Horrifying news: Ron Paul was going to appear on the Political Cesspool in 2006! We’ve called out the National Guard and will meet this threat to liberty with steel eyes and frosted mullets.

Followers of Ron Paul are being called “non-cons.” I have to admit, it’s a catchy rhyme.

The old Ron Paul newsletters are fun to read. Our second-place winner in the New Hampshire primary (but first-place winner among young voters) was like a blogger before there were blogs. Some excerpts:

More excerpts and timeless advice from the newsletters:

Do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities.

I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

Washington, with its racist government, racist radio, racist ministers, racist universities, and racist attitudes, is the black New Jerusalem.

To be white in Washington is to experience a culture that is anti-white and proud of it.

I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists – and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

Order was only restored in Los Angeles [after the riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.

Opinion polls consistently show that only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions…

Middle-class blacks and black political activists hold opinions not markedly different from the Crips and the Bloods.

Constitutionally and from the standpoint of our natural rights, we should be able to discriminate in renting or otherwise using our property – sexually, racially, religiously, ethnically, or just because we don’t like the person’s face.

Blacks have black schools, clubs, and neighborhoods. The same is true of Hispanics. It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.

Blacks have “civil rights,” quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black TV shows, black TV anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.

Even [MLK's] ballyhooed “non-violence” was a tactic. He wanted to take power like Castro did.

…our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced with raging blacks to lie back and think of England.

“Black is Beautiful” is permissible, but “White is Beautiful” is “the slogan of bigots.” Oh?

The ACT-UP slogan is “Silence = Death.” But shouldn’t it be “SODOMY = Death”?

If you think that’s shocking, just wait until you read this:

“The race question,” said Adolf Hitler, “not only furnishes the key to world history but also to human culture as a whole. There is absolutely no other revolution but a racial revolution…”

To the enlightened and civilized, all of that sounded like gobbledygook. According to sophisticated books, the term “race” had little if any scientific status. There was no evidence that any “race” was superior to another. We were all part of “mankind,” though divided somewhat arbitrarily into “nation-states.” Our rational destiny was some sort of Parliament of Man.

Only it turns out that Hitler was, politically viewed, very nearly right. Race, or more antiseptically “ethnicity,” emerges as the critical factor in twentieth-century political behavior, with religion – another atavistic category, from the enlightened standpoint – running a close second. And, often, race and religion are intertwined, reinforcing one another.

These reflections are prompted by the deteriorating situation in South Africa, where race is the determinant, and by the fatuous things being said about South Africa in so many quarters…

You could argue that the present government in Pretoria is in fact, by most accepted criteria, the best on the continent of Africa. Blacks in large numbers are willingly emigrating to South Africa. No Berlin Wall keeps people from leaving South Africa if they want to do so. But, because of the factor of race, it is South Africa – not Uganda, not Mozambique – that is denounced by Mr. Reagan and even the Pope. Any tyranny, any caste system – even Cambodia’s or North Korea’s – is apparently more acceptable to our moral custodians than the South African racially based system.

So, that’s the way it is. In India, in Latin America, in Asia, race or “ethnicity” is the determining political category. Hitler seems to have won his debased argument…

[R]ace governs all.

The only problem is that this quote didn’t come from Ron Paul. James Edwards writes that it came from an editorial in the September 6, 1985, edition of National Review, “which was the voice of American conservatism in the 1980s. The editorial was published with the full approval of William F. Buckley; it’s very likely he wrote it himself.”

Could we get all the people denouncing Ron Paul as a racist to do the same to Buckley?

Ron Paul says repeatedly that he didn’t personally write the newsletters he published, but no one believes that he didn’t at least approve what was written, since it went out with his signature. Others are saying that there are only a few paragraphs that are offensive to leftists (not true), and he should be excused for overlooking them. Of course, his fellow congressmen pass bills that are thousands of pages long and don’t read a single word of them. But while leftists like to use the right-wing stuff in their scare campaigns, Paul’s economic proposals are what really scare them, because they know that he has a good chance of succeeding. A Jew York Times editorial gets right to the point: “Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” That last part is thrown in only to saddle racism to the rest of it. The message: Only a racist would want to take away a Jew’s livelihood!

John C. Calhoun, the last of our founding fathers, wrote the following in his monumental Disquisition on Government:

[I]t is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike…not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it… Liberty, then, when forced on a people unfit for it, would, instead of a blessing, be a curse; as it would, in its reaction, lead directly to anarchy,—the greatest of all curses…

These great and dangerous errors have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal;—than which nothing can be more unfounded and false. It rests upon the assumption of a fact, which is contrary to universal observation, in whatever light it may be regarded. It is, indeed, difficult to explain how an opinion so destitute of all sound reason, ever could have been so extensively entertained, unless we regard it as being confounded with another, which has some semblance of truth;—but which, when properly understood, is not less false and dangerous. I refer to the assertion, that all men are equal in the state of nature; meaning, by a state of nature, a state of individuality, supposed to have existed prior to the social and political state; and in which men lived apart and independent of each other. If such a state ever did exist, all men would have been, indeed, free and equal in it; that is, free to do as they pleased, and exempt from the authority or control of others—as, by supposition, it existed anterior to society and government. But such a state is purely hypothetical. It never did, nor can exist; as it is inconsistent with the preservation and perpetuation of the race. It is, therefore, a great misnomer to call it the state of nature. Instead of being the natural state of man, it is, of all conceivable states, the most opposed to his nature—most repugnant to his feelings, and most incompatible with his wants. His natural state is, the social and political—the one for which his Creator made him, and the only one in which he can preserve and protect his race.

This goes straight to the heart of why libertarianism doesn’t work, and it is Ron Paul’s biggest problem. Dr. Paul gets a grade of F from NumbersUSA because his libertarianism gets in the way of preserving and protecting his race. The irony is that libertarians appeal to liberty. As Father Calhoun said, liberty becomes a curse when it is bestowed on a people unfit for it. This is straight out of the Bible.

“For three things the earth is perturbed, yes, for four it cannot bear up: For a servant when he reigns…” ~ Proverbs 30:21-22

A Servant When He Reigneth, by Rudyard Kipling:

Three things make earth unquiet
And four she cannot brook,
The godly Agur counted them
And put them in a book –
Those Four Tremendous Curses
With which mankind is cursed;
But a Servant when He Reigneth
Old Agur entered first.

An Handmaid that is Mistress
We need not call upon.
A Fool when he is full of Meat
Will fall asleep anon.
An Odious Woman Married
May bear a babe and mend;
But a Servant when He Reigneth
Is Confusion to the end.

His feet are swift to tumult,
His hands are slow to toil,
His ears are deaf to reason,
His lips are loud in broil.
He knows no use for power
Except to show his might.
He gives no heed to judgment
Unless it proves him right.

Because he served a master
Before his Kingship came,
And hid in all disaster
Behind his master’s name,
So, when his Folly opens
The unnecessary hells,
A Servant when He Reigneth
Throws the blame on someone else.

His vows are lightly spoken,
His faith is hard to bind,
His trust is easy broken,
He fears his fellow-kind.
The nearest mob will move him
To break the pledge he gave –
Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
Is more than ever slave!

On his January 9 show, Rush Limbaugh made these “racist” but true remarks:

“I believe that whatever drives Obama and his party is the pursuit of money without having to work for it… If you look at the way the Obamas live, with Michelle and her separate vacations and not being concerned about how much it costs to take separate airplanes – an opportunity to live high on the hog without having it cost them a dime. They justify it by saying, well we deserve this, we’re owed this because of whatever happened to our ancestors.”

‎”Organized envy usually crystallizes into egalitarian norms whose origin is found not in custom but in government. This is a kind of uniformity from above: egalitarianism through coercion, either ideological, economic or social. These three facets are complementary, and Marxist-Leninist doctrine proclaims a utopia based on this triple equalization: that all think alike (ideological), that all belong to this one class only (economic), and that all share a similar patrimony (ethnic). Ideological egalitarianism requires a supreme definitory urging, an education, the means of communication to the masses that are centralized and directed, and an implacable censure for whatever is not the official ideology. This in short is cultural dictatorship, the ultimate weapon of egalitarianism. The envious find within this system a firm protection against originality, against free intellectual exchange, and against noetic superiority. Power alone is allowed to think; the rest can only be simple reformulators or applicators shaped by the same mold. To distinguish oneself is to fall into heterodoxy. For this reason, any thinker worthy of the name has been labeled within Marxism as ‘deviationist.’ Even within democracies there are certain dogmas that allow the labeling of those who disagree as ‘maladjusted.’ The envy of the intellectually mediocre establishes a canon so that it may denounce and condemn the independent thinker. The unity of the envious imposes an ‘orthodoxy’ that not only frees them from the effort to create and makes it easy to overlook the absence of creativity, but forces those who were formerly privileged and envied to an agreement, so that they may come to a pronouncement like the following: ‘Do not envy me; I am not different. I am equal to you, I believe your catechism to be true, and I condemn to moral exile all those that are not members of this club.’ In this manner, ‘the privileged’ have apologized for being outstanding and have promised to change their ways. This ruse neutralizes the envy of the establishment and allows free access to the communication media and to the budgets. ‘Either the syndicate of orthodoxy or the ghetto’ constitutes the dilemma that summarizes the tactic of the most refined manifestation of collective envy.” ~ Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, Egalitarian Envy, p. 97

“Men remain feeling guilty, for a false sense of guilt has no cure save the truth, and this is not forthcoming. Since the citizens are now guilt-ridden because of their education and political indoctrination, they are more amenable to robbery, and even murder. If the white man feels guilty towards the Negro, he is less capable of defending himself against the Negroes who turn into a revolutionary rabble, bent on theft and murder. The state finds it easier to rob men when men feel guilty for what they are and have, and the state drones on and on about the needs of the poor of the nation and of the world.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, p. 46

You can see that diversity is always a means to an end, namely uniformity and then control. The more you hear a person talk about the need for diversity, the more you can be certain that the goal is to end it.

Consider the drive for “unity” in Europe. European kleptocrats thought that the introduction of the euro and the erasing of borders would overturn God’s design for nations divided along lines of religion and ethnicity. Ten years after the pomp that heralded “a new era in Europe,” Europeans are wondering when they will awake from the nightmare.

The European Union was built on the myth that we are one people with one common destiny – an “ever closer union,” in the words of the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded what was then called the European Economic Community. We are now discovering that regional and national differences are not dissolving and that Europeans think and act very differently from one another. The British view of the state’s role is very different from the French view. The Greek or Italian concept of law is very different from that of Sweden or Denmark. Latvians have a very different view of Russia from Germans. What an Irishman is prepared to pay in taxes is very different from what a Dane or Belgian will allow…

[W]e have succeeded in building a European Union without Europeans.

They have exploited very real similarities that exist among Europeans in order to erase the differences, thereby giving them maximum control. They have also exploited envy, which is the fuel for their fire. It’s classical Marxism, and as de la Mora writes, its aim is ideological, economic, and ethnic uniformity. But it’s not working.

The faggot who writes the article is asked by one of his students, “What is a European?”

I found myself stuttering and stammering as I searched for an answer. I waffled for a bit about European values – freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law – but didn’t convince myself, let alone the class.

“European fundamental values are sacred,” Jan Peter Balkenende, then Dutch prime minister, said in 2004. When it came to actually defining those values, however, he was fuzzier, admitting, “We have been discussing the idea of Europe for the last 1,200 years, but we cannot grasp what it means.”

These are the same propositionalists who have run America into the ground since the time of Lincoln. They are nameless, faceless, and fatherless; wheels in a cog of false patriotism, squirrels in a cage of self-loathing. Is anything more pitiful than the man who doesn’t know his own identity? Yet this is the state of most white men alive today, which is why our race is dying. But it was not always so. The Dutch Prime Minister might not know how to define Europe, but our European ancestors suffered no confusion about their own identity, in part because they never considered the patria to be an “idea.” Like flesh and blood, it was real, and it was cherished because it belonged to them. Remember the ancient Greek aphorism? “Know thyself.” It was inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. How to get there has been the foremost question on the minds of white men for our entire history. John Calvin explained on page one of his magnum opus the paradox that without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God, and without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self, and that one can never attain to a true self-knowledge until he has first been known of God. This fundamental truth is suppressed by reprobates, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem, Gnothi Seauton.

The law, the gospel, and the Providence,
Heaven, Hell, the Judgement, and the stores
Immeasurable of Truth and Good,
All these thou must find
Within thy single mind,
Or never find.

“Every group regarding itself as emancipated is convinced that its predecessors were fearful of reality. It looks upon euphemisms and all the veils of decency with which things were previously draped as obstructions which it, with superior wisdom and praiseworthy courage, will now strip away. Imagination and indirection it identifies with obscurantism; the mediate is an enemy to freedom. One can see this in even a brief lapse of time; how the man of today looks with derision upon the prohibitions of the 1890′s and supposes that the violation of them has been without penalty!” ~ Richard M. Weaver

Propositionalists like to write inane things like “American values are clearly and succinctly defined in the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution,” which implies that Americans had no values prior to those documents being written, or that the sum total of our “values” (gad, I hate that word) are to be found on a few sheets of paper under glass in Washington City. They like to pretend that the universe sprang into being during the Enlightenment, which is another way of saying that the Mind is God, and all light and life emanate from it like shit from a goose’s sphincter. They don’t know themselves because they hate God.

In Europe, as in the West at large, they know that to forge a new, artificial unity they must shatter the old, organic unity, which was pluriform rather than uniform. To do this, lip service must be paid to diversity, even though its existence is contrary to the proposed new uniformity.

The EU prides itself on its differences, even as it tries to legislate them out of existence. Its motto is “united in diversity,” and few places on Earth have such a glorious mishmash of cultures, languages, landscapes, and peoples coexisting in such a small area. Diversity doesn’t equal tolerance, however, and the existence of differences doesn’t mean acceptance of them – a fact that has come glaringly to the fore as Europe has slipped deeper into crisis and relationships have strained among its members…

At the Congress of Europe in 1948, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, “We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and…wherever they go in this wide domain…will truly feel, ‘Here I am at home.’”

Some hope… Instead of borders being erased – the aim of the agreement Western European countries signed in Schengen, Luxembourg, in 1985 – they seem to be coming back into fashion.

We Kinists can easily see the problem here. We know that we are bound to Europe and to our European people, even if not joined to them under the same government. It is because we have a balanced racial awareness that we seek the good of our own kind but abstain from centralizing authority. It is our fear of God that compels us to love our neighbor according to God’s own law and order. But all who hate God love death.

Notice also the lament that the new “Generation E” continues to identify with “nation-states” rather than “Europe.” In both cases, the reference is to geopolitical bodies, governments, rather than distinct ethnic brothers and sisters who are bound in covenant, not to mention the mystic chords of memory. Like deracinated, Alienist preachers, the one-worlders refuse to accept that blood means anything. They insist that we must pledge our allegiance to an “idea,” when in fact we are merely the subjects of the kleptocrats, not citizens in any real sense of the word. Therefore, they will not hear of devotion to a people and patriotism in a real patria. Instead, they see only an obsolete loyalty to a “nation-state.”

As Chris Patten, former European commissioner for external affairs, has said, “The nation is alive and well – more potent than ever in some respects… It is the largest unit, perhaps, to which people will willingly accord emotional allegiance.” In fact, even the nation-state is too much for many Europeans. Europe has 16 more countries today than it had in 1988, thanks to the shattering of artificial states – the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. In Belgium, a country smaller than Maryland, there is such a vicious division between Flanders and Wallonia that until December there had been no government for well over 500 days – a world record.

Obviously, the EU is every bit as artificial and will be as short-lived as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. The American Empire will join them on the dung heap of history.

It was believed that by giving all Europeans a common currency, the people would develop a common identity, which would allow the kleptocrats to achieve their real goal: convincing Europe’s sons and daughters to offer up their lives in “defense” of “Europe,” meaning the machinations of the European government. This has met with success in America, where the rulers freely tax from sea to shining sea and use the money to enrich themselves and prop up Israel, and the good-ole-boys fly the flag of the accursed empire from their pickup trucks and sign up to become fodder for Israel. Europe wants in on the act. After all, the same bankers are behind both enterprises.

But the structure of the New World Order is collapsing.

The European Union has constructed common institutions, laws, and even a currency. It has created all the symbols of a nation-state, including a burgundy passport that places “European Union” above one’s own nationality, and a flag, even if it is only voluntarily waved at the Ryder Cup golf championships. It even has an anthem: Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” though it doesn’t have lyrics and most Europeans don’t know it is their anthem. What it lacks is a people who share a common culture, language, or narrative – or at the very least are able to identify with the political construct that has been created in their name.

The European government can’t be voted out, and one state doesn’t trust another state to protect its best interests.

The EU has responded to this wave of euroskepticism by asking for more powers to govern states’ political and economic affairs…

Yeah, we know all about that. Hint: The empire doesn’t release power once it has been taken, and the excuse for taking it is always the same: security.

Rather than bringing the European Union closer to its citizens, the currency has widened the gap between rulers and ruled. Instead of ushering in a new era of prosperity, the euro has condemned millions of Europeans to decades of penury. And far from bringing together the peoples of Europe, it is on the verge of tearing them apart.

We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.

The difference between the Old West and the New West is that the Old Westerners loved themselves and their culture and wanted their heritage to continue. As Jared Taylor writes, “White Americans believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races differed in temperament, ability, and the kind of societies they built. They wanted America to be peopled by Europeans, and thought only people of European stock could maintain the civilization they valued. They therefore considered immigration of non-whites a threat to whites and to their civilization. It was common to regard the presence of non-whites as a burden, and to argue that if they could not be removed from the country they should be separated from whites socially and politically. Whites were strongly opposed to miscegenation, which they called ‘amalgamation.’” We will not survive unless we return to this self-love and common sense, and above all, gratitude to God for His gifts.

If you want to see a fine example of a nation that loves itself, rent Russian Ark from Netflix: one film, one single take, one continuous shot, 2000 actors, 300 years of Russian history, and a milestone in the history of cinema.

At the end of the film the camera moves towards a door, and as it opens we see that outside is a wild, raging sea, and the narrator understands, movingly, that the museum – and I think Russia herself – is actually an ark, eternally tossed about in turbulent waters. This is a wonderful metaphor, as it captures the sense of Russia having a God-given destiny to preserve Christianity and Western culture against any storms which may rage against it.

Although the film goes out of its way to avoid politics, politics is in a sense unavoidable, as everything you see is an utter repudiation of cultural relativism. To try and pretend as you see such beauty that notions of aesthetics are relative, and that what we are shown is not intrinsically superior to anything produced by modern degenerate Western culture, simply seems absurd. Because leftism revels in ugliness, perversion, and distortion, the film works as a powerful rebuke without ever having to say so.

Sadly, I do not think Britain (or probably America) could have had the cultural confidence to produce such a film. There is not a minority to be seen (apart from a few Persian diplomats) and there is no cultural cringe or sense of awkwardness about the fact that they are unabashedly celebrating themselves. This fact, along with the beauty of the women in the costumes (as I said to my friend, they are beautiful but never “hot” or “sexy”) and the civilised nature of the dancing and music means that I have to fight back tears as I watch the film and think about that which we have lost and are told to despise…

Eric Voegelin describes civilization as an island in the midst of an ocean of barbarism. In other words, civilization is not something which, along with its freedoms, is simply to be enjoyed like a consumer item, but is an uncertain, besieged enterprise whose existence must always be defended. Yet it is as a consumer item or a collection of consumer items that American writers, particularly “conservatives,” commonly talk about America now. This is especially the case when they defend mass non-Western immigration on the basis that the immigrants are not coming here to change America, but simply to “enjoy its freedoms.”

Also, don’t miss this wonderful Catalonian cultural celebration, which happened to set a world record. It is simply unthinkable that Americans could produce anything of the kind. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it, as Bob Dole used to say. There are no organic American myths and heroes because “America” long ago ceased to be a nation. Now we’re a multinational corporation run by Jewish bankers. Our “heroes” are produced by the media: soldiers who make the world safe for Israel, niggerball players, and actors and singers who allow us to escape into Jew-fantasy because reality is so horrible.

Our people have turned into vampires who prowl the recesses of the night because the Day will turn them to dust. The Catalans in this video unashamedly celebrate what Sinn Fein calls “We Ourselves” and what others have called FUBU (For Us, By Us). The Catalans survive. Spain will not hold them. To them the kingdom of heaven.

“The only freedom which can last is a freedom embodied somewhere, rooted in a history, located in space, sanctioned by genealogy, and blessed by a religious establishment. The only equality which abstract rights, insisted upon outside the context of politics, are likely to provide is the equality of universal slavery. It is a lesson which Western man is only now beginning to learn.” ~ Mel Bradford

Sam Dickson: The Idea and the Ideal of the Ethnostate.

Johann Fichte expressed the unity of language and nation in his Thirteenth Address to the German Nation in 1806:

The first, original, and truly natural boundaries of states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.

Only when each people, left to itself, develops and forms itself in accordance with its own peculiar quality, and only when in every people each individual develops himself in accordance with that common quality, as well as in accordance with his own peculiar quality – then, and then only, does the manifestation of divinity appear in its true mirror as it ought to be; and only a man who either entirely lacks the notion of the rule of law and divine order, or else is an obdurate enemy thereto, could take upon himself to want to interfere with that law, which is the highest law in the spiritual world!

Let’s revisit the Kipling poem above about the nature of the slave. Has there ever been a better verse than this to describe the Negro?

His feet are swift to tumult,
His hands are slow to toil,
His ears are deaf to reason,
His lips are loud in broil.
He knows no use for power
Except to show his might.
He gives no heed to judgment
Unless it proves him right.

A 13-year-old white girl in Ocala, Florida, has been beaten unconscious by seven “teens” by the names of Zantavia, Ladricka, Javaris, Alphonso, Bria, Lamiracle, and Jebria.

“[I]t was her first day riding the school bus and none of the children would allow her to sit down… One 14-year-old girl said she punched the victim in the head 10 to 15 times because the girl allegedly called her a name.” A racial slur. This is the first lesson in Nigger Social Relations 101; the natural response to hearing unsettling words, for any reason at all, is to beat the life out of someone.

This was the second attack on the same bus in the last year, and last time the school persecuted the white victims and labeled it “a fight between two groups,” as though both the black attackers and the white defenders are equally culpable.

Rapes? Murders? Assaults? That’s all well and good for our precious little girls, but let’s not even think about segregation. That’s crazy talk, and racist too.

Just ask Barry Buckland, whose 14-year-old daughter was used as a spitting post and punching bag by three Negroes on a Portland transit bus. This man is so perfectly trained that he tells a reporter: “People have taken a grain of sand [the assault of my little girl] and tried to turn it into a 200-pound boulder [race-driven violence].” The girl herself, well-trained by her father, who is probably a deacon in some insane hate-church, has said that she doesn’t believe it was a racial altercation. But just read how it all started: “Karley made it clear that she didn’t appreciate the girls’ loud, distasteful remarks about a boy riding with her. They, in turn, didn’t like that she had the mettle to stand up for her friend. So, the thugs advanced.” This is a perfect description of what we’ve all seen a million times: boisterous, ill-mannered niggers who use their fists when “dissed,” which includes any request, however polite, for them to act civilized. The newspaper and all involved are doing their best to say “No hate crime here, folks! Move along now.” But if the tables were turned, and whites had assaulted a black passenger, it would be the biggest news story of the month. Barry Buckland – the name of this coward should live in infamy. He sacrificed his own child to the gods of political correctness, and all he got for it was a lousy t-shirt.

He who says he is in the light, and hates his daughter, is in darkness until now. He who loves his daughter abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But he who hates his daughter is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. (paraphrase of 1 John 2:9-11)

A white man tries to reason with three Democrats using, you know, words, and naturally, fisticuffs ensue.

I was hoping for a broken nose.

“If you’re white your life is cheap, and all our people do is sleep.” Listen to the excellent song, 19 Years, about Gavin Hopley, a teenager who was chased, robbed, and beaten to death by a Muslim gang in Oldham, Lancashire, England. The song is sung by Lee Haggan.

“If the anti-Christian Christians of the new Christless churches would stop looking for the mythical, moderate blacks whom they can worship and adore and face reality, they would see that every humane, charitable impulse on this earth emanates from white people. It’s quite simple, Mr. Negro-worshipping Liberal. When the white remnant disappears so will charity.” ~ CWNY

“If the white race disappears, absorbed into a Babylonian, mixed race, mercy will disappear from the face of the earth. An old Christian hymn warns the sinner to ‘Look down, look down, that lonesome road before you travel on.’ The halfway house Christians need to look down the negro-worshipping road and see where it ends. It ends in a hellish, nightmare world of lost souls.” ~ CWNY

A Flint, Michigan homeowner is fed up with living near black people, who she calls “niggas.” It’s good that she didn’t succumb to Hate© by using two different letters in that word. “I put that sign up there because I’m disappointed in my people,” said the woman. “I did it to wake my people up.” Well, there will be no waking of anyone, says the NAACP (Niggers Arguing And Constantly Protesting), if hate-terms are going to be used. One commenter writes: “Let me get this straight. We have an organization that still uses an out-dated racial term in its very own name [Colored], commenting on someone else’s use of a commonly used derogatory racial term on her very own home.” Yes, you got it straight. While homes are being robbed, vandalized, and burned, and neighborhoods are war zones, the high-yellers who run the NAACP are fretting over words. They would make perfect white Christians.

