I don’t know if this is what you are looking for but if nothing else it was an opportunity to calmly speak on this issue w/o being called “heretic,” or any number of colloquial pleasantries.

Craig Brann, Steve Schlissel’s son-in-law responds:

I think the offense is the aperture. When Kinism/Familialism is spoken of in concrete terms of honoring God in the home and family, extended family and local community, etc. it is entirely reasonable. When inter-racial marriages are spoken of in broad strokes as a violation of nature and the downfall of western civilization, the offense is clearer.

Get ready for it… Cue Bret:

And yet it is only in the last 80 years or so that Western man, under the degrading influence of the Frankfurt school, has found inter-racial marriage acceptably normative.

As we look at the whole of Western Civilization over the last 80 or so years can we say that the West is more Christian now than it was at the time inter-racial marriage was considered untoward? Over the last 80 or so we have given the right to vote to women and most theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have destroyed the extended family and are now working on destroying the nuclear family and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have allowed women in the military and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have normalized children in government schools and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have enlarged the sphere of the State and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have made divorce more easily accessible and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have pushed women into the work force and theonomists realize that was a move away from Christian social order. Over the last 80 or so we have codified all kinds of perversions and theonomists have realized that these were, from the pill to homosexuality, all movements away from Christian social order. In all this social upheaval and change we have also moved away from our convictions on inter-racial marriage, yet only on this matter of inter-racial marriage have some theonomists concluded that this was a move towards a better Christian social order. Now, I ask…doesn’t it cause us to at least scratch our heads and ask how we could be so convinced that all those earlier mentioned movements were movements away from Christian social order and yet also believe that the encouragement of inter-racial marriage to be a move towards a better Christian social order? I suppose it is possible but, at least for me, I pause before I support something that has come in the context of such social order degradation.

Such lucidity provoked a typical rejoinder from the anti-Kinists:

Anti-Kinists spend a lot of time in urgent care, nursing their wounds from debates with Kinists. They know that their only hope is to throw chairs.

McAtee versus McDonald; Scot contra Scot. According to James McDonald, Kinists deny the Apostle’s Creed. I learn new things about Kinists all the time. I’m pretty sure they also pushed Jews into ovens at Auschwitz. The acronym for Kith, Kin, and Kirk is KKK. What more proof do you need?

Speaking of which, would it be gauche of me to start a dessert company called K.K. Cakes?

A syllogistic approach to heritage.

David O is doing an excellent job of exhorting the modern, unitarian Church to be obedient to the law. He notes that strangers in the Old Testament were admitted to the assembly of the righteous, but this did not make them Israelites. The “mixed multitude” was distinct from the children of Israel even after having been circumcised. Numbers 11:4 refers to them as “foreign rabble.” Though justice was blind (Lev. 19:33-34), property laws were not (Lev. 25). As Naboth told Ahab, “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Kings 21:3). Clearly, he referred to his tribal fathers, even though he had other Israelite fathers of common faith. The king had to be a kinsman (Deut. 17:15). All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “We are your own flesh and blood” (2 Samuel 5:1). Observe, if you will, that flesh and blood was not irrelevant to Israelites. They disagreed entirely with our anti-Kinist, neo-Babelist, one-world, race-mixing, heresy-hunting preachertards, and they certainly did not direct their statement about common “flesh and blood” to everyone related to Adam and Eve, or to everyone who believes in God. Even at the first Church council in Acts 15, the apostles rejected the idea, popular among miscegenistic pulpit pirates today, that there exists a monolithic Christian culture.

I’m compelled to paste the following excellent commentary from David in its entirety. It was directed in part to Bud Powell, who has adopted the satanic idea that “Christianity was de-tribalized” at the first Church council, and has said that flesh is dung, which is a gnostic twist on the words of the apostle Paul. He has also said that “Kinism in all forms is heresy… Run from this stuff and those who teach it as from the plague. It is one of the virulent offshoots of theonomy.”