Notice, as James Edwards observes, that if a white person had done this, it would have been a matter for the Department of Justice. When a black person does it, it’s just ho-hum.

Some white people are not so much cowards like Barry Buckland as just plain stupid. In this category, you would have trouble topping the story of this 26-year-old psychologist who hiked across Kenya with 75 other women and a portable pole on which she played the slut for throngs of likely rapists. I’m sure her father wishes he were dead. What has happened to our once-noble race and our once-lovely women?

An old-fashioned Christmas riot at the Mall of America. Something needs to be done about those unruly Swedes.

Another reason why lunch counters were segregated.

Another at-risk youth.

Dear State: Please, kill these people immediately.

Our greatest president, Thomas Jefferson, had the right idea about crime and punishment. This bill, introduced in 1778, would clear up many of the problems we have today. Some excerpts:

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

Whosoever committeth Robbery shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.

And just for good measure, to put the holy rollers out of business:

All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, inchantment, or sorcery or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding 15 stripes.

In the same bill, Jefferson proposed amendments that would prevent free Negroes from entering Virginia of their own accord or remaining there for more than one year after they were emancipated. He proposed that any white woman who was pregnant with a mulatto child be forced to leave the state immediately after the birth and take her spurious brood with her. Failure to comply meant that she and the child were to be declared “out of the protection of the laws”; in other words, eligible for lynching.

Now, this is the cup the White Men drink
When they go to right a wrong,
And that is the cup of the old world’s hate –
Cruel and strained and strong.
We have drunk that cup – and a bitter, bitter cup
And tossed the dregs away.
But well for the world when the White Men drink
To the dawn of the White Man’s day!

A New York Times article leads off with this sentence: “Social behavior among primates – including humans – has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.” It’s not necessary to buy into the evolutionary premise to recognize that genes have a lot to do with behavior (Rushton and Jensen have discovered that nature is 80% and nurture is 20%), which is the very thing that social scientists are employed to deny when it comes to racial disparities in schools and elsewhere. These Oxford scientists are challenging the idea that “social structure is shaped by environment,” that “complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones,” and “the so-called social brain hypothesis,” that “intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.” Here’s a good message for the school integrators: “Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.” And another: “Primate species [tend] to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.” Speaking of Worldstarhiphop videos: “With chimps, territorially based bands also exchange daughters to avoid incest but continue to fight with one another to the death because the males cannot recognize their kinship with relatives in neighboring bands.”

One hundred years ago, Detroit was 100% white, and it was magnificent. Now it’s 82% black and a hellhole. Race matters. But Detroit is not even the worst-run city in America. That dishonor goes to Miami. And the worst places on earth have something in common.

“Liberia was founded and colonised by black Americans to demonstrate what slave stock could achieve. They certainly showed us.”

Haiti two years later. These people have come to the conclusion that Haiti is still Haitian.

“In a century, the Belgian Congo was lifted from cannibalism to skyscrapers and automobiles. In half a century, it has returned to the jungle.”

Microsoft has patented a new “avoid diversity” feature on GPS devices.

How art thou racist? Let me count the ways.

Our galaxy is racist.

Water is racist:

Anyone who criticizes Attorney General Eric Holder is a racist. That “conversation” with the “cowards” must not be going very well.

A fugly mulatto explains in Psychology Today that whites who claim to be “colorblind” (i.e., every Alienist you know) are racists. She writes:

As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don’t want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn’t talk about. Thus, colorblindness has helped make race into a taboo topic that polite people cannot openly discuss. And if you can’t talk about it, you can’t understand it, much less fix the racial problems that plague our society.

You know how to “fix” the “problems,” don’t you? Ka-ching! $$$$. Viva Las Vegas!

But imagine if a white person wrote:

As a white person with a proud European heritage, I like who I am, and I don’t want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for snowblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn’t talk about.

You know exactly what would happen. This is not at all what Attorney General Eric Holder expects a white person to say when he calls for a “conversation on race” with the white “cowards.” He expects grovelling followed by open wallets.

And you know what’s really bad? Colorblind messages create stress in minorities, causing them to be stupider.

Notice that the psychologist is a mulatto but belongs to the Delaware Valley Association of Black Psychologists, the Association of Black Psychologists, and African Americans in Behavioral Therapy. I wonder if there’s any such thing as the Delaware Valley Association of White Psychologists, the Association of White Psychologists, or White Americans in Behavioral Therapy.

RC Sproul’s magazine interviews a black pastor and tosses him a loaded question on slavery, straight down the middle. The answer reveals a lot about the unorthodox nature of black Christianity. The criterion for blacks to accept Christianity, a denomination, or a particular church is whether the institution of slavery is denounced as sinful. Since the Bible does not do this, it means that black Christians have an impaired understanding of the faith from the starting gate. Millions of whites have been enslaved throughout history, and viewing slavery as “sinful” has never been the determining factor for whether they convert to the faith. But if any church declares that slavery is not a sin, because the Bible does not call it a sin, no blacks will join – at least not these days. The intended point of this interview of Anthony Carter is that more blacks will join Reformed churches if Reformed churches will be more enthusiastic about repenting of the “sins” of their slaveowning fathers and working to integrate even the family.

Most of us like comfort. We like to be around people with whom we are comfortable and have much in common. This is particularly true when it comes to those places that mean the most to us – home and church. Thus, not only are our churches not integrated, but even more rarely are our families integrated.

Still, this lack of integration is not something with which we should be comfortable.

Carter reads things into the Bible that are simply not there and elevates them to matters of sanctification.

It is difficult to not celebrate culture, class, and ethnicity. Yet, this is what we are called to do.

Are we also called to split infinitives? He says that blacks can overlook the “racist” past of Reformed churches in the same way that early Christians accepted instruction from the changed Saul of Tarsus, once a murderer of the saints.

How can I, a black man, embrace the theology of men who owned slaves? I can joyfully embrace it because I realize that I am embracing the theology of the Bible and not necessarily the frail, fallible men who teach it. I can embrace the theology because it allows me to point out the sins of such teachers and yet the grace that is greater than that sin.

How could the early Christians embrace the theology of the Apostle Paul when, as Saul of Tarsus, he pursued, persecuted, and even consented to many of their deaths?

Translation: Slaveowners were like murderers. This reveals almost no comprehension of the Scriptures whatsoever, and Sproul and his gang of wiggers play into it for the sake of popularity.

‎”From the biblical perspective, therefore, slavery is not itself intrinsically evil; the failure to live as free men, the dependency or incompetence of a slave mind is, however, regarded as an inferior way. The believer cannot revolt against his situation, but he cannot become a slave in good conscience, voluntarily, for any form of slavery is an infringement upon Christ’s total rights over him (1 Cor. 7:22,23).” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, p. 24

Read Nathanael Strickland’s very good article on this interview, called On Being White and Reformed. N.S. is correct that a white pastor who wrote a positive, non-grovelling book for white people would simply be excommunicated. If he were to be interviewed, the questions would be hostile and misrepresentative, not the patronizing, fluttering softballs pitched to Anthony Carter. While Carter can talk of race and ethnicity to his heart’s content, the white author in our thought experiment would be challenged to prove that race and ethnicity exist as meaningful categories.

Further, both the interviewer and Anthony Carter have no issue with leaping to assign collective guilt to Southern whites for owning slaves and practicing “racism.” But if the interviewer had invoked the fact that 3% of the U.S. population, black males aged 13-35, commit more violent crime than all other groups combined, along with the collective implications of that fact, I would imagine that there would have been quite a different reaction.

As Nathanael observes, if “the vision of the Scriptures is clear” that families must be integrated, it means that those who oppose what the Scriptures “clearly” teach are in sin, and church discipline is needed. This is the Negro’s “vision of the Scriptures,” and it is contrary to what our righteous forefathers believed. The Negro’s “vision of the Scriptures” means the end of the freedoms of speech, contract, and association, and it replaces them with envy and theft of property. Call this what you will, but please, don’t call it Christianity.

Even Ron Paul knows that the Civil Rights Act abolished private property.

Adi Schlebusch explains that Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2 pertained to soteriology, not to natural social order. Many race-mixers now twist the Apostle’s words to condemn racial segregation, but this commits violence upon the text, and no one can appeal to John Calvin in support of it.

John Piper “assumes that if whites deal with other races in any way other than suicidal groveling then they are indubitably transgressing the sixth commandment.” Read part 2 of Nil’s review of Bloodlines. No historical considerations like abolitionist or communist agitation are allowed in Piper’s survey of the South and its collective decisions; it’s all chalked up to bigotry on the part of whites. Piper reveals that he understands very little and is merely posturing for political points, “even though he has at other times provided book-length responses to scholars on important biblical and theological issues.” He writes that Christian support for segregation was ubiquitous yet sinful. (What else in history could be said to have ubiquitous Christian support that was sinful?) He slanders his parents by writing that “the whole structure of the relationship” with the Piper family’s black maid “was demeaning,” without mentioning a single instance in which the maid was maligned, injured, scorned, or victimized. You’re just supposed to take his word for it, apparently.

All this rhetoric communicates the novel notion that social or hierarchical inequality is equivalent to the denial of an inferior’s humanity – inequality is exactly how the “structure” is “demeaning.” As argued by Tribal Theocrat, this is perfectly egalitarian, and it utterly contradicts [Piper's] own arguments elsewhere that gender complementarity is not inherently demeaning. His obvious contradiction in this area, in addition to his implicit defamation of his parents, is profoundly disturbing…

Righteous men should reject his teachings and love their race.

Ken Ham, the Australian, race-mixing, Abe Lincoln lookalike, has a new video called “What is the Only Answer to Racism?” Answer: Agreeing with Ken Ham. “Boldly dealing with a topic that many in the church have not addressed” is a very funny line. As a friend of ours writes, it sure does take a lot of moral courage to go out on a limb and agree with MTV and Hollywood. Such bravery! Such derring-do! Another friend wonders if Ken will claim martyr status by treading the thorny topics of good nutrition and exercise, or perhaps reducing electric bills. The prophet Daniel was a wimp in comparison. Ham’s video is the same old song and dance. “Darwinian evolution is inherently racist,” he says, and by defining racism so broadly as to include support of the natural, historic order, he bears false witness against his fellow Christians who agree with Christian doctrines that long predated Darwinism. This takes us to Ken Ham’s other bonafide, which is that our godly forefathers were wrong, and if only they had understood “the Bible’s account of the true history of man,” they would not have been racists. Oh, if only we could agree with Ken, how holy we would be. If you ever hear a Kinist say that men of our time have chanced upon some new revelation that was hidden to our fathers, or some modern proof that our fathers were collectively mistaken, be sure to take my pulse.

“Is it possible God actually calls some Blacks to fall in love with Whites, and vice-versa? If that is true, then we should celebrate. Yes, celebrate! Let’s rejoice over the beautiful children born to interracial marriages and do everything possible to make them fully accepted. Let’s recognize the contributions intermarriage can make toward breaking down prejudice. And though we may not necessarily promote interracial marriages, let’s take the lead in defending, protecting, and supporting them in our churches… The entertainment industry has attempted to keep pace with the increasing number of intermarrying Americans. Television shows such as General Hospital and L.A. Law and major Hollywood releases like Jungle Fever, Mississippi Masala, The Joy Luck Club, and The Bodyguard have all highlighted interracial romances. This is one area where the media may be morally ahead of the church… American churches can become havens of safety and support for interracial couples… More creative heterogeneous churches may emerge, becoming places that feel like home to interracial families… We should rejoice over the barrier-shattering potential each Christian interracial marriage brings to our churches.” ~ Bilious Billy Graham, from a Christianity Today article, March 1994

Shield my eyes!

Franken-Ken also likes to deny the existence of the “curse of Ham,” which is a rhetorical trick. The curse was applied to Ham’s son, Canaan. Men have wondered about this for a very long time. It could have been because Canaan was a guilty party. It could be that Ham was not cursed directly because God had already blessed Ham (Gen. 9:1). It could be because God intended to punish Ham without debasing his entire line. It could be because there was no greater curse to which Ham could have been subjected than to see his youngest son cursed. But there is no doubt that Ham was cursed as a result of his actions, and for Ken Ham to pretend otherwise is the height of foolishness. In the same manner, the ground was cursed on Adam’s account, even though Eve committed the sin, because Adam was the responsible agent. Everyone knows the history of the race of Ham, and everyone knows that the bond of slavery has fallen upon that race primarily. According to Matthew Henry, the “fulfilment of this prophecy…contains almost a history of the world.”

“The modern church’s view of heaven is disgusting, teaching in essence that we will be un-sexed, un-raced, un-familied, and un-married aberrations when we reach the pinnacle of human existence and the joy of man’s desiring. This view is satanic in its denial of our humanity and in its death-wish to be removed from our worldly ties, better befitting eastern paganism than biblical Christianity… Given the fact that nations and tribes are composed of families (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31-32), it follows that all these corporate groupings will also exist in heaven. Scripture affirms a tenet belonging to the kinist side of the continental divide, by implication affirming the entire kinist outlook.”

Church as sex therapy, with a Negro anthem.

This clown, Russell Moore, accuses his childhood Sunday school teacher of being a “white supremacist” for telling him, after he put a coin in his mouth, “That’s filthy! Why, you don’t know if a colored man might have held that.” But he’s just getting started! He also says that her comment was “subversive of the gospel,” “dehumanizing of African-Americans,” and she was an advocate of “a twisted form of Darwinism.” She probably also wanted to kill six million Jews.

Oh nose! Judge Roy Moore of Ten Commandments fame is tied to…brace yourself…EXTREMISTS! Meaning Michael Peroutka, who is “affiliated” with the League of the South and has appeared on the James Edwards show. As the SPLC knows very well, there is nothing more “extreme” than the Ten Commandments, but opposing “racism” scores many more donation dollars for the Hate Headquarters.

John Hagee’s bouncers are busy, and I’m not talking about when he gets on the treadmill. Remember when the gospel used to be preached in churches?

Holy-rollers praying for war to smite the enemies of anti-Christ Israel.

We were right on 9/11. We were right from the beginning of the Iraq War. Back then, even paleoconservatives were saying that we must support our president and support our troops, and damn the torpedoes. Almost every Christian in the country was cheering for war, waving flags, and singing Yankee hymns of genocide.

Oh, how the “Christians” cheered. They wrote countless articles trying to convince the public that World War W satisfied Just War Theory. We warned that it could be like another Vietnam, and when Baghdad was easily taken, they laughed at us. It’s all going to be for nothing, we said. At the end of this exercise in folly, we said the empire would have nothing to show for it but two mountains: one of dead bodies and another of debt. At the close of 2011, the final convoy of American troops left Iraq. Obama claims that they leave behind “a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.” But this is wishful thinking. The truth is that nothing has changed, and the president is too afraid to break the news to the public that their sons were slain in vain and their money has been utterly wasted.

This is a very interesting documentary by Byron Jost, the late producer of A Line in the Sand. One especially interesting part of it recounts a time when Bishop Fulton Sheen was beating Jew Milton Berle in TV ratings, and there were mass conversions to Catholicism as a result. It’s difficult to believe now that such a time existed in America. Sheen railed against Jew Sigmund Freud and the attempt by his cult of Jew psychoanalysts to redefine the soul. The classical Greek understanding of the tripartite soul was of a rider on a horse. Reason is the rider, passion is the horse, and will is the bridle. Christians understood that will (ethos), reason (logos), and passion (pathos) were inadequate substitutions for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jews placed the psychoanalyst in the position of high priest of the new religion that professed to condemn the Christian ways of the past as mental illness. To Jews, Christianity is just a synonym for anti-Semitism. Their goal was transvaluation, to change vice to virtue and virtue to thought crime. Freud identified himself with Hannibal, making war against Rome (the Christian West), and this is interesting because the Christian West is truly the New Israel, and Carthage was a Canaanite colony that began as a refuge for exiles from Palestine. Procopius of Caesarea, a fifth-century historian, recorded that in his time there was near Tangiers a column bearing this inscription: “We are they who fled before the face of Joshua, the robber, the son of Nun.” Carthage is now a heap of ruins in the suburbs of Tunis, and we pray that all the works of the Jews will meet the same destiny.

Secondly, Jew-Boasian anthropology pushed the idea that race is not important, that nurture is everthing and nature is nothing. Jew-antropology has been even more significant than Jew-psychology, because even “conservative” Christians have now been indoctrinated to agree that race is meaningless. Boas’s disciple, Margaret Mead, taught that Christianity is sexually repressive, and that Christian society imposes morality, and if we can throw off the shackles of Christian society, which seeks to repress us, we will live in freedom, like the ubiquitous gang-rapists that she allegedly witnessed in Samoa.

The Frankfurt School is the third prong of Jewish subversion that has given us the reigning climate of political correctness. The philosophy of the Frankfurt School was that Gentiles project their own lust for power on the Jew, accusing the Jew of oppression when they themselves seek the same power to oppress. Even positive feelings for parents, nation, and race on the part of the Christian were viewed by the Jew as sublimations of hostility. You see, the Christians are only saying that they have love, but really they are filled with hate; this was the ideal stance for the Jew to take against the Christian. The Jews knew that since patriotism is based on the Fifth Commandment, undermining the family would be the best way to undermine the nation. Hence, Jews have formed huge “entertainment” industries based on portraying the father of the nuclear family as a buffoon and every kind of deviant social bonding as a “family.” The Frankfurt School’s beef with Nazi Germany, from which they evacuated to New York, was not that six million Jews were in the process of being killed; those stories were invented after the war. It was because the Nazis were self-consciously exclusionary and gave the Marxist Jew no possible foothold in German society. The ethnic warfare that Jews have waged against the West ever since is designed to prevent another Christian ethnonationalist government from arising. Their greatest fear is a race of men who band together to say, “Our God is not your god; our nation is not your nation; our family is not your family.” Thus, they are driven to attack God, nation, and family by every means possible. But of course, their god, nation, and family are sacred.

Today, your lying preacher has accepted the Jew-lie that the majority must be indifferent to its own eclipse, because there is no majority, and our unity is founded on ideology. He didn’t learn this from Jesus Christ. He learned it from the wretched Jew. Vast numbers of white Christians today welcome the demise of their own race, which has been gifted by God and has blessed all peoples. All the world marvels and follows the Beast. “Who is like the beast?” they ask. “Who is able to make war with him?” As Dr. Sanchez states in the video, white men and women find that by turning queer or feminist, they leave their former weak estate, having zero moral authority, and join respected minority classes who are able to wield significant political influence. This is the triumph of the Jew, and it is made sweeter by their success in casting opposition to their program as deranged and even criminal. Scroll up and read the de la Mora quote again, about how the very system of Marxism is designed to punish “deviationist” and “maladjusted” thought by blocking access to funds and media until the offenders repent of their particularity and agree to join in the parade of collective envy.

“The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity… It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray… Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen… All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.” ~ Bertrand Russell

At about the 50:00 mark in this sermon, R.J. Rushdoony explains that the Enlightenment philosophy of the social scientists is a rejection of history and a rejection of culture.

After all, what difference does it make whether the white man in America has produced a great culture and the Negro has produced nothing?… So when you take all of these away from the white man and from the Negro, what’s the difference between them [according to the social scientist]? Just a little color… The Negro and the white man in the United States – strip both of them of everything, and what’s the difference between them?… Well, what is the Negro if he is not his past and his intelligence and his achievements? And what is the white man if he is not exactly what he has produced here in this country? And if you take away from us everything that our past has given us, our physical inheritance, our abilities, who are we then? I am no longer myself if you deny to me everything that my inheritance has given me, everything that my work has given me, everything that my thinking has given me.

Clearly, Rushdoony was not like the pansy preachers of today who tell us that faith is all that matters, and everything else is negotiable. What does it mean to be pro-life if you kill me and my people by taking from us what makes us who we are? Rush goes on to say that the Enlightenment man believes that by changing institutions, human nature will be born again. For example, they believe that if the institution of marriage is changed, as sex faggots and race faggots have done, biology itself can be conquered. No longer will white girls long to be with white men, but their affections will be learned from Benetton ads, and their children will be as dysfunctional as what they see in the Jew-movies. Such is the dream of genocide in the dark mind of the anti-Christ.

But as the Roman poet Horace said, “Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. [Though you drive Nature out with a pitchfork, she will still find her way back.]”

The good chaps at Empty Tomb Books recently bought ad space on WorldJewDaily, which amazingly was accepted. Why was this amazing? Well, take a look at the ad.

Have you ever in your life witnessed such anti-Semitism? It’s pretty much like a Holocaust, and it’s all Joseph Farah’s fault. I can almost feel the heat from the crematory ovens, or maybe it’s just the laptop toasting my nether regions. At any rate, it took three days for the ad to be pulled. WND didn’t want to be guilty of giving Judeochristianity a bad name, but frankly, I feel that three days of Jew-hatred is inexcusable.

Dances with Jews.

Anything for a buck.

Mel Gibson apologizes. This is so heartfelt that you might need a hanky.

Beautiful images from Teheran. Jews want nothing more than to destroy what you see in this video, and one can only hope that the destroyer is destroyed in the process.

“A Christian is not free to believe and promote a lie about any person or nation.”

And you thought Jews were clever in making up Holohoax history. Now they’ve taken the incident of the Epic Beard Man, who keeps the amberlamps in business, and have rewritten it for Spicy Spickerson.

Jews built a fence to keep Palestinians away, are now building a fence to keep Egyptians away, and will next build a fence to keep Jordanians away. But Mexicans just want to live the American Dream.

Bring the whole fam-damily! (There’s a disclaimer at the end to avoid to tarbrush of racism, because even the threat of hell is not as terrifying to the white man.)

Keep aliens illegal!

Look at the doll in the opening of this video. A friend who has some regular contact with Mexicans hears from them that black and brown gangs have essentially been given permission by the government to exist and wreak havoc, while white nationalist groups are hunted down for “racism.”

“The beginning of the Jewish attack on the South… The Civil Rights Movement was revenge for the Leo Frank case.”

As a child during the fashionable 1970s, I read many Archie comics, including Al Hartley’s Spire Comics, which were Christian-themed. I enjoyed reading them, but wow, some of them were awful.

Aren’t the clothes supposed to fall off dispensationalists? And how about that theology? “God’s love at the cross was for his enemies.” At least Calvinists can wash their hands of blame for these comics.

Even though comic books in the 1970s were mighty-white, the message of miscegenation, cloaked in the gospel, was there already.

The dispies were never bashful about their Jewish Supremacism.

Here it is again, in a comic about Corrie Ten Boom.

Corrie is sent to a “death camp” herself, but the bumbling Germans, HEY LOOK! WHAT’S THAT OVER THERE?

In spite of the born-again cheese logs, the Spire comics were pretty good for kids. Even the regular Archie comics, though created by a Jew who was a national commissioner of the ADL, never had to suffer “diversity.” They were all about being white, featuring a love triangle of colored people: blonde, brunette, and redhead. Thanks to strong character development, Archie at one time rivaled Marvel and DC comics in popularity. Now, the dog has returned to its vomit, and Archie is being produced by the Tolerant and Relevant. About a year ago, Archie had jungle fever.

To step it up a notch, the latest issue features a faggot, interracial marriage.

In the next issue, Archie himself will be raped by a coach in the shower at Penn State.

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future’s endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us,
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.
C.S. Lewis

The world’s first “chimeric” monkeys have been created with genetic material from not two but six parents. There is the requisite griping about “enormous ethical concerns,” because many of these frankenmonkeys “die of severe and unrelated malformations caused by the genetic modifications,” but all will be well if we can turn these macaques into voters and church communicants, and down the road maybe even give them some culturally-sensitive SAT exam questions. Progress demands it. We, your friendly editorial staff at SWB, propose a new term: “Chimerican.” This is a word for those who are derived from two or more genetically distinct sources, find phony religion from impastors, and base their citizenship on propositional Nothingness.

Blacks are always belly-aching about how their kids can’t understand exam questions written by whites because of the “cultural” divide. Some school administrators in Norcross, Georgia, attempted to do something about this by writing questions that blacks will understand, so that they can learn more in school. (You know that blacks wrote the questions because racism is never mentioned in the article.) Alas, there was snapping of necks and wagging of index fingers in Mudville when welfare matriarchs discovered that their children were being asked how many oranges were picked by slaves and how many beatings per day Frederick Douglass received.

In the Washington, DC, area, black “students” are suspended and expelled two to five times as often as whites. The Washington Post blames this on poverty first of all, right after a few paragraphs in which they admit that the same thing is happening in extremely wealthy suburbs like Fairfax and Alexandria, and in “school districts across the country.” It’s sad when liberals can’t stick to the script, even after they’ve been rehearsing it for decades. Other scapegoats suggested for the cause of this problem: racism and “unconscious bias,” single-parent homes, cultural insensitivity, zero-tolerance policies which disproportionately affect blacks because they naturally join gangs, lack of “positive-behavior initiatives,” lack of parental trust in the “system,” teacher training, “unequal access to highly effective teachers and differences in school leadership styles.” But don’t worry! The “experts” are hard at work on a solution: “many school leaders said they are increasingly focused on the problem and grappling with ways to close the gap.” This would be the same gap that has never even been narrowed. Every excuse in the book is offered to avoid telling the truth, which is that this story is about race. Vast sums of money are spent to employ people whose job is to lie.

The neo-American mentality in 1.25 minutes – ready, go.

Nearly 14% of college graduates from the classes of 2006 through 2010 can’t find full-time work, and only 55.3% of people ages 16 to 29 have jobs. This spells doom for their future careers since 70% of pay increases for the average person come during the first ten years in the workforce, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. When compounded for the remaining years of employment, they stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, everyone is expecting a rebound in the economy, but I just don’t see it. Pay and productivity are stagnant while inflation climbs, and there’s nothing on the horizon like the personal computer boom of the 1980s to do wonders for productivity. Add to this the problem of debt that can never be repaid, and there’s probably no way to avoid the collapse of the dollar, which is why gold is priced so high. We’re on the eve of a revolution.

After looking at Ron Paul’s investment portfolio, a financial analyst says that he has “never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe.”

A friend of ours on the left coast writes:

I have loved Apple Computers for decades. I have built my career and work on these machines. But in the end it is just another PC company with the usual multiculty agenda. I had a very disturbing problem at the UVillage store in Seattle a few days ago. While I was waiting for my wife to get some help with her new iPhone, I looked at the software for sale. An Apple sales guy came over and asked me if I needed some help and I said no. But then I added a question. I said, you know it would be nice, if my son could look at this software and see a positive role model for him. Your software has: (1) two blacks (a literacy program); (2) two blacks and a mexican and (3) the Diego program, with one black, one asian and three mexicans. I observed that when all this multicultural stuff started 50 years ago, the argument was that each child needs an appropriate role model, and so minorities should have appropriate role models. Well, fair enough. But now, little European-American (White) boys like mine (who was standing there) have no role models at all, and it would be nice if there were appropriate and positive role models for little boys like mine. (And dare I say it, like the little Steve Jobs.) Then, an obese White woman shoved aggressively towards my son and I and said, “You’re a freak, you’re a fucking freak.” I said, are you objecting to the idea of positive role models for little White boys? She said very loudly: “You’re a god-damned fucking freak!” And stomped away. I turned back to the Apple guy and said, well, too many people really hate little white children. And I added, Apple should still be considerate about positive role models for all kinds of children, not just minorities. The Apple guy looked at me and at my son, and pointing at a game software package, said here is one that looks like your son. It was a game with a yellow dinosaur with red polka dots on it. I asked him if he really thought that it looked like my boy, and he leaned towards me and said: “I will not say another word to you, I refuse to help you find anything.” And he walked away. This is simple bigotry and illegal discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Apple Computer should be ashamed of itself. And poor old Steve Jobs is probably rolling over in his grave, because he wanted to bring computers to everyone, and yet today the corporation he built hates little White boys.

North Dakota appears to have the best protection for “racists” who are being punished for practicing free speech: “Makes it a discriminatory practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire a person; to discharge an employee; or to treat a person or employee adversely or unequally with respect to application, hiring, training, apprenticeship, tenure, promotion, upgrading, compensation, layoff, or a term, privilege, or condition of employment, because of participation in lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.”

Winston Smith’s top ten most hateful events of 2011.

Darkness seeking to overpower Light?

This Ohio State linebacker was repeatedly called a “cracker” by black University of Florida players. “I’ve never seen more people swing at our players and call us racial slurs. I’ve never been called a ‘cracker’ more in my life than I have today.” Notice that no one cares about this kind of racial slur. Even the writer of the article warns that he’s “not trying to make light of the situation,” which is exactly what he does. But if the tables were turned, there would be no end to the whining, and it would only end by the school of the guilty white man paying a substantial bribe to a black advocacy group.

Never have so few done so little and been praised for so much by so many as the Tuskegee Airmen. You’ve heard that you should never go in with a Sicilian when death is on the line, but verily I say to you, never expect a history lesson when racism is on the line. George Lucas is saying that he tried to make the movie with an all-black cast. He probably doesn’t like to mention the fact that Star Wars was made with an all-white cast.

Et tu, Buckwheat?

A slice of Norwegian heaven, which looks just like the old “racist” America. We live in dark times indeed when beauty and peace and chastity seem like fantasies. Thank the Lord for His gifts.

Here’s a very interesting artifact, a letter from Rushdoony to Van Til in which some myths about George Washington, atheism, and citizenship are refuted.

Finally, two great men died recently, Francis Nigel Lee and Louis Andrews. They will be sorely missed. Pray that you can be one-tenth as effective as these men during the course of your life. It goes by so fast.

A key component to his obfuscation is to toss the blame on Kinists for conforming to the world since Charles Darwin’s theories hinged on racial superiority. How many times do we need to say it? Christians thought like Kinists long before Darwin was born. And we’re not Darwinists by a long shot. This is a guilt by association tactic that doesn’t stand up to a moderate breeze. And how does RC distance himself from “supremacism”? By denying that genes have any impact whatsoever on culture!

It is true enough that some cultures are better than others. What makes one culture superior, however, isn’t genetics, but the impact of the Christian faith. Low levels of melanin didn’t build Europe, the gospel did. Matching levels of melanin in turn won’t make a godly marriage. The gospel will. Away with legalism that adds to God’s perfect law.

He skips from one logical fallacy to another. Why didn’t he write “low levels of melanin didn’t build Japan”? It’s just foolishness from start to finish. Worst of all, it robs God of the gratitude owed to Him for the tremendous genetic gifts with which He has endowed our race, gifts that have blessed the whole world. It’s true that similarity in marriage does not necessarily correlate to godliness, but without question it contributes to harmony and fertility, just as dissimilarity in marriage most certainly alienates spouses and exacerbates ungodliness which ripples far beyond the realm of the immediate family.

The National Institutes of Health has found that whites with black partners “have significantly more depressive symptoms and less relationship satisfaction…” Not to mention that a white woman married to a black man is 12 times more likely to be murdered than if she were married to a white man. Choose life!

It’s anything but godly to diminish obedience to the Fifth Commandment by calling it “legalism.”

“The instinctive impulse to symbolically link together all appearances, until the living (not bare intellectual) idea of unity is reached, the inexhaustible richness of phantasy, the bold, fearless flight of thought, the metaphysical vein, the intensity, the incomparable recognition of personality, the unselfishness, the holy earnestness, the leaning towards reclusion, the untirable assiduity, the scientific achievements, the mystical contemplation, but also the long-windedness, the disposition to look at the dark side of things, the tastelessness, the characterlessness, the frequency of unclear thinking, that goes hand in hand with childish fabrications, the willingness to esteem highly the alien, and to underestimate own superb values etc.: all this can also be found in the Indo-Aryan, and in consequence we see ourselves as in a magnifying mirror. That will help us, to know ourselves, and to clearly separate the real own characteristics from those obtruded on, forced onto and funnelled into us.” ~ Houston Stewart Chamberlain

“The way to love anything is to realize it might be lost.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

Nil Desperandum has written an excellent response to Sproul at Faith & Heritage. You’re highly encouraged to read it. Just as Athanasians made creedal confession against Arianism, and as the Reformers made creedal confession against Rome, Kinists are making creedal confession against Alienism and the resurgence of Gnosticism. This is because, as Nil writes, “it is our zeitgeist.” We would not expect Christians in ages past to be faced with the same challenges we face, but it would be “disastrously naïve and foolish,” not to mention suicidal, to ignore the peculiar threats of the modern world simply because they were not faced to a similar extreme by our fathers. This dearth of wisdom in our corner of the contemporary Church is partly due to an obsessive reliance on precedent, which is ironic because we Kinists are the ones who are typically accused of living in the past. But it’s even worse than that. Nil writes:

The main problem with Sproul, Jr.’s usage of Scripture here can properly be called biblicism, or a worship of the Bible. It manifests itself usually by rote prooftexting and an absence of regenerate wisdom; and it is characterized by an unduly lax or harsh understanding of God’s law, fueled either by the request for impossibly specific Bible verses or by appeal to inapplicable passages with a can’t-you-see-the-obvious mentality. Against this biblicism, I contend that opposition to miscegenation should hardly require any biblical text (just like patriotism): it is grounded in racial realism, which is itself grounded in a healthy understanding of natural revelation. Though Scriptures may be provided on this issue, and though God’s Word serves as a wonderful and illuminating guiderail in leading our minds on the path of godliness, we are not confined to a knowledge only of supernatural revelation. God has revealed Himself both in His Word and in His world.

Nature has been called the 67th book of the Bible, not because science speaks with authority equal to Scripture but simply because God has ordained that we are not to learn everything there is to know about life from the Bible alone. The Bible itself refers to this fact in many places, such as 1 Cor. 11:14, which asks, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” God is the creator and sustainer of nature, as Job came to understand. The first chapter of Romans tells us that the reprobate are without excuse because, from the foundation of the world, God’s invisible attributes have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. Nature is therefore a holy witness. We understand natural functions and natural affections not strictly because we learned them from Bible verses but because God revealed them to us in nature and confirmed them in His Word. In Proverbs, the sluggard is told to go to the ant, to consider her ways and be wise. And guess what. In nature, kind pairs with kind. The birds do not seek an unnatural unity with “birdkind”; the species are divided, and without such divisions we would not be able to experience the rich diversity of nature, as God intends.

As a friend of ours puts it, if qualitatively distinguishing between races is a sin then it is also sinful to “value racial diversity” in itself, since by definition there can be no diversity without qualitative differences.

The root of the word kindness is the word kind, which is the same as the word kin. We are to bestow kindness primarily on our kin, as it says in 1 Timothy 5:8. The word king also comes from kin, which is why Deut. 17:15 tells us that the king must be a kinsman. In both cases, the West has rejected the faith. The problem in this case is not “legalism,” as Sproul calls it, but simple disobedience. To the Alienist, kin is merely skin, and skin is entirely irrelevant to the human condition.

The interracial adoption craze is fueled by the Alienist idea that faith is all that matters, that there is no qualitative difference between filial blood and strange blood as long as all parties involved are Christians. It is connected to the false contemporary understanding of Galatians 3:28, which is contrary to the historical Christian understanding. The idea is that if we can capture children young enough that their minds are blank slates and pump the right kind of knowledge into them, we can make them just like us, and God’s purposes for the world can go hang themselves. This is Gnosticism on stilts. Ironically, as a friend of ours observes, those who condemn Southern slavery as “man-stealing” are delighted by the international adoption racket, even after they are shown that many of the children are stolen from their parents or sold by their governments to Americans. Christians even participate in the abduction, convincing desperate parents that their children will be better off without them. A small army of gospeltards flew into Haiti after the earthquake with this as their evangelical mission. As our friend asks when he sees lovely, large families like the Sprouls demote their own children to co-heirs with black boys and Chinese girls: “Is love-making, conception, diet, health, breast milk, biology, genes, etc. worthless? Meaningless?” Don’t forget that the placenta goes two ways. Fetal cells are not attacked by the mother’s body, and they stay in her body, helping her to fight infection for 50 years. Marvelous are Your works, and my soul knows it well.

Listen to Christian Gray respond to Sproul and discuss the disease of allophilia.

Our prayers are with Denise Sproul in her battle against leukemia, and with the entire Sproul family. Do not go gentle into that good night.

John Piper on “why pastors should bless interracial marriage.” It’s interesting that he acknowledges prohibition of miscegenation in the Old Testament because it drew people away from God, but now he mocks the idea that this can still happen among Christians since in 1 Cor. 7:39, a Christian woman is told that “she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” This means that she is to marry only according to the will of the Lord. Otherwise, it would encompass same-sex Christian marriage or incest marriage. Even when he considers examples such as these to be beyond the pale, the Alienist still finds it impossible to condemn, under any circumstances, the marriage of an old man to a young girl, for instance. The father of the girl has no say in the matter, the Alienist believes, because if the two are believers, this is all that matters. One can only wonder what alternate universe Piper inhabits. He gives himself a pat on the back for “magnificently overcoming what the world regards as insuperable issues.” What? Piper stands to lose nothing for his “brave” stand against racism. He is in lockstep with the world. Why isn’t he brave enough to admit it?

Read Nil Desperandum’s critique of Piper’s new book, Bloodlines. Even though Piper promises to define his terms in a book about race, he “fails to do what every anti-racist in history has failed to do: provide a definition of racism, explain why it is sinful, and identify how many (or some) people are guilty of it. If any of those three criteria are not achieved then the lamentations of institutional racism are vacuous.” Piper writes that his pastoral staff spent months trying to define the word “racism,” but in the end they simply cribbed the PCA’s inadequate definition. How could any word take months to define, especially if it is so obviously contrary to Scripture? Piper “admires King’s ‘historic Christian vision,’ and he even takes seriously King’s and Ralph Abernathy’s showmanship in kneeling down in prayer while rebelling against the police (pp. 24, 25). He mourns the murder of James Byrd but fails to mention the deluge of black-on-white rapes that are destroying our women – over ten daily and 35,000 annually.” Piper is an effeminate showman in the same vein as the hucksters he admires, not a minister of the gospel.

The always-brilliant Ehud Would expounds on the dangers of the neo-Christian rejection of race and kinship. “The liberal White denial of race is one of the greatest impediments to real peace amongst the races.” This, of course, is the exact opposite of what is believed by Piper, who wishes that the very word “race” did not exist. Ehud shows that antique Christians were nothing like what passes for a Christian in the popular imagination today, and this made them more circumspect in their interactions with strangers. They were not willing to gloss over important differences, even for the sake of the gospel, because to do so would place their own precious children at risk as well as the stability of their civilization. This was the experience of United Christian Missions to Africa in 1899:

The sterility and unprogressiveness of negro civilizations, negro states, are as much due to the paralyzing death grip of Islam as to nature’s foreclosure of his intellectual powers when she mortgages the growth of his brain after puberty… Africa is home to the most man-like apes and the most ape-like men… The Negro has an animal-look…skin as rancid as a goat’s…and inherent mental inferiority… The negro is unmoral…an overgrown child… His animal spirits are irrepressible and the mothers do all the parenting… Anarchy is the dominant chord of the Hamite… The lost churches of Abyssinia… Africa was a land of death shades… Darkness covered the earth and gross darkness her peoples… Ethiopic Christianity shows the utmost amount of superstition that can overwhelm a church without killing it… [A]cceptance of this view [that they are truly Christians] strains our view of Christianity and the Church almost to breaking… [W]hatever extravagant ritualism…and fatal divorce between ethics and religion disfigures oriental Christianity reveals itself most hideously in Abyssinia… Negro theology, when eliminated of superstition, retains little religion.

This reminds me of the clip from this game show. A Polynesian man is honest enough to divulge his revulsion to how the average black person thinks and behaves, and he is denounced as idiotic, stupid, offensive, etc. But not a single one of his name-calling interlocutors attempts to prove that what he says is false, because people tend not to attempt the impossible. It ends with eye-rolling platitudes from a black man.

The missionaries quoted above were doing the work of the gospel in Africa, but like Albert Schweitzer after them, they knew that it would serve the black man least of all to pretend that he was something he is not.

Negroes did not even have a word in their native tongue for “promise,” “bond,” “oath,” “dedication,” “contract,” or “covenant.” Ehud writes: “Black Africans, unlike Europeans or Asians, have no ruins of past civilization, no archeological, written, nor even oral history of which to speak.” They could barely harness fire. This may not be the mark of Cain or the curse of Canaan, but it is certainly the sign of a race set apart from the world. In the words of Isaiah, they are “a nation scattered and peeled…a people terrible from their beginning onward.” Christians today, in their abortive attempt at compassion for the stranger, make war on their own sons and daughters. “Plainly put, the cost of denying the reality of race is carnage and death.”

Seven of the ten worst countries in the world are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Another is Haiti, which is an extension of Africa. The other two countries are current warzones. The top thirteen best-performing states are all overwhelmingly white.

Lying 501(c)3 impastors like Piper and Sproul have much in common with Judas, who stooped to betrayal for a small bag of coins. They are rewarded with respect and fat salaries for a time, but at the cost of dispossessing their own people. They are traitors.

Ehud shows that a willful blindness has set in among scientists as well as theologians. There is a war underway against biology and all of God’s created order.

[T]he next time someone tells you that “science has proven that race doesn’t exist” [remember that] when the greatest living expert on genetics said otherwise, he was immediately shunned by all of the government-sponsored think tanks and stripped of his funding. The law of political correctness dictates that science is not allowed to draw such conclusions…

As the American Society of Transplantation attests, the transfusion of blood, bone marrow, and organs is possible heterogeneously (cross-race) only through “the development of drugs that suppress the immune system.” This immunosuppression generally destroys a patient’s immune system for good.

R.C. Sproul Jr. might want to read Ehud’s article and amend his marriage-is-for-humans theory, if children matter at all to him.

Moreover, it is the Scripture which gives us one of the most clearly expressed refutations of the a-racial/anti-racial view, in that the text everywhere presupposes the legitimate, lawful, and ontological reality of races and ethnic groups. Specific terms are used redundantly throughout, such as Gentiles and nations (Heb. goyim/Grk. ethnos), which mean, just as the Greek hints, “ethnicities.” Similarly, the term peoples (Grk. genos) is the root of “genes,” “genetics,” “genealogy,” etc., and is generally translated by linguists forthrightly as “races.” There are even many words used in Scripture which denote taxonomical, lineal, and legal exclusion from a race: for instance, the term which appears as “other peoples” (Grk. allogenes) is the composite of two Greek words, allos (“other”) and genos (“races”). And the term rendered “illegitimate” or “bastard” (Heb. mamzer/Grk. nothos) in Deuteronomy 23:2 is candidly understood by linguists to mean “mixed-race, mongrel,” as is proved by its translation in Zechariah 9:6, which says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.” These are not controversial matters to language experts, only to modern theologians who desperately seek to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text in favor of an egalitarian sociology. Wherever the text speaks in these overtly ethnic categories (which is virtually everywhere), moderns are compelled by the spirit of our liberal age, perhaps unwittingly, to spiritualize all said references. Even the word which is often rendered as “pagan” (Heb. zuwr) in the Old Testament of our English Bibles literally means “alien or foreign.” Any religious connotation assumed when one sees the word “pagan” in those texts is but an anachronistic eisegetical (misinterpretive) imposition made by translators. It is patently a racial or tribal term.

As we’ve said, the Alienist heresy is basically rehashed Gnosticism. Race must be destroyed so that purposely-rootless individuals may prepare for their transition to ghosthood. Families are useful vehicles for the gospel, because families raise a new crop of individuals, but nations are no longer to be baptized as nations, unless by accident. This is the new twist on the old Gnostic idea that the body is evil but the soul is divine and immortal. As Petr commented here recently, on the third century Petelian tablet the “soul” declares:

I am a child of Earth and of Starry Heaven;
But my race is of Heaven.

Or as Larry Norman sang to the dispie-sensational Jesus Freaks of the 1970s: “This world is not my home. I’m just passing through.”

Milton Friedman on why society is and must be based on families and extended families rather than individuals.

“A concept of individualism, the one that prevails, is relatively modern, coming into its own with the French Revolution and its aftermath. Instead of identifying a man as a member of a group, family, clan, or nation, in terms of his faith and culture, identification became purely personal. ‘I am myself. Nobody can define me. I am unique.’ That’s the mentality.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony (7:24)

See here and here for the latest feeble attempt of Bojangles Marinov to redefine the family. He asserts, contrary to all that is identifiably Christian for thousands of years, that allegiance that extends beyond father, mother, sister, and brother is “pagan” because Christianity only looks forward, never behind. Alienists are so eager to deny that blood and soil have any significance whatsoever that they make themselves look increasingly ridiculous.

You’ll be amazed by what militant amillennialist Michael Horton says here, beginning at 6:20. Horton is an outspoken advocate of the New Gnosticism. He denies that we should make “the moral law as expressed in the Ten Commandments” the law of the land, either as the Church or as individuals. He says we have no right to laws based on the law of Moses, because they were given only to ancient Israel. We’re only allowed to have laws based on conscience, he says, because anything more would be coercive. He even claims that Jesus “revoked” Mosaic legislation by fulfilling it and then “kicking it away.” This is the “radical two kingdoms” wackiness which Rev. Bret McAtee nicely summarizes here:

Simply put:

1. Life is divided into two realms, the common realm (Creation) and the Church realm (Redemption). In the common realm Jesus rules through Natural law, and arguments for and against issues with pagans must be based on Natural law alone. No Bible usage allowed. In the Church realm, Jesus rules through His revealed special revelation (Scripture), and every issue must be decided upon with warrant from God’s word.

2. The Church cannot and must not speak to issues that exist in the common realm. The Church must only speak to the redemptive realm and to individual personal morality that does not coincide with the public square. This means that ministers have no business praying at Town Meetings, writing Letters to the Editor about public square issues, or officiating at common realm events. Ministers as ministers belong to the Church and must not speak beyond the Church as ministers.

3. The Old Testament Moral law applies to believers in their personal private lives, and though it might apply to the common realm, the Church cannot do the applying. That is left to the believer alone to do.

4. No case law at all and no general equity at all from the case law applies today. So, from a Natural law view we might say incest is wrong, when arguing on policy in the common realm, but we cannot say it is wrong from a general equity Biblical case law view.

5. R2K denies that there is or ought to exist such a thing as Christian culture. R2K denies that there is such a thing as Christian education, Christian economics, Christian history, Christian jurisprudence, Christian art, Christian music, Christian politics, or Christian family, because “Christian” is a term reserved for the redemptive realm, and all these exist in the common realm. In point of fact, R2K denies any and all ideas of Christendom.

6. R2K advocates individual Christian involvement in common realm affairs, but it refuses to give a “thus saith the Lord” declaration on any of that involvement. So in practical terms, this means that one set of Christians could start a Christian Marxist club, and another set of Christians could form a Christian Limited Government club, and both sets of Christians would be equally honored in the Church, because the Church does not get involved in these common realm issues. Indeed, it is even possible that members of both clubs would be members of the same Church.

7. R2K advises to obey Caesar in every situation and policy UNLESS Caesar decrees that the redemptive realm must be shut down and worship must cease. Only then can the Church tell Caesar to take a hike. If Caesar mandates homosexual marriage, as one example, then Christians must support Caesar in this and only work against such policy within the confines of what Caesar determines to be law.

And they can oppose it in their personal lives (see point 3), but the R2K “church” will never back them up if they, for example, try to oust fags as youth leaders in various civic organizations (see point 6). The upshot is that Christian individuals must be totally isolated from their communities; the church is to be their only community, and their insane R2K pastor the only leader. Head for the hills before they start mixing the Kool-Aid.

The Top Ten Reasons Why I am Not a Baptist.

An amusing baptist slant on history in which the red dots (true Christians) are choked out in the non-baptist stream:

Here’s a Free Will Baptist church that voted against miscegenation and then promptly apologized for it. The church had resolved that “parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals.” The vote was made necessary when a mudshark brought her buck from Zimbabwe to the service and invited him to sing. She quickly discovered that even Arminians know more than she about the Bible.

“But is not race-mixing Satan’s supreme triumph? If he can kill the white race then he can eradicate the past, the Christian past of the European people. Without that past there is no future for poor, unaccommodated mankind. It’s of no consequence to Satan if a theoretical Christ, fashioned to please the liberals and the colored races, exists in the Christian churches. All that concerns Satan is the non-abstract Christ, the Christ of the antique Europeans…” ~ CWNY

As Pat Buchanan writes in his latest book, “When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.”