[T]he biggest problem I see with most arguments that anti-kinists use is that they seem to presuppose that the physical and the spiritual are somehow at odds. You can either have a spiritual household with its obligations or a physical one with its obligations but not both. This is a false dilemma that kinists reject. Christ became incarnate so that he might redeem both spiritual and physical. I’m sure you can agree with what I just wrote but you seem to disagree with the implications.

The implications of this are that physical human relationships are real and normative. My kin are my physical family and I have obligations to them that I do not have to Christians generally. Physical and spiritual human relationships radiate outward in concentric loyalties, and Christianity does not negate but sanctifies these loyalties. Therefore I have an obligation to my family, extended family, all the way up to my race. My obligations to general humanity are very minimal and mostly involve that I do not harm anyone. The way most anti-kinists pit the physical against the spiritual turns many concepts in the Bible into abstractions. Kinists readily acknowledge that there is indeed a household of faith, but this doesn’t negate physical households and would not in fact make sense without them. The same applies for Peter’s “holy nation” concept. Peter is speaking of a concept in which all Christian believers are united by common spiritual rebirth or regeneration in baptism. This would be fatuous and abstract if it did not correlate to physical nations based on people united by common physical birth. The church is not the product of mere propositional agreement any more than a nation is based on mere propositional agreement. Physical nations are based on common birth (which is what the word itself means), and the spiritual nation of the Church is based on common spiritual rebirth. You can’t have the one without the other.

So often the anti-kinist argues as though the spiritual revealed in the N.T. annuls the physical reality of the O.T. and even the N.T. as well. I hear that we shouldn’t think of ourselves as white (or black or Asian or Indian or whatever) but rather as Christian, as though both identities are mutually exclusive. This is not what the Bible teaches. As I said earlier, since the Bible teaches spiritual truths in light of the physical, you can’t have one without the other. God created both spiritual and physical in harmony and intends to redeem them that way. Critics of kinism are really inconsistent with the way that they apply their paradigm by the way that they behave. If they…truly believed that our kin, in every sense (not just spiritual), were limited to Christian believers then they would not live in separate families because St. Paul speaks of the “household of faith” in Gal. 6:10. If they truly believed that the only household that they belonged to was the “household of faith” here spoken of then they would live in communes and share all of their property in common with one another. They would divide labor amongst the men of the congregation and household work amongst the women of the congregation and leave equal inheritance to every child of the congregation. They don’t. Some members of the congregation are wealthy, others not so much. They do not treat all members of the congregation as though they literally owned each other’s property. They do help each other out when there is a need, which is in accordance with the spirit of what Paul is writing, but they do not treat all children as though they were truly their children, etc.

Kinists simply take this to the logical conclusion. We don’t deny the “holy nation” of Peter. We genuinely acknowledge our spiritual brotherhood with all Christians regardless of race; we however acknowledge the existence of physical nations with distinct identities and boundaries. Just as physical property is not possessed in common between all Christian families, national/tribal property and identity are not common to all Christians. Therefore, I have no problem with the Japanese government telling me that I’m not Japanese, and that were I to visit on their terms, I would be treated as a guest but not as one who has equal civil rights there. In other words, I would expect the Japanese not to rob me, but I wouldn’t expect them to make me, or any white person, their prime minister. I wouldn’t have a problem in the least with Japanese Christians defending their Japanese identity in that respect either. I only ask that white Europeans are treated with the same courtesy. Simply coming to a white country doens’t earn you equal citizenship status. Good fences make good neighbors is still biblical policy (Prov. 22:28, Deut. 27:17).

I don’t care who you are, that’s just good writing.