“The liberals and the halfway house Christians are fond of telling people like me, who write about the moral gulf between old Europe and modern Europe, that every sin known to man existed in old Europe just as it does now. And that is true; but we must make two distinctions. First, the antique Europeans did not deny that they were sinners. When they committed adultery they called it sin; when a woman killed her child, she was called a murderess. And the second distinction is like unto the first. When a man or woman sinned they were not supported by their peers; they were shunned. For instance, in antique Europe if a man was addicted to sodomy he had no support system. He knew if he couldn’t control his sinful desires then he must confine them to secret places where the outcast men dwelt. And repentance was possible, because if a man persisted in his sin he knew he lost the fellowship of his fellow men, just as Scrooge cast himself into greed-forged isolation by his illicit love of money. The sinner could be reclaimed, because there was a world beckoning to him in which people believed there was a such a thing as sin. Not so today… Today a sinner is lauded and told he is virtuous. He has a support system for his sin. Miscegenation becomes ‘striking a blow against prejudice,’ infanticide becomes ‘a woman’s choice,’ sexual promiscuity becomes ‘free love,’ and institutionalized blasphemy becomes ‘liberalism.’” ~ CWNY

Alienists only have a few examples to offer from the Bible to justify miscegenation, all of which we roundly dispute: Moses/Zipporah, Salmon/Rahab, Boaz/Ruth, and a few others on the periphery. They say that these were godly men whose mixed marriages were blessed, and therefore Irishmen are perfectly suited to marry equatorials. But isn’t it fascinating that they never use examples of godly men who had more than one wife to justify polygamy? Isn’t it curious that they never use examples of godly slaveowners like Philemon to justify slavery? Apparently, biblicism, like the American Express card, has its limits.

Our foul-mouthed Rosa Parks. She was arrested after this incident and will remain in jail until January. Her child is in state custody. Meanwhile… An 18-year-old white boy in London is chased to his home by a gang of blacks who slash his throat and leave him bleeding at his front door until he dies. Meanwhile… A gang of Somalian Muslim girls, screaming “kill the white slag,” repeatedly kick a white girl in the head as she lay motionless on the ground. The blacks walk free without being charged. The judge reasons that they could not have been drunk because their religion does not allow it. All the white sheeple who rushed to apologize profusely for the belligerence of our Rosa have nothing to say about these attacks, and not a word of apology or grief is heard from the fabled “black community,” lauded in story and song. All that the sheeple can do is lock their doors and hide.

The last gasp of “multiculturalism.”

The reign of terror is ending. More and more white people are pissed off and are growing courageous.

“Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.” ~ Aristotle

“There will always be an England.” ~ H.V. Morton

According to this CNN poll, whites give Obama negatives by an almost 2-to-1 ratio, while non-whites give him positives by a more than 2-to-1 ratio. One of these days, whites will realize that only they can determine their own future.

It’s a myth that North American Indians used fish to fertilize their corn. If anything, Squanto learned how to fertilize by observing Europeans. And while Squanto’s assistance to the Pilgrims was undoubtedly appreciated, his tribe had just been wiped out by a plague, making his advice about how to live off the land and paint with all the colors of the wind a bit less crucial than white people like to believe every time Thanksgiving rolls around. They believe myths about the “noble savage” because it serves their purposes.

Speaking of the noble savage, it’s interesting that Herman Cain took the opposite approach to marketing that corporations take. No respectable company dares to place white people in the foreground of marketing photos. The white man is always in the background, usually accompanied by a white woman, while black women and Asian women and beings of indiscernible patrilineage are at the center of the photo, depicted as the masters of industry, with their arms folded confidently across their chests. The message is clearly that a few white men are still allowed to keep their jobs only as long as they are willing to contribute to the hijacking of their civilization and economy. And God help the poor antiquarian who dares to suggest that women make the world’s worst executives. Even women hate to work for women. Corporate marketing is a different world on the other side of the looking glass; it tends to invert reality. Herman Cain bought stock images for his website that reveal his goals, just as other corporations boldly depict their non-white goals. For Herman, white women are front and center.

Here’s another example of reality inverted. In an article about one of the safest colleges in the country (because it is located in an overwhelmingly white area), the accompanying image is naturally a grinning black man.

If you’re Doug Phillips, the homunculus of patriarchy, you can place yourself in the back layer of a photo and still make it focused on you. Narcissists know how to do things like this.

Ultrasound is racist. Even unborn white children despise jungle noise.

Fiat has declared war on the white race, on beauty, and on good taste. The Jews are no longer even trying to be subtle. In reality, of course, three black men would run as fast as they could from three pregnant women.

The reason why lunch counters were segregated.

The true history of lynching.

Now we read that 60% of black girls under the age of 18 have been sexually abused by black men. Explain to me again why our “racist” Christian forefathers were wrong for believing that slavery is the best state of existence for the black man. Three percent of the population is responsible for more violence than the rest of the country combined. They are a staggering 5,000% more violent than whites. This is so lopsided that not even profession of faith can make up for it. “The least Christian White neighborhood is still a many times more moral place than the most Christian Black neighborhood.” Liberia is the most “theonomic” country in the world, and it’s a hellhole.

Fifty-one years after independence from Belgium, Congo women are being raped at 26 times the rate previously reported by the United Nations. Four women every five minutes.

Black people did invent Bluetooth technology though.

The White House has released an official proclamation called “The President’s Agenda and the African American Community” that details how we have all gone deep into debt to give free money to black people, which we are to take as wonderful news. It would be horrible racism and evil wickedness to suggest that anything should be done for white people, or even that white people should keep their money for their own children. Explain to me again how slavery was eradicated.

THANK God for pluck – unknown to slaves –
The self ne’er of its Self bereft,
Who, when the right arm’s shattered, waves
The good flag with the left.

Clearly, the system is to blame here.

The poor families of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom will not yet be able to close the saddest chapter of their lives, as our incomparable “justice” system assured them. New trials have been granted to the murderers. It’s stunning to think of how much money will be spent on the scum. Every day that they breathe air is an offense to humanity.

The prosecution prepares its case:

Polk County, Florida, School Board Chairmulatto Kay Fields, who appears to be one of the ugliest hybrids that ever grew from a zygote, is forcing two young white siblings to attend separate schools because racial “diversity is just as important as family” unity.

It’s HATE to insinuate that black men look alike. This boy was expelled from school for his unspeakable hatred. When asked for specifics, the superintendent replied, “It’s not what he said but how he said it.” Yeah, we get that a lot from those who don’t have a clue about how to prove us wrong.

You won’t find the word “equality” in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers. When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that all men are created equal, he was making a very important and timely distinction between inherited and natural aristocracy. Obviously, the slaveowners who ratified his words did not intend that they should be interpreted as they have, with every person who breathes having equal capacities and rights. Of the French revolutionaries who idolized equality and gave birth to the new American religion, Edmund Burke wrote:

Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil.

(Don’t miss the poem of the wolf and the lamb at that link.)

It’s a Wonderful Race. “Meet witch doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga.”

Check your region for mighty-whiteness. And please, be aware that we can’t all be perfect.

Proof that all races are equal:

Families in Russia with three or more children are now being given free land.

Ed Young, the “life coach” of this seeker church, is ultra-relevant and stars in rap skits like a wigger. But churches like this have to continually tantalize the audience to keep them interested in the “gospel,” so of course they’ve learned to cash in on sex sermons. This one shows all the places where a married couple can have sex every day. If Polycarp had known about this he might not have been burned at the stake.

Is every person in the world your neighbor? Heretic Tim Keller says heterosexuality doesn’t send you to heaven, so homosexuality can’t send you to hell. He says it’s “misleading” to call homosexuality sinful. Something tells me that he and Ted Haggard keep in touch.

Get a free copy of Greg Bahnsen’s By This Standard.

The KJV: When 400 years old you are, look as good you will not.

Hope for the Luddites of the 21st century!

For housewives of the 21st century who prefer animate rather than mechanical domestic servants, there may be a choice other than the robot… The RAND panel mentioned that by the year 2020 it may be possible to breed intelligent species of animals, such as apes, that will be capable of performing manual labor. During the 21st century, those houses that don’t have a robot in the broom closet could have a live-in ape to do the cleaning and gardening chores. Also, the use of well-trained apes as family chauffeurs might decrease the number of automobile accidents.

The twelve days of homeschool.

In Texas, white kids are being forced in school to recite the Mexican national anthem and pledge allegiance to the Mexican flag. It’s all part of the conquest of Aztlan. It’s funny that the Mexican salute looks similar to the Nazi salute. In Europe, an arm motion of that kind can get you arrested. Even dogs can get in trouble in Germany. An animal shelter trained this dog to stop raising his leg so high, but the answer to the problem was to put him in a sombrero. I like how the author of the article makes a special point of calling him a “crossbreed.” And this one calls him a “mongrel.” No, journalists, the word is “Mexican.”

Don’t just keep the aliens out of your country. Keep them out of your groceries too.

At first glance, the picture below looks like a before/after shot. But not so fast.

The line going down the center is the southern border of the empire, and Mexico is to the left.

Aren’t borders hateful, seeing as how all people are equal? In fact, all human beings are Americans in embryo, since America is merely an idea, a dream, a proposition, not a real land inhabited by a real nation.

“I think it was Robert Frost who said good fences make for good neighbors. The white separatist is the man who has the courage and the honesty to say he believes in fences and thereby creates the only genuine basis for good neighbors.” ~ Michael Hoffman’s White Separatism FAQ

It’s helpful to see pictures like this to contrast them with the lies of anti-Christs. Jew Albert Einstein called ethnic nationalism “the measles of mankind.” But of course, when the security of Jews is at stake, borders are good things.

Be sure to visit our friends at Empty Tomb Books, and order your copy of the new edition of Judaism’s Strange Gods. It’s a mini-masterpiece. To whet your whistle:

When Jesus said that Jerusalem was the “killer of the prophets” (Luke 13:34-35), He was indicating the propensity of that city when it is denuded of God, and when man’s pride and ego – as symbolized by Judaism – comes to the ascendant. Under these conditions, the so-called “Holy Land” is nothing of the kind. It becomes, rather, a God-forsaken sandbox where the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees further multiply their transgressions…

The weird cult of “Judeo-Christianity” is an oxymoron found on the lips of many Christians including even conservative ones. This abominable “Judeo-Christianity” contrivance is of a piece with the cloning of human and animal genes or any of the other alchemical mixtures of two mutually contradictory substances which we have witnessed these last few decades in the modern cauldron. The near-universal approbation and currency exerted by this cockamamie term exposes at one glance the level of abysmal historical ignorance which obtains today. The Church Fathers knew of no “Judeo-Christian” tradition, since Judaism did not exist before Christ. Before Him, there was the faith of the Israelites as it gradually decayed and was subverted by corrupt teachings such as were transmitted by the Pharisees and the Sadducees…

Judaism is Talmudism, not Old Testament, and those who revere the Old Testament teachings outside the prism of Talmud are its hereditary enemies. A counterfeit cannot be said to be the heir to a genuine article. Judaism, whether qualified as ancient or not, is totally alien to the only Biblical religion on earth today, Christianity…

The psychiatry of Sigmund Freud was premised on his diagnosis of many Judaics who were raised under Talmudic auspices. He then applied what he learned from their Talmudic-inspired dementia to his diagnosis of gentiles, who had no such background. As a result, non-Judaics were saddled with all sorts of bizarre penis-envy and incestuous oedipal complexes, as well as other mental sicknesses that were not part of their heritage. Weird concepts and strange imaginings never before encountered in mainstream psychological literature were suddenly being applied to all mankind. Overnight we were convinced of our own perversity, but a perversity we did not possess until the “scientist” Freud determined that we were burdened with these intrinsically Talmudic orientations. The fact is, Talmudists become insane as a result of trying to obey the Talmud (even though Hollywood propaganda has often associated such “hang-ups” with “Puritan” and “Christian” repression)…

The faith of Western Civilization, Christianity, has been supplanted by a new state religion, which is Judaism, presented in the palatable guise of Orwellian “Holocaust” Newspeak of which the figure of six million dead “Jews” is fixed, sacred dogma which in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Canada it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to doubt or contest… Christians are not to obey or partake in any idolatry or false witness. The Six Million, if it is a wild exaggeration, would constitute a lie that has been made sacred and to which we in the West are expected to bow and bend our knee. There is a Biblical warning along these lines, about “not giving heed to Jewish fables…” (Titus 1:14).

UPDATE: Mickey Henry has given the readers 15% off on Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded if ordered before January 1. Use this coupon code at checkout: SWB-JSG.

Get this book too, and it will change your life. Use the coupon code F&H-PGP at checkout for an additional 15% off. These are perfect Christmas presents.

But now, for equal time, let us meditate upon the wisdom of the Talmud.

Not burying cut fingernails causes miscarriages. (BT Moed Katan 18a)

Adam had sexual relations with all of the animals in the Garden of Eden. (BT Yebamoth 63a)

After seven years, hyenas turn into bats. After even longer periods, they turn into thorns and demons. (BT Baba Kamma 16a)

That’s about all I can take.

“The Golgotha of modern mankind is Auschwitz. The cross, the Roman gallows, was replaced by the gas chambers… In Auschwitz, the Jewish people was the High Priest and the sacrificial lamb in one.” ~ Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum, The Face of God After Auschwitz, 1965

You might be surprised to know that the Nazis were very critical of this board game. But this shouldn’t stop you from drop-shipping it to your local Chabad House as a Christmas gift. What better time of the year to be generous? I’m dreaming of a blight business.

This article is about how Jews are in anguish because they can’t get the great Arthur Butz fired, which is what they want to do to everyone who disagrees with them. The first two sentences are amusing, though.

Students don’t have too many nice things to say about Arthur R. Butz. He is a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, and according to his students, he is boring, his handwriting is too small to make out on the board and he leaves all the real teaching to the teaching assistants.

Anyone who has been to a major university knows that this is an accurate description of every professor.

This is why Ron Paul is under a media blackout. The other contenders show him what is required to be elected president. Mr. Paul was, of course, banned from this debate by the Jews because he is an “extremist.”

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

This is obviously a Ron Paul voter:

The SPLC is all that stands between Granny Warriors obsessed with Ron Paul and the Fourth Reich! Hate is on the rise! Send in your donations today! Human Events asks:

Is the SPLC, by its own criteria, the real hate group? It still carries weight in plenty of circles here in America, and so when it categorizes an organization as a hate group, many people of good conscience are influenced by that designation, one which is quite stigmatizing and destructive, as evidenced by the recent events involving [Focus on the Family] and [American Family Association] mentioned above. Yet it is the leaders of the SPLC who are either irresponsibly attacking other fine organizations, or worse still, knowingly defaming them.

Who then deserves the title of “hate group,” Focus on the Family or the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who has been guilty of demonizing others and spreading hurtful, inaccurate information? Whose actions and words have been hateful? The record speaks for itself.

Perhaps Human Events has learned from its own overreaction. The magazine unfairly fired Kevin Lamb following a mere phone call from Porky Beirich of the SPLC, who called him a “supremacist” or some other meaningless term.

Meanwhile, the ADL is hot on the trail of anti-Semitism. Dogs and vodka don’t stand a chance.

Questions that a friend of ours would like to see put to Newt Gingrich at the next Republican-Jewish affair:

1. When are Jews finally going to break the silence and begin talking about the Holocaust?
2. When is Israel finally going to get the amount of foreign aid it deserves?
3. Is the present level of assistance to our only ally in the Middle East enough and, if it is not, in your opinion how much more can Americans give to ensure the stability, vitality and security of those who have made the desert blossom like the rose?
4. What will you do as President legally to quell the tidal wave of anti-semitic speech and Holocaust-denial that is inflicting so much anguish on Holocaust survivors and other members of “the community”?

Did FDR provoke Pearl Harbor?

“Instead of friends, I see in Washington only mortal enemies. Instead of loving the old flag of the stars and stripes, I see in it only the symbol of murder, plunder, oppression, and shame.” ~ Rose O’Neal Greenhow

If you own guns or have more than seven days of food in your house, the empire suspects you to be a terrorist.

Though it oversimiplifies, this page about returning to the Middle Ages is very good.

“A recent incident on a railroad train justly illustrates the result of women’s ‘rights.’ A solitary female entered a car where every seat was occupied, and the conductor closed the door upon her and departed. She looked in vain for a seat, and at last appealed to an elderly man near her to know if he would not ‘surrender his seat to a lady.’ He, it seems, was somewhat a humorist, and answered: ‘I will surrender it cheerfully, Madam, as I always do, but will beg leave first to ask a civil question. Are you an advocate of the modern theory of women’s rights?’ Bridling up with intense energy, she replied, ‘Yes, sir, emphatically; I let you know that it is my glory to be devoted to that noble cause.’ ‘Very well, Madam,’ said he, ‘then the case is altered: You may stand up like the rest of us men, until you can get a seat for yourself.’ This was exact poetic justice; and it foreshadows precisely the fate of their unnatural pretensions. Men will treat them as they treat each other; it will be ‘every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost’… And the society which will emerge from this experiment will present woman in the position which she has always held among savages, that of domestic drudge to the stronger animal… She will reappear from this ill-starred competition defeated and despised, tolerated only to satiate the passion, to amuse the idleness, to do the drudgery, and to receive the curses and blows of her barbarized masters.” ~ Robert Lewis Dabney

It’s the slow, sloppy slide into androgyny; life as the Negro has always known it, both before and after he heard the gospel.

An excellent quote from B.B. Warfield:

To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism – the church included – is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church – except, of course, the authority of Paul.

As Bret McAtee observes, this Jacobin worldview carries over from a gynocracy to the destruction of cultures and ethnicities. It pretends “that just as women and men are undifferentiated cogs, so it is the case that men of different nationalities are likewise merely undifferentiated cogs that can be swapped in and out of the Statist created cultural machine of the New World Order.”

“Romantic love thrives on frustration. It likes to feel sorry for itself. And the essence of romantic love is that there be insuperable problems, star-crossed lovers, and that it go from frustration to frustration. And romantic love dies when it can get the one it loves.” ~ Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Movies these days, and I guess most stories, are either explosions and car chases for men or romance for women. And the romance never moves beyond the excitement of the chase. Families as families are never honored, because that would be boring. As a consequence, young people are taught to be shallow and to thrive on frustration, as Rushdoony said. They never see even fictional accounts of life as it is meant to be lived.

If this is “unhate,” I’ll take a triple hate on the rocks, please.

The sons of Japheth continue seeking new worlds to explore. Dear God in heaven, I love white people.

Thanks to James Edwards for linking to our previous piece. James is well on his way to a Bob Costas level of broadcasting expertise. I only wish that his rewards were commensurate with his talent.

“It’s not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business, Mr. Jorkin… It’s to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved. No, I can’t see my way to selling out to the new vested interests, Mr. Jorkin. I’ll have to be loyal to the old ways and die out with them if needs must.” ~ Ebenezer Scrooge

Have a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. It’s a tradition at our house, when we tuck the children into bed on Christmas Eve, to don the kerchief and cap, light a few candles, and read Ed Sebesta’s holiday classic, No Plantation Christmas.

Abe Foxman’s yarmulke is in a twist. What’s the world coming to when not even a major columnist, pundit, and bestselling author (the book rose to #4 on the NYT list) is intimidated by Menorah Man? When the ADL writes about James Edwards, they use the hate-term “white supremacist” twice in one sentence. It’s twice as bad when a white supremacist is the host of a show that is also white supremacist. And then if white supremacists are listening on the other end, it’s thrice as bad.

Buchanan went on NPR to defend his freedom to be interviewed. “I think [ADL Director Abe Foxman] has called me even worse names than he is calling this radio station,” Buchanan said. “I think there’s an awful lot of smearing being done by the Anti-Defamation League, frankly, over the years, of individuals who simply disagree maybe with U.S. policy towards Israel, and a lot of name-calling… Am I supposed to vet all the people on these shows and get the list from Abe Foxman of what shows I can go on to?”

This is a very important historical development. Anyone else, at any other time, in Buchanan’s position, would be so concerned about assuaging the distress of leftists and avoiding their tarbrush of hate that he would immediately pull the Edwards interview from his website and make the rounds in the media to apologize for being so neglectful in his associations. Instead, Buchanan fires back at these thugs. It’s hard to imagine anyone else with such a prestigious career being so gutsy, but Buchanan is both Irish and German, so say no more.

Here’s a very comedic SPLC article that calls for Buchanan to be fired from MSNBC for the crime of being interviewed by someone with non-kosher opinions, meaning James. MSNBC has completely censored promotion of the book, even though the network employs Buchanan. The SPLC claims that Buchanan has “reacted furiously” to this McCarthyism of the Left, but it’s not true. Buchanan loves it that the terrorists and censors are helping him sell books.

James Edwards is a real troublemaker, and he deserves to be proud. He is perfecting his craft, is at least as good a broadcaster as overpaid tools like Hannity, and routinely produces bigger headlines than Limbaugh. Pound for pound, he is the best.

James writes:

Pat Buchanan appears on my show for a grand total of three interviews out of thousands of routine radio and television interviews over a career spanning decades.

The result is an ongoing, two-week eruption of rage…

Would they ever apply the same rules to, say, Martin Luther King? Just see what happens if one of us cites the enormous number of connections he had to the Communist Party.

Here’s a good Chronicles article that mocks the wailing lamentations over Edwardsgate.

Apparently, anyone expressing trepidation about the fact that the Census Bureau projects that by 2042 whites will, for the first time in history, no longer be a majority in the United States should be excluded from public life…

The Color of Change, on its website, states that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice. Our goal is to empower our members – Black Americans and our allies – to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.” In the political world Color of Change wants to create, allowing yourself to be interviewed by someone who describes himself as “pro-white” should be enough to get you fired, but wanting to “strengthen Black America’s political voice” is okay.

“We have witch-hunts now, only we call it anti-racism.” ~ Otto Scott (34:36)

“How long can you operate on the theory that the white race is on earth to take care of the black race?” ~ Otto Scott (48:58)

Buchanan deserves a lot of credit for working with those of us, like James and crew, who are more outspoken on racial matters. The only trouble is that one minute he’s praising the founding stock of the country, and the next he’s longing for the American “nation” of his youth, except for all that yucky segregation stuff that kept white girls from being raped. Thus, in his new book he writes that America was made great because it is a melting pot. This would not make America great even if there were none but white people here, and the stew certainly turns sour when other races are thrown into the pot. He seems to believe that before we were being flooded by other races, year after year, the multiracial melange “was united on a common faith, morality, history, heroes, holidays, holy days, language and literature.” This is simply not true. He also says that it’s “not the government’s job” to support and defend the Christian faith and the law of God! On the contrary, the government has no greater responsibility; it is a far greater responsibility than protecting the unborn, which is now the holy grail of conservatism. I hate to criticize Pat, because he goes as far as a “respectable” commentator and advisor to three presidents can go in defending our race. But what we need at this late hour is not Jewy nostalgia for melting pot mythology or misguided patriotism but the hard, cold truth.

Here’s a very good article in which Buchanan observes that we are no longer “one united people” but what Klemens von Metternich called Italy: “a mere geographical expression.” He correctly argues “that the America we grew up in is disintegrating, breaking apart along the fault lines of politics, race, ethnicity, culture and faith.” The only qualification we would offer is that the “America we grew up in” was already long in the process of disintegrating. With the exception of politics, Buchanan’s fault lines are the same blood and faith issues that Kinists warn are crucial to national health.

What holds us together, then?

We are not now and will not then be “descended from common ancestors.” We will consist of all the races, cultures, tribes and creeds of Earth – a multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual stew of a nation that has never before existed, or survived. The parallels that come to mind are the Habsburg Empire that flew apart after World War I, and the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that disintegrated after the Cold War.

No more will we all speak the same language…

As for “professing the same religion,” where 85 percent of Americans were Christians in 1990, that is down to 75 percent and plummeting…

The new secession that is coming…is not like the secession of 1861. It is a secession of the heart from one another.

Meanwhile, the lying preachers are saying that faith is all that matters, and everything else is fungible, that people are just people because they all come from Adam. They are liars, and their false religion is contrary to both Scripture and nature. Even the brains that God gave us balance unity (right hemisphere) and particularity (left hemisphere). Without the left brain you would not understand language, among many other things, and without the right brain you would not experience emotions, among many other things. People who suffer from Williams Syndrome have what is called pathological altruism, because they trust everyone and consider no one to be a stranger, and therefore have no racial awareness, but are also incapable of forming deep social connections. They are imbalanced. A sound mind balances unity and particularity, and so does a sound community. The Church is one kind of community; a nation is another; a family is another. None of these can sacrifice unity or particularity and expect to remain healthy. So when neo-Christian Alienists come to you preaching their heretical, gnostic gospel of race-mixing, mark them well, for like Satan, they come to steal, kill, and destroy. They devastate nations, races, and most importantly, trust in Jesus Christ, who is our only Hope.

Pat Buchanan writes that Lothrop Stoddard, the author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy and the Revolt Against Civilization, “was something of a prophet. He predicted Japan’s rise to power, its war with the United States, a second European war, the fall of the Western empires, mass immigration of peoples of color to the West, and the rise of Islam as a threat to Western civilization.” Racists get tired of always being right.

“Ethnomasochism, the taking of pleasure in the dispossession of one’s own ethnic group, is a disease of the heart… It come out of what James Burnham called an ‘ideology of Western suicide,’ a belief system that provides a morphine drip for people who have come to accept the inevitability of their departure from history.” ~ Pat Buchanan

“Did the God of the Pentateuch strengthen the people he had created when he destroyed the unity of their language and scattered them to the four corners of the earth? To hear men endlessly recite this mindless mantra, ‘Our diversity is our strength,’ when tribal, ethnic, and religious diversity is tearing nations to pieces, is to recall Orwell: Only an intellectual could make a statement like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool.” ~ Pat Buchanan

Demography is destiny.

“Not a single European nation, except Muslim Albania, has a birth rate that will enable it to replace its present population. By mid-century, Western man will be down to 12% of world population. By century’s end, he will be a tiny fraction, roughly equal to the white population of Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe came to power.” ~ Pat Buchanan

“In 1920, Western [i.e., White] people were nearly one-third of mankind. Today, Western man is down to one-sixth of the world’s population, shrinking to one-eighth by 2050, and not a tenth by century’s end.”

But it doesn’t need to be this way. We can turn it around quickly. All it takes is for white people to start loving themselves again, and stop believing the lies of deicides that the world would be better off without us. Take Russia, for instance. There were more births in Moscow in August than in any month since the Soviet Union fell. They’ve come a long way since this 1929 Soviet periodical in which Jesus is being tossed out with the trash by the masters of industry.

The task of the conservative, said Russell Kirk, is “to preserve a particular people, living in a particular place during a particular time.” Except that “conservatives” and most “Christians” no longer believe that particular peoples are worth saving. Only Kinists remain the true conservatives and the true Christians.

“To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” ~ Edmund Burke, Reflections, p. 172

We used to know the meaning of the word lovely. Look at the artwork on the old silver notes. No Sacajawea or César Chávez or Rosa Parks; only loveliness.

The faith in which we stand,
The laws we made and guard,
Our honour, lives, and land
Are given for reward
To murder done by night
To treason taught by day,
To folly, sloth, and spite,
And we are thrust away.
The blood our fathers spilt,
Our love, our toils, our pains
Are counted us for guilt
And only bind our chains –
Before an Empire’s eyes
The traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice.
~ Rudyand Kipling

Like Kipling, Charles Dickens, who Chesterton called the last of the great men, “overstrains and overstates a mood our period does not understand,” a “sense of infinite opportunity and boisterous brotherhood. And we resent his undue sense of it, because we ourselves have not even a due sense of it.”

Some Alienists here are trying to salvage John Calvin from the infamy of Kinism, quoting him as saying that racial segregation among Christians is “wicked madness.” But on closer inspection, it’s obvious that Calvin is not advocating racial and political integration at all but rather the recognition and respect for covenant members, and the rebuke of those who create inappropriate covenantal divisions. The division created by Peter was “that they [Gentiles] had the same faith of the Gospel which he had, yet did he use them as strangers, because it was taken to be a kind of defiling, to be in company with them.” Calvin is correct that Christians of all tribes are “one flock” covenantally. We belong “to the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [are] the very children of God.” We have the same Redeemer, and we all belong to the household of faith. The error of the Alienist is in assuming that being of one flock covenantally necessarily entails being of one flock and one family in every other respect. This would annihilate nationhood and kinship, which are great gifts of God.

The difference is that we don’t view the institutional church as the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God consists of the church, the state, homes, farms, businesses, the nation, and all of creation. Christians tend to be afflicted by defeatism and conclude that, with all else lost to us, all we have is the Church, and this is all that will remain in eternity, because we’ll fly away to heaven and live as happy ghosts. But this is not what the Bible tells us at all. The heavens and the earth and our bodies will be resurrected, because everything God created is good.

As was said in a comment on the previous post, the Alienist sinks into a kind of Manichean heresy. Manicheanism was a Gnostic cult with close ties to Buddhism. It had a resurgence of popularity among the Anabaptists, who tried to stamp out inequalities in the world and cursed us with much of the race-mixing that infects the Church today. The basic idea of the Manicheans is that the spiritual world is light and the material world is darkness, and there is a dualism that pits abstract spirituality and the mind against the flesh and all matter. This is offensive to the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation, Resurrection, Baptism, and Holy Communion. We Kinists hate abstract spiritualism more than anything; it is our calling in life to oppose it completely. We’re the Alienist’s greatest whitemare.

“The struggle of our time is to concentrate, not to dissipate; to renew our association with traditional wisdom; to re-establish a vital connection between the individual and the race. It is, in a word, a struggle against Liberalism.” ~ T.S. Eliot

“Burke, the supreme anti-liberal of Europe, cut right to the heart of the liberals’ madness when he wrote, ‘I hate abstractions.’” ~ CWNY

“A man can never be considered an abstraction from what he is. To hold that we can discount a man’s race, heritage, intelligence, religion, and moral character, and then somehow deal with the real man is a common liberal fallacy; the result is only an abstract idea of a man, not a living man… [E]quality as a philosophical and religious faith is at work. All people are equals; woman is equal to man, and man is equal to God. As a result, there must be in principle a war against differences. Not only unisex but unihuman is the goal, the bland, neutral person… There must be a time of total destruction, the ‘time of the assassins,’ and the new world can only come when the old world is forgotten. This means a period of anarchy, racial amalgamation, and universal human hermaphroditism (‘the birth of male-and-female in every individual’) and then the new world may appear.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, pp. 434, 437

Yet we have Christians today who speculate about what their raceless, anti-family, anti-national “heaven” will be like. Having suppressed their own humanity, they attempt to “fix” the eternal by draining it of life. It’s fortunate that God continues to love flesh and soil. He promises to resurrect both.

Notice the hypocrisy of the Alienists linked above. As our friend Scott observes, they like to pretend that the mixed multitude that left Egypt was absorbed into the nation of Israel, and ever after was Israel mixed. They even believe that Moses married a Negro. So how could Israelites, who lost their racial distinctiveness through alleged intermarriage, be “racists” for refusing to associate with Gentiles? These people are never logically consistent. If anything, by their own reasoning, Peter was a religious bigot, nothing more.

“The mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving…” ~ Numbers 11:4

More on John Piper, who is having hot flashes over the Jim Crow era. But here’s the catch. As Tribal Theocrat writes, “Jacobins like Piper are upset that the facilities were separate, not that they were unequal.” The Supreme Court integrated schools in spite of the fact that facilities were equal.

But if the problem was merely that races were separated, why did no whites raise a clamor to be admitted into the black inner sanctum?

If the black man was equally free to use his initiative to grow and prosper his own communities, why all the fuss? Where were the whites who were upset that they couldn’t pee in the black man’s urinal? The reason for the fuss is that the goal of of equalitarianism is to amalgamate the races, not to make them politically equal.

And the races are being amalgamated because this is the most effective way to dilute the white race, eventually killing it. It is far more effective and inexpensive than waging formal war against our race. This is also the objective of the government-sponsored credits for businesses owned by minorities, women, the crippled, and anyone at all who is not an evil white male. It’s a war against white men dressed up as compassion for the oppressed.

Second, I ask which is worse: the enforcement of separate but equal facilities or the enforcement of whites to hire, live among, and fund certain classes against their will? Free association or enforced integration? Third, please tell me how a man who edited an anti-feminist book which repeats the argument that love and equality are defined not by emotion but by God’s law, can claim that something is unChristian because it is “not loving?” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It’s an excellent article, so read it. Don’t be stupid. Of course, when you’re finished you’ll still be no closer to understanding what “racism” means.

For Piper, racism is anything from encouraging blacks to remain in their own churches to kidnapping, gassing and incinerating 6 trillion Jews, or however many it was.

Fantastic. This means that, to the Alienist, every Christian who lived prior to 1950 was a genocidal maniac.

Our friend Phinehas wrote the following in dishonor of impastors and Christsheviks everywhere, with apologies to Johnny Cash.

One Foreigner at a Time

Well, I left seminary back in ’89
An’ went down south to spend my time,
The first year they had me preachin just to whites.

Every Sunday I’d teach them from up on high
And I’d always hang my head and cry
‘Cause I always wanted me a church full o’ browns and blacks.

One day I devised myself a plan
That should be the envy of most any liberal Preacher man,
I’d fill my church with peoples of every land.
Now gettin’ caught meant gettin’ fired
But I figured I’d teach those stuffy old whites before I retired,
I’d have the most mixed-up congregation in Dixie Land.

[CHORUS]

I’m building it one foreigner at a time
And it’ll cost you a hefty dime
Lock your doors when you come through our town
We’ll guilt you in to giving in style
You’re gonna know we’re completely wild
‘Cause we have the biggest rainbow church there is around.

So the very next day into the big city I drove in
With my big church van and with help from my friend
I went to the ghetto to round up any hoodlums I saw near.
Now, I wasn’t concerned with a dealer or a thief,
The whites wouldn’t mind a few with gold teeth
Especially if I spun stories to squash their fear.

The first day I got me a black hooker in pumps
And the next day I got me a drunk Injun and his junk,
Then I got me a carload of spics out sporting their chrome.
The numerous thugs I could get in my big church van
Like crooks, an’ spooks, and Chinamen
But the loads of drug smugglin’ illegals we snuck in my mobile home.

Now, up to now my plan went all right
‘Til we tried to get them to behave one night
And that’s when we noticed that something was definitely wrong.

The carload of spics turned out to be MS-13
And the hooker turned out to be a teen mother just 15
And when we tried to get them to sit quietly, all hope was gone.

So we found some ex-cannibals we thought would fit
And with a little help from a Wise Jew named Tim
We had that church singing a new song.
Now the church photo was another sight,
We had foreigners on the left and scared whites on the right
But when I pulled out my One Blood book the old folks did oblige.

The parking lot looked kinda funny too
But we ignored the gangsters and the riff-raff zoo,
Well, that’s when I noticed that the cars had been stripped clean.
About that time the head deacon walked out
And I could see in his eyes that he had his doubts
But he opened the church coffer and gave to the savages ‘til we were lean.

Next we moved the church uptown cause we’re low on fags,
All I teach is silly anecdotes, even to the black tranny in drag.
The Kinist pastors have laughed for years I found
But up at the Police Department, they didn’t laugh
‘Cause they had to hire and train additional staff
And every Sunday the SWAT team makes us their training ground.

[CHORUS]

I’m building it one foreigner at a time
And it’ll cost you a hefty dime
Lock your doors when you come through our town
We’ll guilt you in to giving in style
You’re gonna know we’re completely wild
‘Cause we have the biggest rainbow church there is around.

Ugh! Yow, KINIST
This is the ALIENIST PREACHER
In the MULTI-CULTURAL DEAD CHURCH Come on

Huh, This is the ALIENIST PREACHER
And negatory on how much I twist scripture to make a buck, KINIST
You might say it’s built me a big mansion on the hill
And I get no flack from the NAACP or SPLC.
Huh, now what percentage of foreigners does every church need?

You need 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 – is getting close
But you’ll need 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 to atone for your white skin.

“Do you know what the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age? It will not be Hitler or the Second World War, it will not be the release of nuclear energy, it will not be the menace of Communism. It will be the abdication of the white man.” ~ Lord Cherwell

It’s like Idi Amin all over again but on a much larger scale.

Otto Scott on terrorism (21:18):

Most of the people that I know have been acting like sleepwalkers. We’ve been living under the threat of physical violence in this country for a number of years, in every city, and pretending that it’s not true, that these are isolated, unrelated incidents. And when we hear “racism” in blaring tones, and when we look at the crime statistics, how can we deny the fact that there is an undeclared war underway? We’re afraid to even mention it. That’s terror.

At 27:48 in this Easy Chair talk, Douglas Murray demurs from the “racist” banter of Rushdoony and Scott:

Murray: What we’re saying is that, you know, we’ve got a group of tribes here on earth that can’t seem to get along. You know, if we were all created by God, why can’t we live together in harmony? Are we inherently tribal?

Scott: Yes.

Rushdoony: Yes, the family, the clan, or tribe, is still basic in most of the world, and it is a pattern that reasserts itself in time even in areas that become very cosmopolitan, because when you make life too impersonal, people rebel against that.

Scott: New York was a very reasonable city when we had an Irish neighborhood, a German neighborhood, a Spanish neighborhood, etc. We marry congenial people, we associate with congenial people. A certain distance allows for toleration, whereas familiarity, somebody once said, is contempt. For people who are very dissimilar, the reasons for arguing become very common and numerous, because their reactions are different and very unexpected…

Murray: We don’t seem to have progressed to the point where the family of man is achievable. We only extend our family group so far, to a tribe, and we can’t get beyond that…

Scott: There is an effort to deny that there are tribes. There is even an effort to deny that there are nationalities, or people as such, that there are Celts, that there are Anglo-Saxons, that there are Malays, that there are Germans or French or Spaniards. There is an effort to say that all cultural differences are on the surface, are trivial and unimportant, and everyone is basically the same, which comes very close to arguing that everyone is an integer, like a number, that you can shuffle back and forth, and that we’re not real personalities, we don’t represent separate cultures, or individual cultures even.

Rushdoony: Well, I think tribalism is as natural to people as is the family. There is an instinctive drawing together with those who are close to you, as against the outsider… We cannot destroy it. It is something that is basic to people. They want to feel common ties.

Scott: Aren’t we all creatures of God, and aren’t all families creatures of God, and aren’t nations creatures of God?

Murray: But we don’t seem to be able to get past the tribal stage. We accept the tribal group as the extended family, but when we get to the nation part, the next step, we can’t seem to…

Scott: Well, let’s take Great Britain… My people came from the British Isles, and I remember the first time I went to Britain, I was astonished to discover that everybody looked as though they were cousins. They looked very much alike… I looked like everybody’s cousin too over there… Well, the French have been in France forever. I mean, all of them can trace their families back for hundreds of years. All of us can… Russia’s family goes back forever, and there have always been Armenians. And yet we keep listening to a group of educated sophists who keep trying to tell us that this is unimportant.

“Tribalism is the family lived out consistently.” ~ Dan Brannan

“For the very fact that two men are alike, having, as it were, one form, makes them to be, in a manner, one in that form: thus two men are one thing in the species of humanity, and two white men are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to himself.” ~ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Pseudo-philosopher William Lane Craig flat-out denies that Christianity is “a white man’s religion,” yet seconds later says that “if anything, Christianity is today an Oriental religion.” He is yet another self-loathing white man who is repulsed by the thought of the white race continuing to be the standard-bearer of Christ, and who hopes that the white race is never more than a sliver of the world’s Christian population because he believes that the faith will have stagnated if it remains disproportionately white.

Whites used to preach their faith all over the world, but they never felt guilty about being the foremost representatives of Christ. Notice that Craig is positively giddy to characterize Christianity as “an Oriental religion,” not merely as having gained converts in the Orient. He talks about meeting with Chinese academics who are disillusioned with Confucianism, and one of them tells him that “Christianity in China is a flourishing, indigenous, Chinese religion, and we need to embrace it as such. Well, we were just blown away by this sort of admission on the part of this Chinese academic and this embrace of Christianity as an indigenous Chinese faith.” You must be a racist if you think that Christianity is indigenous to the white man. Craig hints at the source of his confusion when he claims that “Christianity is birthed out of Judaism.”

If you want to see how bad it is in the so-called churches, look at this nonsense from a coven called Grace Outreach Center.

You see distinct white, black, Mexican, and Chinese families, but this is only because the race-mixers need for families to come as they are. The end result will be an orange-mocha vomit color, as the next generations intermarry. Some friends pointed out a few other important things:

1. The white family is the only family not “at” the church.
2. The black family is closest to the church.
3. The church is called an “outreach center,” and the proximities make it clear who is most in need of evangelism.
4. The white male is the only one frowning.
5. The white male has a broken foot and is on crutches. This strips him of his power.
6. An apple is hitting the head of the white male. This makes him appear foolish and the subject of ridicule. Further, the apple is an Edenic sin association.
7. The white child specifically asks his mother for permission to go to church, not his father. The mother obviously runs the household.
8. The hair of the non-white females is of the same nature as the hair of white females.
9. But oops, the pointy hair of all the boys makes the Negro boy look like a piccaninny.

Problems with frankenfamilies.

A new excuse for other races to take on the appearance of white recessive genes. Tattooed irises and ironed hair will be the official Negro Halloween costume.

And still, Ken Ham churns out ridiculous fantasies like this:

“A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various aches and pains. Conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National Institutes of Health, the investigation found that adolescents of mixed race were more likely to have other health problems as well.”

A hapless wigger discovers that skin color makes a difference.

Gen5 is back with a fascinating lesson from the recent past about how we can triumph in the near future. It takes all types to bring about a revolution. Though Christians have the biblical example before them of one who plants, another who waters, and yet another who reaps the harvest, conservatives tend to split into factions. Ironically, as Dabney pointed out long ago, theirs has become the politics of expediency, not of principle. Liberals, on the other hand, are able to organize parties in which blue-haired grandmothers cast ballots alongside dreadlocked pimps and turtlenecked Marxists. Yet moderation is not the answer. Gen5 shows that the greatest ethnonationalist revolution grew from a slim minority of radicals all the way to a majority of opportunists, with principle at every step along the path. (Jefferson Davis, the most famous of the opportunists, became a great and eloquent defender of the cause of the South.)

To make an analogy, the abolitionists provided the raw fuel to provoke Southern secession. The rhetorical radicals like Rhett labored endlessly to cure and dry the wood and provide kindling for the fire, though always intensely discouraged that their efforts never resulted in spontaneous combustion. The reformed radicals of Yancey’s stripe, mostly in Alabama and Mississippi, provided the spark. The revolutionary insiders fanned the flames, and the opportunists availed themselves of the warmth of the fire and pushed those who created it aside.

Conditions will grow ripe by circumstances outside our control, like the collapse of the dollar, but when the time comes, groups that might not particularly like each other must learn to work together to secure a future. This is why racial awareness is of crucial importance, and why the dualism of the corrupt “Church” of today must be purged.

Good to know:

If we can use the language of positive morality to advance our cause, we will have the wind at our backs when fighting the moderates whose sole motivating spirit is that of calculating delay and obstructionism…

Like ecological die-offs, political revolutions are never seen in advance by those who are its victims.

Dabney versus Locke in this very good article on civil authority, by David Opperman.

“Obedience to God and Caesar are not incompatible, provided each stays within his own proper sphere… The powers that be are ordained of God to protect the good and punish the bad (Romans 13), but if they start to persecute the good, they are no longer ordained of God.” ~ The Confession of Magdeburg, 1550

“If magistrates go against the rule of Christ they may be deposed.” ~ Ulrich Zwingli, Swiss reformer

“Just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualification to use it for the good of the whole.” ~ R.L. Dabney

What’s good for the state is also good for the church. Dabney extends the principle to ecclesiastical government. Read Ecclesiastical Equality of Negroes. “[W]hile the blessings of redemption are free to all, of every race or caste, the privileges of church office may be properly withheld from some, at the dictate of a sound discretion. This is scriptural truth.” And scriptural truth is quite foreign to the ears of the pious churchman of today, for whom the Unpardonable Sin is to transgress “the people,” the abstract entity that is always the excuse for waging war against real flesh and blood, kith and kin.

In this article, you can become more acquainted with the low-IQ voters who now determine your future.

When a black person “promises” he means “maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, “I will try but I can’t promise.” He said he’d heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person “promises” he means “I’ll try.”

These Danes are speaking very frankly about IQ differences.

“Why we don’t own this?” asks a concerned member of the local Rotary Club.

How to properly apologize for racism.

Tintin’s comic book adventure in the Congo is so dangerous for sensitive young eyes and delicate young minds that it is now being shipped in shrink-wrap and with a warning about its content. (It was long ago banned from bookstore shelves. Do bookstores still exist?) One of the frightfully racist panels in the book shows a black woman bowing to Tintin, saying, “White man very great… White mister is big juju man.” Hell, my wife tells me this every Sunday evening after dessert, and I haven’t shrink-wrapped her since our honeymoon.

Steven Spieljew has made a new movie about Tintin. I wonder if he’ll hire Whoopi Goldjew to tape a segment for the video release explaining that, yes, this is from a racist time, and yes, white people are racists, but to not release the film would be to pretend that the horribly racist past never occurred. This is what Warner Brothers hired her to do for the Looney Tunes DVD collection.

Pippi Longstocking is a racist, which is to say that she was written during the White Era. Her father becomes king of a South Seas island and is called the Negro King. Then black children throw themselves in the sand in front of white children. But there are redeeming qualities to offset the racism, says a German sheologian. It “has a strong female character, she is against adultism, grown-ups being in charge, and she is fiercely opposed to violence against animals…” Yes, one of the greatest problems in the world today is that adults are in charge. “Adultism” and “racism”; it’s hard to say which is worse. The sheologian defines racism as anything that meets the disapproval of blacks. “Only then can you say whether it is okay or not.” And should white literature continue? “It simply isn’t helpful if we want to help our children find their place in a multicultural society.”

The primary reason for Southern secession was not the tariff nor the Tenth Amendment. It was slavery.

To blacks, the enslavement of their ancestors by American Christians was the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world. But with relatively few exceptions, they were treated very well. They cost $40,000 each in today’s dollars, and no one shells out that kind of money without a whole lot of caretaking to protect the investment. Slaves today cost $90 apiece, and they are treated like dirt: a “disposable commodity, like styrofoam cups.” Tens of millions are now enslaved, most of them in Asia and Africa. James writes: “Apparently, it’s more important to talk about a tiny percentage of whites that held slaves hundreds of years ago than to talk about the non-whites who are actually doing it today.” That’s called equality.

“It was a veteran soldiery that repeopled the plantations and the homesteads of the South, and withstood the forces thrown against them during the period of Reconstruction. In addition to such racial traits as personal pride, self-reliance, and physical courage, they possessed also race pride, which is inestimable in a great popular struggle. This race pride after the war had only increased. However beaten and broken they were, the people of the South came out of the war with their spirit unquenched, and a belief that they were unconquerable.” ~ Thomas Nelson Page

Here you go, some of the best books you’ll ever read: Dabney’s Discussions (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).

Anthony Jacob, from his book White Man Think Again:

Unlike the white man, the Negro has never dominated his environment, and has always been completely dominated by it. In this respect we might compare Africa with Iceland and African art with Icelandic art. In spite of Iceland’s isolation and its almost absolute lack of raw materials suitable for artistic reproduction, Icelandic art – let alone Icelandic literature and poetry – has been incomparably superior to anything produced in Africa, notwithstanding the very great natural advantages enjoyed by Africans. In all branches of endeavor, the Icelanders have far excelled the Africans, and have behaved as a biologically refined people can be expected to behave, no matter how isolated and barren their country…

The Negro has been in contact with the Egyptian civilization, the Phoenician, the Greek, the Roman, the Arab, the Persian, the Indian and more latterly our own civilization; yet no spark of emulation was ever struck in his dull breast. If we travel up the west coast of Africa we find substantial building and ruins all the way from Mozambique to the Balun Islands, all showing unmistakeable evidence of foreign culture and occupation. But there is never any sign of any attempt by the Africans to copy or improve on these buildings. As has been noted, when East Africa was colonized in the late nineteenth century, the Africans possessed neither a road, nor a wheel, nor a piece of money despite the contacts mentioned. Today they have changed (changed, not evolved) because they have been literally snatched up in the white colonial machinery, and have had no choice but to change. But they obviously resent it, and revert violently whenever they have the chance. The very first things they destroy are the schools and mission stations and clinics which they associate with their enforced emancipation; and the first people they kill are those who have done the most to help them advance.”

“If you succeed in the passage of this [anti-lynching] bill, you will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.” ~ Senator Theodore Bilbo

Soon we can expect to see African-style billboards in Dixie:

I prefer the billboards of white farmers.

No pardon requested.

This is funny. Some jackoff liberals in Idaho are preaching universal equality to a room full of white kids. Why don’t these Jacobins ever decide to live in south-central Los Angeles, or East St. Louis, or Detroit? Some people apparently have trouble appreciating diversity.

This venture capitalist, Michael Arrington, says he doesn’t know a single black entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, but he funds 100% of the black entrepreneurs who pitch ideas to him, but this has “nothing to do with skin color,” he says, because there is “zero race or sex bias in Silicon Valley.” Uh, what? It’s funny how white men always lose when someone claims to have “zero bias.” If there is no bias against merit, all the high-tech jobs will go to whites, Jews, and Asians, and relatively few women. (Silicon Valley companies are keeping their diversity data top secret.) Instead, two-thirds of Arrington’s investments go to women and non-whites, and he says this is “solely on the strength of their ideas,” which is obviously false. He even admits that investors are eager to “diversify” their portfolios, for the same reason that colleges openly break the law against racial quotas. And it’s not just whites who are the victims of “zero bias.” Imagine what goes through the mind of an Asian who reads articles like this which pretend that black people are the center of the universe. Blacks are only 13% of the population, but they have been given so many handouts that anything less than double representation makes them want to join in a chorus of We Shall Overcome. Bryant Gumbel is worked up about obscenely-paid black men in the 90% black NBA being treated like “slaves” on the commissioner’s “plantation.”