“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambitions have oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have passed their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.” ~ John Calvin’s commentary on the great Kinist credo, Acts 17:26

“The Holy Spirit [shows us] that we are the body of Christ yet we are not all eyes (Pentecostals who want to see signs for Faith) or brains (Reformed who want to rationalize the Faith) or hands (Arminians who want to work for Faith). We each have different gifts, talents and abilities. Are the hands better than the eyes or the nose? No. Does the finger belong in the eye or the nose? No. Everything has a proper place, function and relationship. When we sanctify our understanding of this we take our place, do what we are called to do, and relate to one another and group to group in a proper way, and in humility depend upon one another to share with each other the gifts and talents that God has given to one in abundance which another one lacks.” ~ Neill Payne

Another eloquent commenter named Ben writes:

Before understanding kinism, I had thought of the fifth commandment as entailing our duties of subjection to lawful authorities. I had also understood the kinist tenet that blood relations have concomitant ethical obligations (1 Tim. 5:8). What I had not done was connect the two, seeing the fifth commandment as containing our obligations both to lawful authorities and to all blood relations…

[Kinists] do not argue that racial separation is mandated from Scripture. They argue that it is most harmonious, and not proscribed by Scripture.

Second, even for those who believe that ethnonationalism (i.e. that nations are defined ethnically) is Biblically prescribed, they would not say that such is the case based on some superior flesh—which is exactly how the Jews treated the Samaritans and Gentiles. The Jews wrongly thought they were inherently superior to others, but that is not what kinists believe. Kinists may hold that some races are better at some things, but not more inherently valuable—in the same way that individuals can be better or worse at different things, without being more valuable; and in the same way that genders and families can be generally better or worse at different things, without being more valuable.

Likewise, kinists do not shun other cultures—in fact, they recognize them as legitimate (though always in need of Christ), since there is not one monolithic Christian culture.

Doug Wilson recently posted this quote:

“In the world created by the triune God of Scripture, the boundaries don’t blur, like a watercolor left out in the rain. God divides, and he loves to call those divisions good. God created heaven and earth, which created the fundamental division between that which is God and that which is not God. The gulf there is an infinite one, and God still called that which was on the other side of the divide from him good. Having done this much, God was on a roll, and he divided the sun and moon, the sea and dry land, the earth and sky, and he kept calling all of it good (Gen. 1:4,10, 18). And then, at the pinnacle of creation, male and female he created them, in the image of God he created them (Gen. 1:27). God made Adam into two, so that he could bring Adam and Eve back into one—with a richer unity this time, one that presupposes genuine division.” (Why Ministers Must Be Men, pp. 48-49)

One could interpret this as a justification for interracial marriage; if God split Adam in two so that He could reunite the parts, one might presume that He divided the races from one family so that He could mix them again. You can see that there is a thin line here between a profound thought and a falsehood, but the key words are that the unity “presupposes genuine division.” The analogy doesn’t support miscegenation because Adam and Eve did not unify at the expense of their distinctions; one remained a man and one remained a woman. Likewise, God created a diversity of races and nations. To fuse them all into one would be false, Babelistic unity. Instead, the races and nations of men must learn to commune in the Spirit. They must be both unified and diverse, just like Adam and Eve, and just like any family. Obviously, the Word of God in the hands of a race-mixer is a dangerous thing. We never want to separate what God has joined or join what He has separated.

Consider Gen5′s categories of “weak” and “moderate” Kinists. These folks agree with everything in the previous paragraph, but rather than call miscegenation sinful, they believe that tribal property laws are enough to solve the problem. Anyone who wishes to marry into a different tribe would forfeit his or her tribal inheritance, meaning property. They’re probably correct that this would be sufficient to solve the problem; it worked very well in ancient Israel (Numbers 36). For all practical effects, we “strong” Kinists agree with them, since most of us view this as a sin that does not necessarily carry a civil penalty. However, I think all Kinists agree that the state has legitimate authority to outlaw the practice, as Americans once did. Not all crimes are sins and not all sins are crimes.