At Apple, which now has the highest stock market valuation in the world, Steve Jobs’s seven executives were all white. Even Asians are rare at Apple.

I’ll tell you one thing, they don’t make good TV like this or this anymore.

“Here’s to yesterday.”

Rick Perry, the man with a plan.

We secretly hope for a presidential race between Obama and Cain, or as Harry calls them, Amos & Empty. See Pokemon poetry, for example. The campaign will be a fantastic year of skinning, grinning, and bojangling.

This Republican ad campaign is comical on several levels. First, it appeals to black racial solidarity, including references to “our people” and “my own seed” as valid reasons to oppose abortion. (The white people who made the video are thoroughly deracinated.) Second, a black character uses the niggerism “ho” as well as the French term “tout suite” (“at once”) in the same sentence. Third, it asserts that opposing the Iraq War now makes you both a “racist” and an opponent of the pro-life cause.

A friend of ours sent to us this story of Croatia’s first interior minister, believed to be the first time in history that anyone affiliated with Stalin’s Communist regime has been arrested and charged with “crimes against humanity.” That’s right, at least 50 million deaths, and no one has been formally punished, in large part because of Jews like Elan Steinberg, the vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, who is outraged by last week’s arrest in Croatia.

Hilaire Belloc on usury, the cancer of the modern Jewified world.

The modern world is organized on the principle that money of its nature breeds money. A sum of money lent has, according to our present scheme, a natural right to interest. That principle is false in economics as in morals. It ruined Rome, and it is bringing us to our end.

The Official Counterfeiter, a PDF comic by Vic Lockman. Also see Money, Banking, and Usury.

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” ~ Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England

Even John Calvin placed a 5% cap on usury and said that usurers were below whores and weren’t allowed in church.

But this is 2011, and so the Vatican has called for the creation of a massive new “world political authority” and “central world bank” with “universal jurisdiction” for the purpose of “building a more fraternal and just human family and, even before that, a new humanism open to transcendence.” Because, you see, independent states are “sectorial and isolated,” but the New World Order is “systematic and integrated…and geared to the universal common good.” And if you’re opposed to “good,” your name must be Satan. We say to hell with globalism in both church and state.

It’s interesting that Kinists are fighting the Jew from two angles: first in the Church, where usury is now a sacrament, and second among atheist white nationalists, for whom morality evolves, and is defined at any given moment by what is good for the white race. This elevates the white race to a god (a puny god that is helpless to save itself) and precludes the possibility that our race is being righteously judged. Jews, Jews everywhere.

“The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.” ~ Dostoevsky

On the eve of Yom Kippur, the Jews transfer their sins to a chicken. At Kaparot, they twirl the scapechicken over their heads and recite their idolatrous prayers to a god who can’t hear. Michael Hoffman writes:

After the kaparot voodoo concludes, the perjurer’s ceremony begins: on Yom Kippur the infamous rite of Kol Nidrei takes place, almost always explained away to the outside world as a blessed ritual of begging God for forgiveness for oaths that were violated, contracts that were broken and promises that were not kept in the past year.

The trouble is, that pious picture is a phony.

Kol Nidrei is actually a ceremony whereby: 1. all the perjury you will commit in the coming year and 2. all contracts you will sign and violate in the coming year, and 3. all the promises you will break in the coming year, are absolved, with no heavenly punishment accruing as a result…

It’s a kind of invincible circuit that reinforces its own deceit. You have to pity people ensnared in this sordid charade of cajoling God into helping them cheat.

The Jew York Times doesn’t bother with any of these details, of course, but writes simply that Yom Kippur “is the Jewish Day of Atonement, the culmination of 10 days of contemplation, self-renewal and rededication to the path of righteousness.”

Big news: Get Judaism Discovered, Michael Hoffman’s masterpiece, for the Kindle and other e-readers, and get the second edition of Judaism’s Strange Gods at a very good price.

And now, something guaranteed to put another smile on your face.

“Let no Jew take a Christian woman to wife, nor any Christian seek marriage with a Jewess. For if any one admits anything of this sort, he will be charged with his crime just as if he has committed adultery, and furthermore liberty for accusations of this nature has been granted to the general public.” ~ Theodosius the Great to Cynegius, Codex Theodosianus, cited in J.E. Seaver, The Persecution of Jews in the Roman Empire, p. 47

“We wish to make clear to the Jewish elders and patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, anyone attempts…to reconvert a person who has given up the baleful sect of Judaism and has joined the cult of God, forthwith he and his accomplices are to be given to the flames and burned. Furthermore if anyone of the people has joined their evil sect and frequented their meeting places, he shall suffer his deserved penalty with them.” ~ Constantius (Constantine’s father) to Evagrius, Codex Theodosianus, cited in J.E. Seaver, The Persecution of Jews in the Roman Empire, p. 31

Christ-killers are pressuring the pope to punish Bishop Richard Williamson once again for writing that “only the Jews were the primary agents of the deicide because Pontius Pilate would never have condemned Jesus if the Jews had not asked for blood.” This is absolutely true, but the truth is anti-Semitic. On May 17, the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church.

“Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).” ~ Bishop Richard Williamson

“An ‘anti-semite’ in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can’t bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term ‘anti-semitism’ doesn’t stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual ostracisms.” ~ Joseph Sobran, National Review, March 16, 1992

Once you get past the corny laugh tracks in the beginning of this video, there are some very interesting points raised about Auschwitz.

If you need a gift idea for Christmas, here’s a Lego concentration camp.

Watch out for Android phones. They’re anti-Semitic.

The Holocaust cult, writes Gilad Atzmon, “has priests (e.g., Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (…those who warn of the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has commandments and dogmas (‘Never Again’) and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc). It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (kapos, gas chambers, chimneys…). It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines – Holocaust museums in capital cities worldwide. The Holocaust religion is also financed by a massive global financial network… This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ (Holocaust deniers) and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws).”

The Holohoaxers are showing this video of when the Nazis hosted a degenerate art display in Munich in 1937. Some of it is grotesque, some of it is lewd, some merely abstract. But the hoaxers won’t show what really outraged the Nazis and all good Germans, which was the sewer of Jewish “art” and “entertainment” typified by the pornographic cabarets of Berlin a few years earlier. From 1921 to 1933, Jews turned Berlin into the most debauched city in Europe, and when compared to Paris and Amsterdam, that’s really saying something. This book shows what the hoaxers will not show you: cabaret acts featuring queer boy scouts, theatrical spanking machines, nudist priests, gleefully incestuous families, and dentist chair molestations, not to mention the countless massage parlors, sex clubs, and torture dungeons. In short, it was Hollywood 2011. This lust for Jew-vomit did not abate from natural causes but because the Nazis brought an iron hand down upon the filth and sent the villains away in cattle cars. And if you think this was all in the past, you need to realize that a party is going to someday clean house in America too. Pornographers should prepare for the day by studying what happened to Magnus Hirschfeld.

“By 2050, Palestinians west of the Jordan will outnumber Israelis two to one. Syria, Jordan and Egypt, which had 40 million people at the time of the Six-Day War, will have 170 million. Militarily, Israel remains dominant, but neither time nor demography seems to be on her side.” Demography. It all comes back to blood, which the neo-Christian kingdomtards are preaching is as insignificant as dishwater.

Arabs call Negroes “abd,” which means “slave” in Arabic. And blacks here think that the word “nigger” is bad, when it simply means Negro. By calling them slaves, the Arabs mean that blacks are still slaves by nature, which is largely true even here.

It’s almost impossible to spot mixed couples on the streets of Basra. Women who marry a black man – it’s never the other way round – have to walk under the eyes of Iraqi tribal society.

“I know a mixed couple,” says Doha Abdulreda, a 20-year-old black hostess at Basra’s trade fair. “She’ll always hide under her Niqab (the Muslim covering over the face) when she walks next to her husband. Her family rejected her, that’s not uncommon here.”

American Indians also call blacks slaves, as you will hear in this Rushdoony lecture (8:41). Rush said that no one is more contemptuous of the Negro, for this very reason.

“There is not a single public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.” Meanwhile, almost half a trillion dollars has been taken from us and given to the government of that country.

A European member of parliament who has had enough of the threat of Islam. Imagine one of our worthless American politicians speaking with such passion about anything. Of course, when a white man is able to work up such conviction against the other famous anti-Christs in our midst, the Jews, you’ll know that Christendom has returned from the dead. And when it happens, liberty will dawn as the world has never seen.

European schoolchildren being forced to bow to a false god.

From 1969 to 2009, the number of employed, prime working-age men fell from 95% to 81.2%, and median annual earnings fell by 27%! But the important thing is that women can experience the fulfillment of a career. Children can be raised by the Almighty State.

When the Darkness Falls is an excellent history lesson for your kids, except that there are some parts with bad language. History is racist. And I’ll let you in on a secret: it also wants to kill six million Jews. The words truth and hate both contain a “t” and an “h,” if you know what I mean.

Strunk & White’s Elements of Style is now available online for free! Indoctrinate your children and turn them into grammatical supremacists.

Men and laundry.

“Reverse racist” means that many white women put themselves in situations they would not otherwise enter if the men were white. They assume their lack of trust in black men is racist, when actually it may be quite appropriate. Their overcompensation for “racism” often gets them killed.

Chicks with guns.

Listen to our friend Winston Smith’s excellent radio show.

This makes me want to stab my eyes and ears with sharp objects.

Instauration Online now has 87% of the back issues scanned and available. This is remarkable. Bloggers stand in awe of Wilmot Robertson’s accomplishment in publishing so much material over the span of 25 years, not even including his groundbreaking book, The Dispossessed Majority.

A prominent factor distinguishing races one from another is skin color, to be sure, but that is only because it is a visually recognizable component of race, not because it is the entirety of race.

Alienists love to press the point that all human beings have common ancestry in Adam, without ever acknowledging the fact that God has routinely subdivided Adam’s posterity, according to His will, and we ignore these divisions at our peril. The Fifth Commandment compels us to respect God’s purpose in the world and not arrogantly believe that our duty is to come along behind Him and clean up His mistakes, to recombine the lineage of Adam in new and dangerous ways that God never allowed in history.

“There is only one breed – the dog breed!” Such an argument is nonsense and repugnant to common sense, but Halbrook attempts such sophistry to disprove the reality of human races within Adam’s posterity. He must disintegrate the God-created category of race into meaninglessness…

If families can exist with all their distinctive physical and behavioral characteristics, and yet not compromise the physical unity of Adam’s race, then why cannot races do the same? If it is not “familist” to assert the plurality of families within the unity of humanity, then how is it “racist” to do so with larger groups – with very, very extended families? Halbrook’s careless argument from monogenism, in principle, would forbid the family itself. It is exceedingly dangerous.

This principle of variety-within-unity is perspicuously set forth by St. Paul in Acts 17:26a, yet Halbrook cites this passage to prove the exact opposite point. Paul says, “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men.” Halbrook does not notice the object which is made from one blood: a multiplicity of nations. Nations is in the plural, and the term refers not to an arbitrary collection of people within a geo-political boundary, but to a physically related people-group. Paul here teaches expressly that monogenism does not entail racial egalitarianism, but this is ignored by Halbrook.

Blacks have higher bone density and a lower risk of fracture and osteoporosis. This may be why they don’t like to swim; they may not be as buoyant. Their metabolism is lower than that of whites, which could be why so many blacks are obese. Due to at least 31 genes that are “differentially expressed,” they are also genetically more susceptible to hypertension, stroke, and cancer. These are just a few of many physiological racial differences. Race is not merely skin deep.

Part 2 is here, in which the point is made that Halbrook’s racial egalitarianism encourages envy, which leads to countless crimes against our race.

One of the great evils of our day is envy: people, especially non-whites, utterly loathe the fact that others are superior to themselves in wealth and ability. Halbrook perpetuates this idea with his unbiblical myth of equality. Whenever people are led to believe that different races are of equal ability then any observation they make of unequal abilities or unequal success will lead them to believe that these inequalities must have arisen through a series of injustices; and this sense of injustice will then generate moral indignation. In theory, these inferior people will be expressing supposedly righteous anger at the systematic inequalities of “institutional racism,” while in practice, inferior people will be burning with envy at the superior talents of others. In providing such a basis for envy, Halbrook’s racial egalitarianism is heretical and deserves to be destroyed.

Murder, rape, theft, and more, brought to you courtesy of the “Christian” Alienist. “Heresy” is an accurate word for the perverted gnostic gospel they preach, and it’s because, as Nil writes, conversion is not an abstraction from matter but rather the redemption of matter.

Grace does not replace nature but redeems it and builds upon it. God does not destroy the sinner to create some new spiritual being but redeems as much of the sinner as possible by destroying only that which is sinful in him.

Likewise, God does not destroy or replace race, but instead fits the various races into a unity that they could not otherwise know.

Halbrook has a lot in common with the Indian Guru Satya Sai Baba:

There is only one RACE
The race of humankind
There is only one religion
The religion of LOVE
There is only ONE language
The language of the HEART

There have been relatively few Alienist heretics in Christian history. It’s hard to even find much along these lines in ancient writings, but here is a relevant quote from Maximos the Confessor, who is revered as an Eastern Church father:

For him who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of dispassion there is no difference between his own or another’s, or between Christians and unbelievers, or between slave and free, or even between male and female. But because he…has risen above the tyranny of the passions and has fixed his attention on the single nature of man, he looks on all in the same way and shows the same disposition to all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but Christ who “is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11; cf. Gal. 3:28).

This sounds more like Buddhism than Christianity. In general, Christian egalitarianism comes from the Anabaptists.

Anabaptist John Piper talks about “racism” here like it’s a bad thing. I kept waiting to hear evidence of cruel behavior in his wicked Southern past, and I never did. So I don’t get it. Is the purpose of this video just to get the ladies moist? Nice touch about the ovens at Dachau. That really tops it off with a cherry. What’s the deal with 48-year-old white women who have four natural children but are so selfish that they are displeased with what God has given them and must adopt a little stranger? If this is Christianity, why would anyone desire it? It’s ingratitude. It’s the Christianity of narcissists. And what’s the deal with the suggestion that opposition to this unnatural relationship is a denial that the “daughter” is created in the image of God? This is one of the classic non sequiturs that is a trademark of race-mixing Alienists.

It’s not at all surprising that Piper’s race-mixing has led him straight into pluralism. He writes:

…God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order… Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths)… [R]epression of free exercise of religion and persuasion is as wrong against Christians as it is against secularists. We believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ… [T]he spiritual, relational nature of God’s kingdom is the ground of our endorsement of pluralism…

This is a perverted American-baptist-evangelical religion, and it’s as far from Christianity as you can get. Piper makes it clear that he does “not…want to establish Christianity as the law of the land.” But the real history of Christendom has always been coercive. During the Middle Ages, do you think the national adoption of God’s law and the requirement of baptism to hold any kind of office was put up for a democratic vote? Yet this is what made us who we are. A man who invites a stranger into his home and heritage and makes her the equal of his natural children is at the very threshold of idolatry. John Weaver has preached sermons about how multiculturalism, miscegenation, and idolatry are intimately connected. John Piper is living proof of Dan Brannan’s dictum that only Christians who are lovers of kin are a threat to idolatry in the world today. The other “Christians” are no threat at all.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

Here’s a far better, and shorter, video than Piper’s suckfest: The Ugly Duckling. This duck couple has four little quackers, just like the ungrateful Mrs. Piper, but they aren’t nearly as delighted as the Pipers to find a fifth in the nest. One look at the little stranger gives the he-duck the thought that his she-duck has been playing the harlot. This is what all Christians used to think of women whose children bore no resemblance to them or their husbands. But “Christians” today aren’t nearly as concerned about looking like whores, what with the “gospel” at stake. The she-duck adamantly denies being guilty of infidelty, then leaves the little stranger to fend for himself as she performs her God-given duty of caring for her own offspring. This used to be the joy of honorable womanhood until selfish, ungrateful 48-year-old “Christian” TV-watchers forced their wormy husbands to get with the program of the New America. The little stranger tries to climb aboard, but the she-duck tosses him off the bus and gives him a good scolding. If only Doug Phillips had been there to teach her how to grow the animal kingdom. I mean, why get all hung up on species or anything else having to do with God’s will? Dejected, the little stranger tries to move in with another family, on the good side of the tracks, in a good school district, but the racist mother chases him off and gives him what-for. Of course, there’s a happy ending, and the swan meets up with his own kind. Familiarity gives him identity, which is another way of saying that he turns into a racist too, and all is well with the world. His new-found racist mother places a much higher value on the color of feathers than the content of character. “Christians” today could never write a story like this.

Here’s another in an endless list of articles about “brave” pastors who are waging jihad against ol’ debbil racism. But in the fine print of such articles is always a statement about how most Christians want nothing to do with their race-mixing.

Ninety-two percent [of congregations] are homogeneous, meaning at least 80 percent of the congregation is comprised of a single racial group.

Christians are apparently still not on board with Dr. King’s Dream. Tsk, tsk. Our friend Colby reminds us that living the Reverend Doctor’s Dream involves joining the Communist Party and buying hookers. But that’s a small price to pay for racial reconciliation, which John Piper says is the greatest need in the Church today.

Let’s reach into the mailbag and see what falls out. Here’s a letter from a friend who is wondering what ever happened to the faith once delivered to the saints.

At the Reformed church we’ve been attending, the Pastor and his wife have one child, an adopted Chinese girl. They’ve been trying to adopt another Chinese child so that their first could have the company of someone like her. (To me, that screams volumes of which the Pastor and his wife are sinfully oblivious.) Their attempt to adopt another Chinese child fell through, so they’ve agreed to adopt a Nigerian child. Almost everyone at the church is giddy about the prospect, and are praying fervently for it to come to pass.

Since we’ve been attending this “church,” I’ve witnessed I don’t know how many child baptisms. A baptism always cheers me. Last week, three children were baptized – African kids who were adopted by a White couple with two natural children. (I feel so sorry for their two real children. I swear, they always look morose and detached. At church services, the family’s seating arrangement is niglet / mother / niglet / father / niglet / White daughter / White son. It’s damned disgusting.) During the baptism, the Pastor began to weep and blubber in something like ecstacy, apparently overcome by his perception that the whole thing was especially rare and exceedingly beautiful. I was sickened by it. I’ve never seen him behave like that over the White children he’s baptized.

Today, after the service, the Pastor invited everyone to join in a celebration of those childrens’ baptism. I became angry, so I left the sanctuary to get a drink. The fellowship hall was festooned for the occasion, and there was a large cake decorated with the names of the three African children. Again, I’ve never seen such done for any of the White children I’ve seen baptized, or make a profession of faith, or received into membership. I’m not saying that it should either always be done or never be done. I’m just mad as hell that the people are falling all over themselves because of the presence of these three Negro children, abandoned by their own people but rescued by White guilt, or White arrogance, or wasted White virtue.

Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year,
Our fathers’ title runs.
Make we likewise their sacrifice,
Defrauding not our sons.

A friend of ours observes that Alienists are like Arminians.

For Arminians, God is cruel if some are chosen by Him to have eternal life, because that would mean some are damned for not being chosen by Him. For universal racists [the one-race idolaters], God is cruel if He has chosen people to belong to distinct people groups and nations, because that would mean that some would belong to worse groups. They are repulsed that God would be sovereign in doing both.

This really is the point. Every heresy begins with dissatisfaction with the fact that God is God and we are not.

We at SWB take great pride in having been the first to introduce Cambria Will Not Yield to the world. Years ago, we were very impressed with his writing in print and encouraged him to expand to the web, and the rest is history. Laura Wood calls him “Tribal Dad” and posts this very good synopsis of his work:

The pseudonymous writer CWNY often argues that the white man has replaced faith in Christ with worship of the black man. CWNY’s argument is more subtle than that. He says rationalism ate away at the heart of the white Christian, who then turned in his lifelessness to the primitivism of the Negro. The liberal Christian sought to recover the elemental and fend off spiritual death.

In other words, the bonds of race can’t be avoided, for to stop running with the pack is to die. The bonds are routinely rejected by liberals only to be substituted by an oath of fealty to The Other. Any race or ad hoc group will do, as long as it satisfies the liberal’s masochism. A somewhat heated and amusing discussion follows at the link above about whether CWNY is too racist. He can’t be that racist; we know that he gets out in the sun when he can.

CWNY on the “inhuman hellhounds who have betrayed their own people and their God in order to serve the satanic abstraction called ‘The People,’ which in modern times has become equivalent to serving the negro,” whose history is a “boring continuum of blood and sex. The only time their histories rise to the level of interesting is when they intersect with the histories of the white people.”

At 30:42 in this talk, R.J. Rushdoony and Otto Scott briefly discuss what was lost as a result of racial desegregation.

Rushdoony: No one then would have imagined the kind of crime that goes on in black neighborhoods.

Scott: No, because they had their own community, and they didn’t consider it segregation.

Rushdoony: And their churches were stronger.

Scott: They had their own churches; not just their own clergy but their own physicians, their own dentists, their own lawyers, their own pharmacists, their own stores, and shopkeepers, and so forth. And they had all the role models in the world, whereas now the black bourgeoisie who gets successful moves away from the black community… The black community lost a lot with desegregation.

Rushdoony: Yes.

Listen at 17:45 in this very interesting talk. Scott and Rushdoony discuss good will and fellowship among racially segregated churches.

Scott: I remember when the early civil rights movement began in the fifties. And if you recall, the cameras would go down into the South, and several black people would appear in a white church and demand entry. And there was quite an outrage when they were not accepted or invited in. Well, putting that to one side as to whether that was a good tactic or not a good tactic, I remember discussing it with some fellows at the Overseas Press Club in New York at the time. And one of them expressed great outrage. And I said, well, have you ever been a member of a church? He said, well, I’ve been to church. I said, did you ever join a church? Have you ever been a member? Have you ever paid dues? Have you ever said you would obey the rules of the church? He said no. I said, are you under the impression that anybody that walks by attends church? Well, he said yes. I said, that’s not true. Catholics go into their church, Protestants go into their various churches. I said, these are not public institutions. They are the most private of institutions. Why should any band of strangers come with a camera crew to demand admittance?

Rushdoony: During the 1930s, California had a great many churches that were organized along nationalistic lines. The Japanese had their churches, the Chinese had theirs, the Assyrians…had their churches. And in fact, they are about the only group that has still been able to maintain them… But I recall that one of the strong groups that was immediately a target of dissolution was [the] Welsh churches. The Welshmen were quite numerous in this state at that time, and they had a number of churches. They had their own presbytery. They had, annually, since the Welsh are magnificent singers, a concert of some of the mass choirs from their churches, in some place like Los Angeles, often in a stadium, with great throngs attending because the Welsh are magnificent singers. [They were] destroyed.

Scott: How were they destroyed?

Rushdoony: Because it was felt that it was discrimination to have a Welsh church, and particularly since the Welsh churches classified as WASP, they had to be destroyed, and a rich heritage was just wiped out… And in due time this will be the direction of things, and [it] has been proposed that there be no discrimination in churches with regard to race, color, sexual preference, or creed…

Then, something that people forget is that prior to World War II, in the South, there was a close relationship between black and white churches. They were segregated. But usually a white church would take a black church under their wing and help them with building projects, with various activities, and regularly the pastors would exchange pulpits and have occasionally a joint service. Now, this was routine. But both the ungodly bigots on the far-out fringes, as well as the liberal bigots, helped destroy that.

At 15:55 in this sermon, Rushdoony explains that the “civil rights revolution” is contrary to Scripture because “the purpose of the law is not equality.” Throughout the Bible, right up until colonial America, citizenship and church membership were considered identical, he says. Restrictive covenants were in place for moral character and other reasons, such that even when everyone went to church, there were oftentimes relatively few church members (perhaps 15%). Just as in the Old Testament, slaves and criminals and foreigners and eunuchs were not allowed to be members, meaning that they were not allowed positions of authority, even though they were Christians. There are racial considerations, as Rushdoony confirms. He observes that the first Church council in Acts 15 permitted segregated congregations, yet with one standard of justice for all.

Restrictive covenants, of course, have been abolished by courts in recent years… Equalitarianism is a modern idea. It did not even exist until fairly recently. It cannot be forced back onto the Bible without violence and dishonesty… The purpose of the law is not to level men, to equalize them, but to establish God’s justice. In relationship to all men, I must maintain one law, God’s offer of salvation, God’s justice; in relation to my family, I can be partial; to my group and my society, restrictive. And I can do this in good conscience before God, provided I do not deny justice to others. This, then, is the biblical standard. Equality, which is the modern purpose of government, has no place in biblical law. It is totally hostile to biblical law. It is no wonder then that John Dewey declared that there is no place in democracy for biblical Christianity…

At 33:04 in this talk, we hear some very true comments about black entitlement.

Scott: The black people of the United States have become convinced that the white people have been placed on earth by God to take care of them, that it is our duty, our holy Christian duty, to support all the black people. They argue that we should bring in more Haitians. We’ve already brought in a million from Haiti, and the island only has three and a half million. They want us to bring them all. Then of course, all the rest of the Caribbeans will follow. Now, we have never really faced up to the consequences of having implanted that idea, that we are responsible for their lives. My own opinion, as a Christian, is is that God put black men on earth to take care of their own wives and children. That is their duty. And our duty is to take care of ours. And if we go beyond that, beyond being as good as we can in our own area, all we do is open up a chain of evils…

Rushdoony: Yes, and what they don’t say when they talk about these people of Haiti is that Haiti is one of the main locales in the world of AIDS.

Scott: Well, we are actually listening to men who tell us that we should bring in the diseased of the world, that it is our duty…

Only Portugal made the mistake of intermarriage. And it was a mistake, because within three generations Portugal ceased to be a first-class power. And they were great in their day. They were the great explorers, the great seamen, and so forth, and they had a very high culture.

At 13:41 in this talk, Rushdoony adds:

I believe that because the white man has lost his courage, he has lost his faith. And he is fearful about everything. All kinds of minority peoples who are being trained, brought along on the road to civilization, educated, and helped by the white man, have suddenly smelled fear in him and are becoming outrageous in their behavior, contemptuous, and a great deal of our social unrest, I believe, is because the white man has lost his guts.

“As the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian Summer of our civilization.” ~ Pat Buchanan

“There is not a single year between 1970 and 2050 where Germany’s birth rate even approaches the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. By mid-century, Germany will have been below zero population growth for 80 years. This is a nation slowly taking its leave of this world.” God help us.

The world’s largest sperm bank is no longer accepting redheads as donors. But redheads are extremely popular as mates in Ireland, where births are up 7.6%, the vast majority of which are white. The rest of the West should take notice. Ireland is reversing the decline of our race, and it’s because the Irish love themselves. Germany is dying because it has been taught by Jews to hate itself.

Redheads were the first Americans.

More than 97% of the National Register of Historic Places commemorates white men, which means “that the score is not even,” according to the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, the empire will continue to pretend that diversities had some part to play in the founding of our formerly-white, formerly-Christian nation.

A BB&T bank announces a holiday to whites as Columbus Day and to mestizos as “El Día de la Raza” (The Day of the Race).

At 50:40 in this talk, Scott and Rushdoony reflect on the genocide of the white race.

Scott: A country that throttles its writers while claiming to be free is especially infuriating… The white Christians are the only white whales left on the horizon, and there are lots of Ahabs with spears looking for them. It’s a very strange state of affairs. And really, if we come down to it, I think that is what has killed our literature. We cannot tell the truth about our society. And if we can’t do that, how can you write?

It certainly is hard to write for money if you want to write the truth.

Listen at 27:57 in this talk.

Scott: We are undertaking a series of experiments in this country that have never worked in the history of the world. Now, that’s a long time. And it takes an awful lot of arrogance to fly in the face of the history of all humanity and say we are going to do something that has never been done before. We are going to make all people believe that race, ethnicity, class, background, size, and all other differences are going to be totally irrelevant.

Rush: Well, a minor point; it has been tried on a very small scale, some of the Greek city-states. And Aristophenes ridiculed the whole idea…in his plays. But it has never worked.

At 14:03 in this talk, Rushdoony observes that if not for the white gift of quinine to the world, 6 out of 7 people in India would not be alive. It also made colonialism possible in South Africa and Rhodesia, which were not populated until the white man pioneered the land. We routinely hear that white men brought diseases with them that wiped out the native population, but everyone conveniently forgets that the white man brought the cure. Otto Scott notes that the Indian gift to white people was syphilis, which “wiped out a fair percentage of Europe within a few decades, and is still a plague in the world.” But schoolkids don’t learn about that; they learn that whites killed Indians by diseases, probably on purpose, because they’re white, after all. To argue that whites deliberately developed immunities that other races could not “is to abandon reason,” says Scott, “because every race has certain strengths and weaknesses, and they are not all the same.”

Rushdoony: Yes, and the high ratio of sickle-cell anemia among blacks is due to the fact that they somehow survived malaria.

Scott: Yes, and of course as we know, the blacks in the United States lost tribal identity, and so they intermarried with each other. And some of the characteristics now are quite confused.

But instead of lamenting this loss of tribal identity and consequent ugliness as an aberrence of nature, it is now heralded as normative for the Christian.

Continuing at 21:39:

Scott: Nobody gives Europe credit anymore for anything, not even Europeans… Americans don’t give themselves credit anymore. To even talk about it is to start an argument.

Rushdoony: Well, you remember in ’87, how everybody in England, virtually, that we met was damning their own country for its colonialism, either damning it or apologizing for their past.

Scott: You remember, we both came to the conclusion that they were violating a commandment, they were dishonoring their own parents and their own heritage. I mean, honor thy father and thy mother. What sort of person is it that denigrates his heritage?

When we Kinists talk this way, Alienists call us evil. I’ve had several pastors vociferously deny to my face that the Fifth Commandment has anything to do with love of race or love of heritage.

“Here would I also eike another crime to bee vnpardonable, if I should not be thought partiall: but the fatherly loue I beare you, will make mee breake the bounds of shame in opening it vnto you. It is then, the false and vnreuerent writing or speaking of malicious men against your Parents and Predecessors: ye know the command in Gods lawe, Honour your Father and Mother: and consequently, sen ye are the lawful magistrate, suffer not both your Princes and your Parents to be dishonoured by any; especially, sith the example also toucheth your selfe, in leauing thereby to your successors, the measure of that which they shal mete out againe to you in your like behalfe. I graunt wee haue all our faults, which, priuately betwixt you and God, should serue you for examples to meditate vpon, and mend in your person; but should not be a matter of discourse to others whatsoeuer. And sith ye are come of as honourable Predecessours as any Prince liuing, represse the insolence of such, as vnder pretence to taxe a vice in the person, seeke craftily to staine the race, and to steale the affection of the people from their posteritie: For how can they loue you, that hated them whom-of ye are come? Wherefore destroy men innocent young sucking Wolues and Foxes, but for the hatred they beare to their race? and why wil a coult of a Courser of Naples, giue a greater price in a market, then an Asse-colt, but for loue of the race? It is therefore a thing monstrous, to see a man loue the childe, and hate the Parents: as on the other part, the infaming and making odious of the parents, is the readiest way to bring the sonne in contempt. And for conclusion of this point, I may also alledge my owne experience: For besides the iudgments of God, that with my eyes I haue seene fall vpon all them that were chiefe traitours to my parents, I may iustly affirme, I neuer found yet a constant biding by me in all my straites, by any that were of perfite aage in my parents dayes, but onely by such as constantly bode by them; I meane specially by them that serued the Queene my mother:  for so that I discharge my conscience to you, my Sonne, in reuealing to you the trewth, I care not, what any traitour or treason-allower thinke of it.” ~ King James VI & I to his son, Henry IX, Prince of Wales, teaching him that the love of parents extends to posterity, government, and race

And just like that, the American empire decrees that nationality has nothing to do with blood. (Preachers everywhere applaud vigorously.) Negroes are henceforth Cherokee Indians. An Indian, or an American for that matter, is whosoever or whatsoever the government declares him to be. So let it be written, so let it be done. David Yeagley writes: “No human beings on earth will ever be allowed to deny the Negro anything – even the fact that he’s not Indian… The Negro is aggressive, arrogant, and will not be denied, or threatened. All must bow to him. No race is without the Negro. No nation can deny the Negro. The Negro rules.”

“The color of a man’s skin is part of his essential soul; if he must deny that soul in order to exist he will pine away and die.” ~ CWNY

Memory, technique, and race.

The best definition of the word “racist” that you’ll see.

Barbara Walters is a racist. And the worst part of it is that she doesn’t even understand why she’s a racist. We here at SWB are appalled by her pronunciation of the word “nigger.” It’s inexcusable.

Toilet paper is racist.

Black men like their women the way they like their toilet paper: soft, white, and strong.

“The word ‘Niggerhead’ allegedly appeared on a rock that sat on a piece of land owned by the family of Rick Perry back in the early 1980s.” And Jesus wept.

Well, this is an unfortunate audio malfunction.

Dee Troof Gon’ Make U Free. I’m going to buy one of those suits, as sho’ as you’s born. Look at the armbands! Fantastic. I had no idea that Haitians are Levites.

“They smashed our window, ripped the plasma TVs off our walls, took all our jackets and rucksacks. I saw them go into Claire’s Accessories, break into NatWest, liberate our neighbours, Toni & Guy, of hair products. They carted off iPods from Currys, clothes from Debenhams, mobile phones from Carphone Warehouse. I was horrified. But Waterstone’s [bookstore], directly opposite us, was untouched. For the looters it was as if it did not exist.” Like kryptonite.

According to Interactive One, there are only three good black men for every 100 black women, with “good” defined as: high school diploma, employed with a modest income, has never been to jail or prison, no illegitimate children, and not aggressively pursuing white women. This reminds me of a Chris Rock joke in which the punchline is the black man who expects accolades for doing what he’s supposed to do. “I take care of my kids!”

You deserve a break today.

Elizabeth Wright remembers a better time.

Part of Elizabeth Wright’s website was lost, and this appears to be the latest cache. This is what she calls Martin Delany’s ignored admonition, taken from the anthology, African-American Social & Political Thought 1850-1920:

White men are producers – we are consumers. They build houses, and we rent them. They raise produce, and we consume it. They manufacture clothes and wares, and we garnish ourselves with them. They build coaches, vessels, cars, hotels, saloons, and other vehicles and places of accommodation, and we deliberately wait until they have got them in readiness, then walk in, and contend with as much assurance for a “right,” as though the whole thing was bought by, paid for, and belonged to us…

Until we are determined to change the condition of things, and raise ourselves above the position in which we are now prostrated, we must hang our heads in sorrow and hide our faces in shame. It is enough to know that these things are so; the causes we care little about. Those we have been examining, complaining about, and moralizing over, all our life time. This we are weary of.

What we desire to learn now is, how to effect a remedy; this we have endeavored to point out. Our elevation must be the result of self-efforts, and work of our own hands. No other human power can accomplish it. If we but determine it shall be so, it will be so. Let each one make the case his own, and endeavor to rival his neighbor, in honorable competition.

These are the proper and only means of elevating ourselves and attaining equality in this country or any other, and it is useless, utterly futile, to think about going anywhere, except we are determined to use these as the necessary means of developing our manhood. The means are at hand, within our reach. Are we willing to try them?

Sage but unheeded advice.

The do-gooder author of The Help is being sued by the black maid she portrayed, and is being called a racist to boot. Well, I’ll declare, as my grandfather used to say.

White liberals are the strangest people you’ll ever come across. The sickest, too; even bestiality appeals to them.

The Four Reformers by Robert Louis Stevenson might cause you to think of the unwashed Occupy Wall Street mob, for as long as you can stand it.

Four reformers met under a bramble bush. They were all agreed the world must be changed.

“We must abolish property,” said one.

“We must abolish marriage,” said the second.

“We must abolish God,” said the third.

“I wish we could abolish work,” said the fourth.

“Do not let us get beyond practical politics,” said the first. “The first thing is to reduce men to a common level.”

“The first thing,” said the second, “is to give freedom to the sexes.”

“The first thing,” said the third, “is to find out how to do it.”

“The first step,” said the first, “is to abolish the Bible.”

“The first thing,” said the second, “is to abolish the laws.”

“The first thing,” said the third, “is to abolish mankind.”

And progressivism marches on.

Humanists despise humanity.

Even liberals are no longer pretending that miscegenation has become normal. Instead, they bellyache about the “enduring norms” that prevent adulterers from feeling comfortable in their own frankenfamilies. It’s an implicit admission that miscegenation is not normal and never will be.

Only 2.9% of the population identifies as multiracial, but that’s a 32% increase in ten years.

Good fences make good neighbors. It seems obvious to us, but this team of researchers is just discovering that peace prevails when political boundaries are ethnic boundaries. When they are not, violence abounds.

Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.

To paraphrase George Wallace: Separation now, separation tomorrow, separation forever.

Here’s a funny little graphic that Matt Parrott put together:

Announcing Amren 2012! It’s no exaggeration to say that Sam Dickson alone is worth the price of admission. He’s always the last to speak because Jared saves the best for last. With the safeguards now in place, terrorists won’t be shutting this one down. It’s in Nashville this time, which is one of the best big cities in the country. Lots to see, lots to do.

No one knows more about Hitler and the Third Reich than David Irving. Irving says he doubts that there is anyone alive beside himself who has shook more hands that shook Adolf Hitler’s hand. Listen to this very good speech. He tells the story of how he has been fined and imprisoned for the modern Jew-crime of free speech and free thought. Listen to the protesters outside this meeting who are trying to drown him out, so terrified are they that someone, somewhere can freely express ideas that they find disagreeable. He’s a brave man who has loved truth more than fame and fortune, and that’s a very rare thing indeed. At one time, he was one of the world’s highest-paid historians. Now, he says his wife is “frantic with fear.”

Free downloads of Irving’s books.

Everyone wants to know Irving’s estimate of Jewish casualties during the war, which in itself is an odd thing. Sixty million deaths in all seem to pale in comparison, unfortunately. Though entire cities were incinerated in minutes by Allied bombers, no one cares. It’s even worse than not caring; they don’t even care to know about it.

Nevertheless, Irving’s estimate can be heard at 1:31:17:

From all causes, during the entire period of the Nazi regime, from 1933 to 1945, I would estimate that up to four million Jews will have died from all causes, including air raids, starvation, epidemics, being worked to death, dying of natural causes, everything else…

I think probably as many as 100,000 Jews died in Auschwitz, which was a brutal slave labor camp, where they had no business being. The fact that they died in that camp of “natural” causes – epidemics, mostly typhus – is neither here nor there. Of those 100,000, probably about 10,000 were actually physically murdered, in the criminal sense…

And of course, it raises the logical question: If you’re going to [exterminate] them…why ship them all the way across Europe and kill them when they arrive? It doesn’t make sense…

Here’s the death estimate from all camps, notarized in 1984 by the International Red Cross:

Irving is not nearly as accurate in parsing his estimate of four million deaths of Jews (from all causes, in all places). Depending on the day, he says that anywhere from hundreds of thousands to three million (2:28) Jews died in the Reinhard camps and the eastern front, and that Himmler was “the brains behind the operation.” In spite of his belief that millions were liquidated, he is still considered a “holocaust denier” because his conspiracy theory doesn’t conform to the official, Jew-approved conspiracy theory.

We saw the same thing happen ten years ago. Everyone believes in a 9/11 conspiracy. The difference is that the “respectable” theory is a conspiracy of 19 Saudi Arabians, funded and trained by former CIA employee Osama bin Laden, with former CIA employee Saddam Hussein having some connection that was never explained but was somehow deserving of a war in Iraq. All who dissent from this official, respectable conspiracy theory are called “conspiracy theorists.” Their disputes and questions go unanswered because they are widely considered to be nonconformist kooks with a devious agenda, not unlike “holocaust deniers.”

The odd thing about this is that the “respectable” conspiracy theorists have to keep revising their theories. In 1990, the estimate of 9 million deaths at Auschwitz, cited in the French documentary Night and Fog, was revised down to 1.5 million, and then lower. In 1963, the Encyclopaedia Britannica claimed that 2 million died at Mauthausen. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has now revised this number down to 14,000. There sure are a lot of Holocaust Deniers out there.

World War II was a horrible time for everyone involved. It was mankind’s worst blood-letting, and it almost erased the white race from the face of the earth. Many were treated brutally, and many lives were lost, Jews included. But as you know, it is no longer good enough to merely acknowledge the suffering of Jews. The religion of Holocaustianity demands sacrifice! Punishment awaits all heretics.

The holy scriptures of this religion are the proceedings of the post-war Nuremberg trial, which was a stunning miscarriage of justice that set new and dangerous precedents in jurisprudence and erected the framework of “hate speech” laws that have crippled the West for generations. Articles 19 and 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal prove it to have been no court at all: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence… The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof…” There was no possibility of appeal.

Read what men at the time said of the farce:

No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.
U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft

This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the “International Military Tribunal.” That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians… At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.
Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery, U.S.N.

I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world… I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty… This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.
Edgar N. Eisenhower, attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower

My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.
Major General J.F.C. Fuller

To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government. If an officer…should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military sevices would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.
Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.

I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations.
Dr. George Peabody Gooch, British historian and author

[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.

The Tribunal claimed in theory the right – it certainly had the power – to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence, any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.
F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author

Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the United States, called it a “high-grade lynching party.” It didn’t matter. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. A Gallup poll at the time showed that two-thirds of the American public wanted Hermann Göring executed without a trial.

At around the 30 minute mark in the Irving video above, you’ll hear confirmation of Admiral Gallery’s quote above. The Russians have now admitted the guilt of the Soviets for the massacre of Poles in the Katyn Forest, yet at Nuremberg it was blamed on the Germans. And since Holohoax laws are being enforced throughout Europe, such that the fiction presented during the “trial” has become sacralized, it means that to accept the Russian admission of guilt makes one a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. In France, it has been a crime since 1990 to contester (challenge) any part of the Nuremberg Charter, including the manufacture of “Jewish soap.”

At Nuremberg, it wasn’t just a question of jurisdiction. Proof for the alleged crimes was highly questionable or nonexistent. Yet even today, the judgment is used as the basis for hauling 90-year-old men into court to answer for crimes committed 70 years ago, for which there is neither evidence nor witnesses.

The prosecution at Nuremberg essentially argued that Germany had no right to fight against Stalin and the encroachment of Communism, but the West had every right to fight Hitler in the same way. The defense pleaded the necessity of a George W. Bush-style preemptive attack on the Communist menace.

The charge against the defendants was conspiracy. Conspiracy! The Allies could just as easily have been accused of “conspiring” against the Germans. But this was done so that the defendants would be lumped together rather than tried individually. Thus, there was no distinction between Göring and Streicher, though the latter had absolutely nothing to do with the German planning or conduct of the war. Streicher was sent to his death for writing mean things like this very blog post. Count Four against him was for “crimes against humanity by stirring up hatred against the Jews.” This is not yet a crime in America, though Jews are doing everything in their power to bring an end to the right of free speech secured by our Christian forefathers.

Nuremberg was quite the Jewish production. The American delegation was about 75% Jewish, according to U.S. Executive Trial Counsel Thomas J. Dodd’s estimate. Therefore, it’s not surprising that in the place of the judge’s stand was erected a giant video screen; a case of “documentary” covering for the lack of documentation. The arresting images had the desired effect on the jurors and audience.

John Ford, of Western fame, was the chief propagandist and included clever little animations in the ostensibly objective video, including one which showed concentration camps dotting Germany. Jew Simon Wiesenthal has said that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” (Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993), and that “gassings” of Jews took place only in Poland, in camps that were liberated by the lying Soviets and then kept hidden for many years behind the Iron Curtain.

The British invented what they called “concentration camps” during the Boer War (1899-1902) in South Africa, for the purpose of holding Afrikaner women and children. These were the first of their kind. Approximately 30,000 died in the camps. Americans interned Japanese in concentration camps during WWII. Britain was also the first country to practice mass civilian bombing, on May 11, 1940. Towards the end of the “trial,” the prosecution adopted a new term: “policy of genocide.” The word “genocide” was invented by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944. The term “extermination camp” was also coined in November of 1944, by Jew Rudolf Vrba. The “holocaust” mythology did not begin to grow until the 1970s.

The first appearance of the term “gas chamber” was in December of 1941, when German author Thomas Mann appeared on the BBC to declare that in German hospitals, the wounded, elderly, and feeble were being culled with poison gas. Classic wartime propaganda. It’s very similar to what Iraqi soldiers were accused of doing in Kuwait hospitals, which was enough to secure American commitment in the conflict, but which later was found to be lies.

A sign at Dachau is surprisingly honest, at least in the fine print, right under the big words “GAS CHAMBER”:

One might say that the bookends of the 20th century were the lies about the Lusitania and Colin Powell’s yellowcake uranium presentation to the United Nations, where he said that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

One of the video spectacles during the opening days of the Nuremberg “trial” that produced a very emotional response was of a bulldozer pushing corpses into a pit. There was, of course, no explanation that it was not a German soldier who drove the machine, and no context was provided for the many starving and diseased wanderers who had come to the camp in the closing days of the war, looking for food and supplies. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Bergen-Belsen, even sent a delegation to British Field Marshal Montgomery’s troops to warn them that they were approaching a huge den of infection, and the typhus had to be prevented from spreading among the Allied soldiers and the German population.

Footage was shown of corpses neatly arranged in rows at Nordhausen, victims of an Allied bombing raid. The “documentary evidence” was propaganda. No one at the “trial” seemed concerned that the horrific images they saw were due, even in part, to Allied bombings which had broken supply routes and caused the general population to starve to death. Nothing spreads disease like lack of food and clean water. No one at the “trial” seemed to notice that there were far more photographs of sick or dying prisoners and refugees than dead prisoners and refugees. Given the circumstances, it was a wonder that so many of them lived. Confederate and Yankee prisoners of war did not fare as well in the 1860s. As Arthur Butz writes in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, “The simplest valid reason for being skeptical about the extermination claim is also the simplest conceivable reason: at the end of the war they were still there.”

According to David Irving, the Nazis didn’t realize that the British had built the world’s first computer, as big as a house, and were intercepting and deciphering all communications between Auschwitz and the chief of the SS in Berlin. Unaware that their enemies were listening, why would the Nazis not have been truthful about tens of thousands of executions per day? Instead, the daily report was of a “miniscule” number of deaths, due mostly to illness, but also to executions and hangings. (Anne Frank died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen, just weeks before the end of the war. Her father arrived at the camp sick but recovered at the camp hospital. Obviously, the Nazis restored him to health so that he wouldn’t have to be carried to the gas chamber on a stretcher.)

For Auschwitz to have a total capacity of 60,000 bodies to cremate per day, as Jews claim, it would have required 2,000 tons of coal per day to be shipped into the camp. Yet the Allied aerial photos show no such thing – not even smoke from the crematory stacks, much less the “color-coded smoke” of Judaic myth. No fuel depots for the raging fires nor “open pits.” Flower beds can be seen surrounding the crematories. It’s amazing that the thousands of Jews who were marched daily to their deaths managed to step gingerly over these flowers and not trample them. The CIA retouched these photos before publishing them, adding the missing hatches (more on this below) on the “gas chambers,” but they forgot to make the camp look like a murder factory.

Russian archives record the precise amount of coal delivered to Auschwitz during the entire course of the war, from start to finish: 2,188 tons.

The sacred number of six million soon-to-be-dead Jews had been repeated by Zionists since the 19th century.

At Nuremberg, the magical number was made official by former SS major Wilhelm Höttl. Höttl claimed, under oath and by signed affidavit, that Adolf Eichmann visited him at the end of August 1944 at his apartment in Budapest, and Eichmann allegedly claimed to have recently submitted a report to Himmler, who had wanted to know the exact number of Jews killed to that point. The answer, of course, was six million. (Nine months before the war’s end, when starvation reached its apex?)

But Höttl had good reason to lie. He had embezzled from the SS during the war but contacted the Allies before he could be arrested. He was more than willing to give the Allies anything they wanted; the alternative was deportation to Hungary, where he would have assuredly been hanged by the Communists. This was the sterling character who gave us the number that is now illegal to question, and his cooperation won him early release from confinement. As Robert Faurisson discovered, the affidavit accuses Eichmann of using the anachronistic term “extermination camps,” but this was never used by anyone until November of 1944, three months after the alleged meeting. Later in life, Höttl searched for a dignified escape from his lie. First he said that Eichmann was drunk on that fateful night in Budapest. Then he accused Eichmann of having an inferiority complex that led him to exaggerate the real number. Then, shortly before his death of old age, he wrote: “The figure of 6 million seems, anyhow, to be magical.” Indeed!

The judges at Nuremberg refused to allow Höttl to be cross-examined, and accepted as fact that six million Jews were killed…killed at the hands of Eichmann himself!