Doug Wilson shifts into flat-out nonsense mode here, right in the middle of some poor couple’s wedding vows, for crying out loud. First he repeats the well-debunked line about Ruth being a genetic Moabite, “which meant she was descended from the incestuous union between Lot and his daughter,” and forbidden by law from intermarrying with Israel. (It just occurred to me that Judeochristians think nothing of illegal aliens breaking our laws, in part because they actually believe that all of Israel assisted Ruth in breaking the law.) Then he says that Rahab of Jericho “was actually the mother of Boaz, and Ruth’s second mother-in-law.” These women are always used as examples to support the idea that the Bible passively accepts miscegenation, but the timeline simply does not support Wilson’s assertions. You can look up the dates yourself. The conquest of Canaan and the fall of Jericho began around 1400 B.C. If Salmon married Rahab of Jericho, it would have happened about 1451 B.C. The events of Ruth were in roughly 1380-1050 B.C. David was not born until about 1041-990 B.C. Let’s say that there were about 385 years from Rahab of Jericho to David. The Bible lists only four generations (Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David) in this timespan! Well, some generations are omitted, is the popular excuse. To say that this is sloppy exegesis is an understatement, because Ruth 4, Matthew 1, and Luke 3 all confirm the same number of generations from Pharez to David, with nothing added to or subtracted from the four generations from Rahab to David. Rahab of Jericho (who was either an honorable Canaanite or a displaced Israelite) and the Rahab who was Ruth’s mother-in-law (who was an Israelite) must not have been the same person. If she was the same person, the women in these generations would have made Sarah, who gave birth to Isaac at age 90, after scoffing at the possibility, look like a spring chicken. “Rahab” is used by race-mixers as a prime example of a forbidden Canaanite marrying into the line of Israel and becoming a grandmother of the Messiah, and there is no proof for it except the name “Rahab,” which was surely held in high esteem ever since the fall of Jericho. The name was not “retired” like the number of a star football player. The strangest part of all is that Wilson accepts that there were only four generations in the time period, without gaps! These are the crackpot theories that are presented, along with the “black wife” of Moses, as sterling proof that we don’t own the nation that our own fathers gave to us? This is called preaching the gospel?

Our friend Chad has this advice for race-mixing preachers in language that they can understand: “Every time someone abuses Galatians 3:28, a kitten dies.”

“America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Everyone else is an immigrant.” ~ David Yeagley

This guy is very confused. He burns Korans but says that Muslims are welcome in our country. Apparently, his greatest fear is to be called a racist.

Idolaters playing football.

McAtee versus Sproul.

The votes of “older white people” don’t matter, says Negro Juan Williams.

“Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers, our houses to aliens… Our pursuers are at our necks; we are worn out, there is no rest for us… Slaves rule over us; there is no one to deliver us from their hand… They ravished the women in Zion, the virgins in the cities of Judah… The crown has fallen from our head; woe to us, for we have sinned!… Restore us to You, O LORD, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old…” ~ Lamentations 5

“And their houses shall be turned over to others, fields and wives together; for I will stretch out My hand against the inhabitants of the land…because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, everyone is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even to the priest, everyone deals falsely… Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” ~ Jeremiah 6

Independence Day has turned into Immigration Day, as though the only reason for our independence was to assimilate foreigners, and as though the only legitimate reason for separating from the crown was to give our inheritance to strangers. Robert Putnam, whose epic study of immigration reveals that cosmopolitanism causes us to retreat into our shells like turtles, so that we don’t even trust our own kind, now blames us for “doing less than our great-grandparents did to welcome immigrants.” So once again, the failure to fulfill the glorious dream of Equality is the fault of Whitey. Therefore, betwixt “peppy bromides,” he exhorts us to “invest in public education.” Hey, that’s a great idea. Sailer exclaims: “Oh, man, why didn’t anybody ever think of that before? All we have to do to make up for the harm that the children of unskilled illegal immigrants do to overwhelmed public schools is to Fix The Public Schools! It’s that simple!”

Less than half of all black males are graduating from high school, and this is obviously the fault of white teachers, seeing as how all races are equal.

We’ve seen so many diversity quotas and taxes and set-asides to benefit everyone but our own people that the most under-utilized repository of talent in the country today is likely young white men. Poor whites are certainly the most underrepresented and neglected demographic in higher education. If the occupied government were truly serious about wisely allocating resources, with the goal of helping the most people from the productivity that would result, this would be their point of focus. Instead, trillions are spent trying to educate blacks and mestizos and bring them into the middle class, even though these people create almost no jobs. How many non-white entrepreneurs have you met? You might as well send your dollar bills through a shredder.

Minority and woman owned car dealerships were exempt from the recent closings, according to one of Obama’s own inspectors general. This is what is known as Equality.

“To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.” A perfect score is 1600. What kind of conversations do you think the Chinese have in the privacy of their own homes about blacks, who complain louder than anyone else about being oppressed, but are given the world on a silver platter? A student from the Orient must be nearly perfect to be considered the equal of a black student with average scores. Many of the upper-scale blacks hate this because they correctly observe that it prevents them from actually accomplishing anything. But without it, there would be almost no blacks in college.

In Dallas, racist school boards are discriminating against 21-year-old “students.”

In Detroit, parents will now face up to three days in jail for repeatedly missing parent-teacher conferences. Everyone, including the Detroit government, knows that blacks are failures at raising their own children (so are many whites, now that they have essentially turned black). The number of black children who are born within wedlock, whose parents remain married, and whose parents take an active role in raising them to adulthood, is down near zero. The state, funded by your white tax dollars, raises black children, which is why in Detroit their lives are governed by the school system. They even get free meals there. White people, having agreed with the Jew doctrine that the white race is the cancer of humanity, have joined themselves to alien peoples and are footing the bill for the statism that is a natural outgrowth of race-mixing. You can have liberty or you can have equality, but you can’t have both.

“The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers…” ~ J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

It’s very interesting that Robert Putnam and Jeb Bush paint Ben Franklin as an ethnicist for opposing the immigration of Germans. Sailer shows that this was because Franklin opposed the Penns for doing exactly what the Bushes are now doing: carelessly flooding the country with foreigners to bolster their family’s own political future. The goal of the elite then was the same as the goal of the elite now; in Putnam’s words, “We should construct a new us.”

It’s always driven by money. Corporations want cheap Mexican labor now for the same reason that Southern slaveowners wanted cheap African labor in the antebellum period. In both cases, white people lose jobs. Paul Craig Roberts knows what it will take to restore us to fiscal health.

Here is what can be done. The wars, which benefit no one but the military-security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion, can be immediately ended. This would reduce the US budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  More hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved by cutting the rest of the military budget which, in its present size, exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined…

The only way that the US will again have an economy is by bringing back the offshored jobs. The loss of these jobs impoverished Americans while producing oversized gains for Wall Street, shareholders, and corporate executives. These jobs can be brought home where they belong by taxing corporations according to where value is added to their product. If value is added to their goods and services in China, corporations would have a high tax rate. If value is added to their goods and services in the US, corporations would have a low tax rate.

This change in corporate taxation would offset the cheap foreign labor that has sucked jobs out of America, and it would rebuild the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.

If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.

Consider that the national debt climbed by $166 billion in just one day last month, which is more than the entire annual deficit for fiscal year 2007 and larger than the “savings” that Obama’s health care law is supposed to produce in 10 years. (Only in Washington is slower debt accumulation called a “savings.”) At this point, you can almost count the days until the empire falls. The band are tuning their strings.

Watch as unemployment covers the country.

Pat Buchanan is correct that China’s successes are due to “export-driven economic nationalism.” But where has economic nationalism ever existed without ethnic nationalism? Certainly not in China.

We put a mythical world economy before our own economy. We put ”global prosperity” before national interest. We forced our workers to compete, in their own country, against the products of foreign laborers earning a tenth of their pay. And we let in tens of millions of semi-skilled and unskilled immigrants, legal and illegal, to take the jobs of our countrymen.

And the Chinese? They put China first, second and third.

And who won the decade? And who is winning the future?

You can have poverty in a “nation” of propositions and ideas or you can have wealth in a nation of blood. Make your choice. And when your lying preacher tells you that faith is all that matters, tell him to stop polluting the faith with his God-damned lies.

Go Duke! Proud to be a protectionist.

There are some important lessons to be learned about marriage and family in Ben Franklin’s essay, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind. When our American land was not fully settled, it was easy for homesteaders in an agrarian economy to grow a healthy income out of the ground. Men placed a higher value on liberty then, and volunteered their lives to defend their people, in large part because they were not selling their souls to the company store. They could have large families because their children were assets to them, not liabilities. Moreover, they were confident that there would be cheap land and high wages for their children in the future, and so they encouraged their children to marry at a young age. As this superior system waned in favor of an industrial economy (which is superior only in terms of military might), the lower class became enslaved. Low wages make family formation very difficult, if not impossible. Large families are not conducive to industrial or information economies. As Franklin wrote in 1751: “those who cannot get land must labor for others that have it; when laborers are plenty, their wages will be low; by low wages a family is supported with difficulty; this difficulty deters many from marriage, who therefore long continue servants and single.” The effect this has had on the longevity of our race is obvious.

While the Gulf of Mexico turned into a huge bowl of oil, Obama fined the Amish for using horse manure as fertilizer.

The Arizona immigration law is following a predictable path. It has been struck down by a liberal judge, as we expected, and this will send it to a largely sympathetic Supreme Court. In the meantime, Jan Brewer can act like a real governor and refuse to acknowledge the liberal judge’s decision, which will provoke the sort of constitutional clash that gives us Southerners happy feet. Fighting it endlessly in court won’t work because of the empire’s limitless supply of Monopoly money. Brewer vows that the fight has only begun, but unfortunately adds that the fight will be waged while “holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.” You know she’s white because she would have to be duplicitous or a moron to actually believe this.

“Imagine that! A federal judge ruling in favor of the federal government in a case against a State! But that’s what you can expect when there is no impartial arbiter to determine matters of constitutionality.” You can have a republic or you can have an empire. Make your choice.

Whites in the formerly-white state of Texas are now funding 60,000 anchor babies a year (11,000 at one hospital alone). National Review, which was once conservative, claims that we can’t do anything about this because ending birthright citizenship will increase abortions! That’s right, American citizenship is all that stands between “Hispanic Family Values” and a pair of scissors to the back of the skull. So how can you wicked Kinists be so exclusive?

“If there’s one thing Mexicans are known for, it’s their hatred of corruption!”

One Mestizo People! “Your borders, religions, languages, identities, and other illegal divisions of our people are irrelevant.” See Petr’s brilliant comments, posted here earlier, about how unitarian monotheism leads to pantheism and monism but certainly not “the one and the many” of Christianity.

Meanwhile, in London, white women are responsible for less than 10% of all births. The important thing is that there should be no borders between Christians. If I may quote John Lofton, “What does white mean?”

No hate crime to see here, folks.

Can a brother get an amberlamps?

A voter marking his territory.

If you want to “celebrate” 40 years of black culture, you had better hire 400 cops.

A question for race-mixing Christians: Would you ever see a news report like this in a white, homogeneous city? No, of course you wouldn’t, and you know it. So be honest with yourself and the rest of the world and admit publicly that you’ve weighed your options, and you choose to bequeath to aliens what you have stolen from your own. At least Esau got a full stomach for selling his birthright.

Liberal “Christians” should admit that they are cowards who are lying to themselves.

In the bad old days of discrimination, race-conscious white society segregated and oppressed black men in order, among other things, to keep them from raping and murdering young white women. In our more virtuous and humane times, race-blind white society commands young white women, in the name of female freedom and empowerment, to behave in ways that will get them raped and murdered by black men.

There is another difference between the two periods: in the old days in the South, white society stated plainly why it was segregating black men; in our time, the fact that black men are regularly raping and killing white women, and the fact that white women’s own socially approved and mandated behavior makes such murders infinitely more likely, are never, ever, ever mentioned.

“[W]e have never dreamed of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race.” ~ John C. Calhoun, the last of the founding fathers

One of these is not like the others.

Meet Plato, the racist cat.

It’s always funny to hear people say that human beings are genetically almost identical, and any differences that might exist are irrelevant. Then they go to the pet store and choose a Labrador as a pet instead of a Pit Bull, because the very slight genetic difference between the two makes all the difference in the world. (Steve Sailer reminds us that mulatto Malcolm Gladwell, knowing that the gander is sauced with the goose, identifies this as Pit Bull “racial profiling.”)

The War for Western Civilization, a speech by Otto Scott. Go to 13:30 to hear what he says about Negroes.

Now that [Africans] are free, they’re proving how good they are and how equal they are by murdering each other. So we were wrong, in some of our abolitionist estimations, of what the black man was like… Right now, they comprise over 50 percent of our violent crime, but we say they’re coming along. Fifty percent of violent crime is an awful lot to pay for their presence, and we are too soft to stop that.

There are also good comments about South Africa near the 39:00 mark. He says democracy doesn’t work, equality is a myth, and we learned torture from Israel. Losing a man like Otto is a grief almost too heavy to bear. We who are young and inferior must carry on without him.

Ninety percent of blacks are on food stamps, which means that they are being fed by productive white people, as usual. Ninety is, of course, the same percentage of blacks who claim to have “certain belief in God.” Ninety is also the percentage of land in South Africa that is considered “not productive” after the Negro government, following Zimbabwe’s lead, stole white farms and gave them to blacks.

Forty acres and a mule of stolen white property.

Background checks for employment and credit checks for purchases are “racist” because they have a “disparate impact” on diversities. “You don’t want to hire a guy who served only six months in prison after he killed a woman for knocking on his door? Then you might as well be in the KKK.” You can have equality or you can have liberty, but you can’t have both. Your lying preacher doesn’t seem to understand this fact.

“Jesus is the No. 1 man in my life,” says Patty Davis of the A.M.E. Church, “and any man who wants me must seek me through Him.” In other words, she is “single and lonely.”

The black version of Christianity, which is indistinguishable from voodoo demon possession:

Wigger pastors have discovered the term “mojo,” which is Negro slang for sex appeal.

At least wiggers in the pulpits are not racists, because that would tarnish the witness of the gospel.

Wiggers with dreadlocks.

What in the name of all that is holy?

HK Edgerton For President in 2012

Let’s put a real American from the South in the White House for a change. It is time to restore our heritage, history, liberties and nation from the socialists and neocons in Washington and the international bankers on Wall Street!

How many Americans do you know who have marched 1,300 miles across Dixie from Asheville, NC to Texas to tell truth about the honorable history of the South and our resistance to Washington invasion? Southerners have been fighting terrorism since 1861!

America and Dixie are ready for:

The Leadership & Honor of Robert E. Lee.
The Foreign Policy of George Washington.
The Non Violence of Martin Luther King.
The Courage & Ability of Stonewall Jackson.

HK Edgerton is working to bring all Southerners & Americans together to better understand our history and our future free of those politicians and interests who have historically divided us.

What’s an “international banker”? Is that anything like a Jew? After reading this, I had to sit for a spell and fan myself, like Aunt Pittypat. Whatever happened to Deuteronomy 17:15?

To bray your foeman’s armies—
To chill and snap his sword—
Trust ye the wild White Horses,
The Horses of the Lord!
~ Rudyard Kipling