A brief aside: At the show trial in Israel that sent Eichmann to his death, one Jacob Biscowitz testified that at Sobibor, the floor opened and bodies fell into railway wagons below. No one still believes this story. Nor does anyone believe that the bucket of human heads and other stage props shown during the trial were the work of the Nazis. You never hear the bucket of heads mentioned along with the piles of hair (for mattresses!) and eyeglasses and shoes. To further embarrass the Jews, who had kidnapped him from Argentina and hauled him to Israel, Eichmann scuttled his own testimony with an outlandish story about turning two farmer’s hovels into a hermetically sealed room and hauling a captured diesel U-boat engine 250 miles from the sea to connect to this “gas chamber.” Diesel engines don’t produce carbon monoxide. For a large volume of carbon monoxide, a simple and cheap wood gas generator would have done the trick. Eichmann also claimed to have witnessed Jewish blood “shooting out of the earth like a fountain” at a site where they “had been shot some time before.”

The “proof” of Auschwitz being an extermination rather than a concentration camp was founded on the testimony of camp commandant Rudolf Hoess (or Höß), who claimed that he oversaw the deaths of 3 million. The trouble is that no one still believes this. The official estimate by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum of Jews who died at Auschwitz is 1.1 million, including starvation, disease, and all causes. This number is seldom questioned because it has the appearance of being a more conservative estimate than Hoess’s own testimony. Hoess might have been given a plea bargain in exchange for making up a large number, but it didn’t save him. He was executed by the Czech Commies a year later. Evidence that his testimony was intentionally false is supported by his reference to a camp named “Wolzek,” which didn’t exist, and that “Wolzek,” along with Treblinka and Belzec, existed prior to June of 1941. We know that Belzec, the first of the camps, was not constructed until November of 1941. Höess apologized to his wife for his confession, saying that it had been extracted from him under torture.

Additional “proof” for Auschwitz being an extermination camp hinged on the testimony of a French woman named Marie-Claude Vaillant Couturier, who worked opposite the train depot and saw people exiting trains as they arrived.

Listen to “holocaust survivors” themselves, in their own words, talk about various camp luxuries. There was a library with newspapers and books to borrow. There was a cantina with weak beer (oy vey!) and cigarettes. Prisoners paid for supplies with money they received (often from their kin in Vienna) or by Nazi-issued coupons that were redeemable in the cantina. Stamps and stationery were supplied to them by the genocidal Germans. There was a movie theater, an orchestra, quartets, various cultural activities, art classes, a grand piano, a theater stage in the dining room.

Let’s not forget the soccer teams that Jews formed to keep their minds off the long lines around the gas chamber (at Auschwitz, the sportplatz field was adjacent to it), and the screaming, and that awful sound of fingernails clawing concrete, and the wretched smell of burning flesh that lingered in the air. Soccer is good for toning the legs. The exercise can be very useful when Dr. Mengele is chasing you around the camp, trying to turn your skin into a lampshade. Be sure to see the footage of Theresienstadt, where soccer teams were organized by nationality. You see very well-fed athletes and a cheering throng of well-fed spectators. One “survivor” tells the story of when a couple of SS officers joined the game, one for the Poles and one for the Germans. He says pressure on the prisoners relaxed rather than intensified towards the end of the war, in 1944. British POWs at Auschwitz had their own team too.

One woman, who says she had to write out her own sheet music at Auschwitz (oy gevald!), often picked leaves from the trees and made tea for everyone in the camp. They probably couldn’t drink it outdoors because of all the ash that fell from the sky. There was a day care in the children’s barracks, with rooms full of toys. A woman tells of painting a large wall mural of a swiss chalet with cows and flowers in the meadow, and this inspired the children, who wanted Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs painted into the mural. The children then wrote a vaudeville play about Snow White. When asked how this could happen at Auschwitz, for crying out loud, and what the heck, she says that it was all kept very hush-hush – except that SS officers came to watch the play.

Many children were born at Auschwitz, and for some reason the clumsy Nazis sent the pregnant women to the hospital, missing the two-for-one special. (In Schindler’s List, Steven Spielberg hid the children in the cesspool, which makes a lot more sense than received history.)

What kind of retards were the Germans? What kind of extermination policies were these? Apparently, Auschwitz had a lot of things, but it lacked one very significant thing. Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot, in her book Le Système Concentrationnaire Nazi, 1933-1945, wrote that Auschwitz was “without any gas chamber.” The International Red Cross visited Auschwitz during the war and could not confirm rumors of gas chambers, and did not appear to notice the stench of burning flesh, but did verify that the slaves could receive postcards and packages in the mail and had other conveniences, like a swimming pool. The “tourist trap” gas chamber now on site was constructed by the Soviets three years after the war, and some fool built it with wooden doors that open inward, where the dead bodies allegedly piled up. Then some other fool had the idea to build this chamber that allegedly filled with explosive cyanide gas right next to the room containing coal furnaces that could reach temperatures of 900° C. We are asked to believe that German engineers were responsible for this absurd configuration.

The chimney doesn’t even connect to the crematory ovens.

Yet as inept as the Nazis were, they cleaned the ovens and chimneys before evacuating the camps? This is the testimony of the liewitnesses. They painstakingly collected their conspiracy documents and burned them, along with all the bodies they had already buried, and crushed the bones to powder, but forgot to do anything with the 7 tons of hair over here or the massive pile of baby clothes over there. The pile of baby clothes was 130 feet high, according to Kurt Gerstein, an SS officer who purposely discredited his confession by claiming that 25 million were killed at Belzec and Treblinka. This is a fascinating example of how Jews embellish their stories with emotion and Germans embellish their stories with precision. It’s common for those who are really innocent to plead guilty in order to get a lighter sentence which they know is inevitable. But it seems that the Germans were resigned to their fate and yet had the perspicacity to send a message to future generations. It worked. Gerstein was found dead in his prison cell in 1945, the alleged victim of “suicide.”

Only one set of core samples, only of Belzec, was commissioned by the Holohoax Museum, and the “graves” were oriented in such a way that they were directly underneath what were roads, barracks, a barber shop, a dentistry office, and a kitchen when the camp was in operation. Germans didn’t do anything like this when they identified the victims of the Katyn Forest, who were mass murdered by the Soviets. They actually exhumed the bodies.

Jew historian Yitzhak Arad writes that the Reinhard officers received orders to remove all debris, plow under the camps, and plant trees to hide the evidence. But while they were busy doing this, they accidentally left thousands of witnesses behind to tell the whole story of deception to the Soviets? The same witnesses say that they were beaten with rods on the way to the “gas chamber,” but seconds later the inept Nazis forgot that they had beaten them and tried to resume the ruse by giving each one of them a towel and a bar of soap and a haircut.

Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel (a.k.a. Oily Weasel) “survived” the gas chambers too. He and his father were given the choice, by the murderous and barbaric Nazis, to stay at Auschwitz until the Soviets arrived or leave with them for Buchenwald, and they chose to leave with the Nazis. You remember Buchenwald. That’s where the U.S. Army’s Psychological Warfare Division, run by Jews, put shrunken heads and lampshades made of Jew flesh on display. It was a Billy Wilder-produced extravaganza. At Buchenwald, where Nazis allegedly killed 10,000 Jews per day, Weasel’s father died of dysentery, and Weasel played chess (Time Magazine, March 18, 1985). Have you ever tried to watch a chess game? It’s as much fun as swallowing and defecating diamonds every day for a year and a half, which is “survivor” Irene Zisblatt’s claim to fame.

Weasel later deflected questions about the Holohoax religion by calling it “a sacred mystery, whose secrets were confined to a priesthood of survivors. In a diffuse way, however, the assertion that the Holocaust was a holy event that resisted profane representation, that it was uniquely inaccessible to explanation or understanding, that survivors had privileged interpretive authority – all these themes continued to resonate.”

The Nazis were so confused about how to commit genocide that in 1944 they allowed the Council of Elders of the Jews in Vienna to build and operate Jewish hospitals, a children’s home and day school, a community kitchen, a bath-house, an elderly home, a clothes and furniture depot, a welfare division, a library, and a cemetery. Then, in an infamous act of anti-Semitism, an Allied bombing raid completely destroyed the children’s hospital.

Churchill, Eisenhower, and de Gaulle never mentioned gas chambers in their memoirs, yet we now live in a time when Jean-Marie Le Pen can be convicted in France for calling the gas chambers a “footnote of history.” (Jew Raul Hilberg devotes only one paragraph in three volumes to the manual crushing of the bones of 1.5 million bodies. But far from a footnote, this is central to the claim of the Jews that remains of the bodies no longer exist.)

The only alleged homicidal gas chamber that the prosecution ventured to show in a film, during the entire course of the Nuremberg “trial,” was at Dachau. But in 1960, Martin Broszat, of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, wrote: “Neither at Dachau, nor at Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any Jews or other detainees gassed.” A vast portion of the judgment at Nuremberg is based on erroneously alleged events at these camps. Yet still, we hear of men like Moshe Peer, who “survived” the gas chamber at Bergen-Belsen six times, and Alexander Donat, who survived nine “death” camps, with his wife! And if you think that’s amazing, William Lowenberg survived on his own saliva for three years by keeping a magical thirst-quenching pebble in his mouth. He never had to drink water. You wouldn’t want to be convicted of a hate crime for doubting these tall tales.

Auschwitz commandant Hoess claimed that guards entered the “gas chambers” only ten minutes after the Zyklon B had done its work. Zyklon B was invented by a Jew in 1922 to kill vermin such as lice, the carriers of typhus. At Auschwitz, the story is that it was dropped through four hatches in the roof. Unfortunately, these hatches were installed after the war by Polish Communists, as the curator of Auschwitz, Francizek Piper, admitted, and as Jew R.J. Van Pelt was forced to concede in 2009, going so far as to conclude that the lack of evidence makes conservation of the camp useless, and nature should be allowed to take it back. “No holes, no holocaust,” is the famous conclusion of Robert Faurisson, who calls Van Pelt “the last of the Jewish Mohicans.” Leaving aside the idea of using slow-acting hydrocyanic gas to kill anyone in such a short time, the guards themselves would have been exposed to great danger since it normally takes 20 hours to fumigate an area exposed to the gas. It adheres to surfaces as a substance called Prussian Blue, and as Fred Leuchter showed, it can even permeate brick and remain there for decades. It bonds with the iron in the brick. Even today at Auschwitz, there is a distinct blue color even on the outside of the de-lousing chamber, where it has seeped through the walls, but none at all around the so-called “gas chambers.”

Then, Hoess said the guards smoked cigarettes (kaboom!) and ate outside the chamber (yummy) after removing the bodies. This testimony was taken seriously at Nuremberg, as was anything else that might have incriminated the defendants.

Attempts by the defendants to exonerate themselves were ignored, but they managed to make themselves heard on a few key points. For instance, Göring insisted that the single document that mentions what has come to be known as the “final solution” was misinterpreted. It referred to a final territorial solution, according to Eichmann, not a final solution for extermination, as it has been understood. The plan was to extirpate the Jews from Europe, not to exterminate them. The program of evacuation, resettlement, and deportation was well-known and well-executed.

“There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible to foresee exactly the next step.” ~ Jew Raul Hilberg, the most famous of all Jewish historians, in Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12

Faurisson has documented other loopy statements by Hilberg, who has said that the conspiracy came together “by an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading,” and without any “basic plan,” through “basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations.” Hilberg explains that “no special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe… In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands, as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.” Didn’t the Eagles sing about this paranormal phenomenon during the 1970s when they were smoking peyote? Of course, if Hilberg is correct about extermination ex nihilo – and who would dare to accuse a Jew of lying? – it completely contradicts the accusation of conspiracy at Nuremberg.

Perhaps the Nazis were guilty of telepathy. I mean, just look at them.

Robert Faurisson’s three questions have never been answered, even with a substantial reward on the line:

1. Show us one single document that, in your view, proves that Hitler or any other National Socialist ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews.
2. Show us that weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged, was a gas chamber; show us a single one of them, at Auschwitz or elsewhere; and if, by chance, you claim that you cannot show us any because, according to you, the Germans destroyed the “murder weapon,” provide us at least with a technical drawing representing one of those slaughterhouses which, as you say, the Germans destroyed, and explain to us how that weapon with such a fabulous killing performance had been able to work without bringing on the death of either those who ran it or their helpers.
3. Explain to us how you have arrived at your figure of six million victims.

“I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we should reclaim our history and ask why. Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East? Surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history. If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocon agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity… The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value.” ~ Jew Gilad Atzmon

David Irving, in a speech linked above, can answer some of Mr. Atzmon’s questions.

In Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in particular, the local populations had bitter scores to settle with the Jews, because during the one year when those countries were occupied, from 1940 to 1941, under the Hitler-Stalin pact – they were occupied by the Soviet Union – the NKVD, the secret police, which was the forerunner of the KGB, had occupied those countries with a reign of terror. And using Jewish officers, because the KGB or the NKVD was largely Jewish at that time, they had carried out a rule of liquidation and purge in those three countries, murdering hundreds of thousands of local, middle-class entrepreneurs, the priests, the businessmen, the intellectuals, were rounded up and driven off in the dead of night by these Communists, by the Jewish organizations, and murdered. And a year later, when Hitler’s armies invaded and marched through these countries, they found the local population busy solving the Jewish Problem for them.

You absolutely must watch this documentary, The Last Days of the Big Lie, that dissects various Jew-lies, from black drama queens who have pretended to be camp liberators to the way in which Holohoaxery gave birth to the war that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. It’s a fascinating glimpse into psy-ops on the order of 9/11. Hitler was correct that “the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood can be exploited.” The Big Lie works on our race because it never enters into our minds to tell epic lies, much less to conspire in their service. Therefore, the big lies in which Jews specialize tend to be believed.

One of the best documentaries you’ll see on Holohoaxery is One Third of the Holocaust, a study of the Reinhard camps where 1.5 million were allegedly killed, by diesel exhaust, in minutes at a time. The creator of this video has the audacity to go to the sources of the fiction, where we learn all kinds of interesting scientific facts, like how chimneys bellow fire, and the bodies of women, especially fat women (according to Yechiel Reichman), can be used as kindling to burn the bodies of men. We also learn that the best way to build a fire is a layer of bodies, a layer of wood, a layer of bodies, and a layer of wood. Except that the wood isn’t really needed since bodies burn on their own. Sometimes dried tree branches were used for kindling, according to the liewitnesses, but they also report that the camp perimeter was barbed wire intertwined with tree branches. Yet somehow, the fires raging day and night never caused the fence to ignite, even though it was a mere 14 feet away from the grill made of “old railroad tracks.” Somehow, though Jews themselves managed the burning of oh, let’s say, a quarter billion pounds of wood, and even admit that they smoked cigarettes, not a one of them thought to set flame to the fence and escape. They sure do make good movies about escaping from prison, though.

As for the Nuremberg “trial,” in 218 days and over 1,000 hours of testimony, the Reinhard camps (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor), were discussed for only about 20 minutes. Belzec is mentioned one time, in the 12th volume of the 22 volume set of the court transcript, where there is a sentence fragment referring to a homicidal electrified floor in the bath-house, which never existed. Treblinka, where it is alleged that John Demjanjuk worked, was once alleged by Jews to be the location of homicidal “steam chambers.” These stories have been consigned to Wonderland, where lampshades, soap, and shrunken heads are found.

Tales of the Holohoax, a gift for the serious comics collector.

Jew Abraham Bomba claims to have been one of several barbers at Treblinka who cut the hair of 150 naked women, sitting on 16 benches in a room that measured 12 by 12 feet (later he said 18 by 18 feet). Just picture it. According to Eli Rozenburg, 400 were crammed into this space. Bomba adds that the room was cleared of the bodies in only one minute.

Only about half a million Jews lived in Germany in 1930, making them about 1% of the population. (They were 10% of Poland.) By 1939 many had emigrated, and about 270,000 remained. No more than five million Jews lived in lands that came under German control during the war. About two million of these were absorbed by the Soviet Union during the war. Millions more emigrated to other countries prior to and during the war, but mostly after the war, especially to America and Palestine. It’s interesting that in 1924, Hitler perfectly predicted that if the Jews are ever successful in founding their own Israel, they will not want to go there in large numbers but will take refuge in their host countries like America. But, he said, if they’re ever convicted of crimes, they will take refuge in Israel, from which it will be impossible to extradite them.

Read this excellent article and learn something you might not know: The bloody Brits offered Palestine to the Arabs before they offered it to the Jews, and then reneged on the deal. Until the reniggering, Emir Feisal actually welcomed the Jews, amazingly enough. This goodwill was extended for – get ready for it – racial reasons. Though the two sides were of different religions, Feisal said he was “mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people…” Of course, the arrangement was never going to work, but for a time the Arabs thought they could live in peace with their cousins, with well-established boundaries between them, according to the Balfour Declaration.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

The Arabs are no longer so naive in dealing with Jews, but white people are just as stupid as ever, thinking they can butt into everyone’s business around the world with only positive consequences.

Arab hatred of Jews. Watch the animation at 8:20.

At the Nuremberg “trial,” a great deal was made of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, enforced by Göring, that prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews. (One of the laws prohibited the employment of German women under the age of 45, of child-bearing age.) Of course, this was utter hypocrisy. The Nuremberg Laws were strikingly similar to laws that exist in Israel today which outlaw relations between Jews and Arabs or other foreigners. Even as America led the way in prosecuting the Nuremberg “criminals,” most of our states rightly prohibited marriage between whites and persons of other races. After all, ours used to be a Christian nation.

What more can be said about it? In the words of Mark Twain, “You can’t reason people out of something they weren’t reasoned into.”

“The first Russian premier who faithfully set and carried out the task of Jewish equal status, despite the will of the Tsar, died – was this History’s mockery? – at the hands of a Jew.” ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX approved the order of Louis IX for the burning of 24 cartloads of Talmud volumes, for the reasons that:

1. Rabbinic emphasis on the sanctity of their own oral law nullifies the Law of God found in the Bible
2. The Talmud fosters anti-goy and anti-Christian bigotry
3. The Talmud blasphemes Jesus Christ

The best spoof ever made by The Onion:

An art display created by Palestinian children, depicting the horrors of the Gaza war (2008-2009), is deemed by Jews to be unsuitable for children.

Anyone who could write and think as Elizabeth did could have achieved prominence, but that would have required her to bow to convention. Instead, she did that old-fashioned thing now so rare it comes almost as a shock; she put principle first.

She will be greatly missed, and the sting is made worse by the knowledge that those of her own people who ought to miss her the most are unaware that she even existed. But we know it, and as avid readers of Wright over the years, we’ve collected some favorite quotes of our own.

If a “racist” is someone who prefers the company of members of his own ethnic group as opposed to others, why isn’t this an individual choice that a true conservative would endorse? Apparently it is not, for such a person, no matter how benignly he expresses his preference, is generally attacked by conservatives just as belligerently as liberals. After all, doesn’t he understand that rejection of others might result in “hurt” feelings? And isn’t it “feelings” that count over individual rights?

Is a “sexist” someone who rejects the notion that Nature made the two sexes equal? The rejection of this notion was, until very recently, a foundation stone of conservatism….

[T]he only reason that the word “colored” has been tinged with the charge of “racism” is because the left/multiculturalists discovered that they could make Whitey jump through hoops by denigrating any term they chose, and claiming that a new one is in order. There was no ignominy attached to the word when ordinary blacks used it to refer to themselves. It is only when the clever elites learned that they could use it as yet another bludgeon against whites, along with a host of other words and terminologies, that it was given a “racist” meaning…

[Rand] Paul felt the need to reassure us that he is not a racist by revealing that he gets emotional and weepy when listening to a Martin Luther King Jr. speech. That may tell us something about his vulnerable mental state, but nothing else…

Even as other groups gradually dispossess them in the country whose political system was constructed by their forebears, conservative Whites persist in their obstinate assertion that their apparent discontent is “not about race.” What hogwash. Of course it’s about race and culture. Why shouldn’t it be? No matter how assiduously they deny it, resentment is growing over the ever-looming fact that this country, due to swiftly altering demographics, will no longer be the product of those Founders…

The media and academia are escalating the negrification of American culture and the feminization of its men, while teaching new generations to care more about strangers in foreign lands than for their own. Where can this possibly lead? Black elites now see power on the horizon that they never dreamed possible, and they’re going to go for it all. The real culture war is just getting under way, and so many whites do not even realize it…

How is it possible to win the respect of others if you produce nothing?…

Who started the lie that the Founders of this nation expended their energies in order to create a haven for the rescue of the world’s displaced populations? Did it come about chiefly from cynical 19th century industrialists eager only for cheap labor, who sought to soften their true motives by wrapping them in sentimental bombast?…

Why it would be normal behavior for any group of men who have been dominant in their society to allow themselves voluntarily to be displaced is never a subject for discussion by [the] arbiters of castration politics…

I ask what the likelihood is that any group would form a nation for a people other than their own kind. Why would these men not desire to retain the cultural integrity of their lineage? Other than today’s self-consciously de-racinating whites, what people do not possess this very preference? Would the Hutu be likely to expend their energies to develop a society to benefit alien tribes and foreigners? Would the Tamil? Those who claim that the world has now moved beyond ethnocentric loyalty, or ought to, might do well to take a look at the real world…

In their quest for power and prestige among whites, black elites help to unravel the bonds of the black community… [Booker T.] Washington claimed that as soon as some black men “halfway learn to read and write,” they grabbed a Bible and ran to open a church, or they took to the political stump. Or they did both. He viewed this behavior as setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the race. For, instead of playing economically productive roles, as did their counterparts in other ethnic groups, such men removed themselves from the critical task of economic development. As solo operators, and heads of their own little private church entities, they thus avoided the risks of economic competition with other men… From early on, there were blacks expressing the concern that every time a black man built a church, instead of a business, he established his own personal “cathedral of commerce,” to benefit himself and a few others…

As a faithful follower of the agendas set by white liberals [Jews], there is no reason to believe that King would not have joined with those who are responsible for encouraging the almost daily appearance of a new group of people who style themselves as “victims”…

[S]lavery is the price I paid for civilization…

I am not fooled by the “diversity” folk into believing that the institutions of this society will be preserved and honored by those who happen to share my gene pool… The multicultural ideologues…make it clear that they view these institutions with contempt. They are working for nothing less than total control…

When these people [minorities] come to power, their major aim will be to institute their Enlightenment policies in all quarters of society. I have heard them refer to liberties such as freedom of speech as no more than jive-ass claptrap. I predict that once in power they will actually create laws to impose interracial unions in order to finally bring about the raceless dream society. He who insists on union with his own kind will be dubbed an intractable racist and sent off for further reeducation… [There is] no deep-seated heartfelt opposition to this trend except among white Southrons. Other types of conservatives talk tough until an epithet is hurled their way. Then they fold… Who is most likely to fight the hardest to maintain and conserve this extraordinary experiment in freedom? Who else but the actual descendents of those founders…. That means you, white Southrons. Once you lay down the sword, that will be the end of resistance. I view the battle as one that can be only accomplished by white Southerners. I would think that most whites would want to be among the last who would destroy that which came out of the genius of their own ancestors. So if a white South would guarantee the preservation of those institutions, then let’s have a white South.

She truly was a modern-day representative of the doctrine of Booker T. Washington. I don’t know of anyone who will step up to fill her role.

The states in which blacks are most likely to be on welfare relative to the population. The answers might surprise you.

“A person dependent on somebody else for everything from potatoes to opinions may declare that he is a free man, and his government may issue a certificate granting him his freedom, but he will not be free… How can he be free if he can do nothing for himself?… Men are free precisely to the extent that they are equal to their own needs. The most able are the most free.” ~ Wendell Berry, A Continuous Harmony, p. 124

Listen to R.J. Rushdoony and Otto Scott discuss the problem of envy and what it has meant for our people in dealing with perpetual dependents.

At 5:50:

Rush: Over the years I’ve encountered numerous examples when people have been envious, and bitterly so, because someone else who they feel is not as intelligent or not as capable as they are has a better job, a better income, a better wife, better children, you name it. Somehow, that’s wrong. They have no right to excel, they have no right to be better than anyone else. And this kind of hostility has thoroughly warped our society, and as a result we have many, many groups who feel that they’re justified in being envious. I believe it’s a very, very important part of racial conflict…

Scott: It’s really a retrogression to the primitive. The old idea, let’s say the pre-revolutionary idea of society, was of inequality under both the king and God. It was understood that people were unequal, that their situations were unequal, their responsibilities were unequal, their authority was unequal, and that their talents were unequal. Now, to some extent, we could simply soften that by saying “different.” People are differently equipped. Some are advanced in certain areas and deficient in others, and so on. So there is an uneven profile, you might say, which affects all humanity. But never, before the French Revolution, have men risen up to lead the masses on the argument not that they will make men rich, but that they will stop others from becoming rich. From the French Revolution until today, envy has been the single appeal, the single dominant approach of all the revolutionaries. Socialism is based on envy.

At 15:32:

Rush: When people turn envy into a virtue, they cease to be responsible. Instead of doing something to correct their condition, they say somebody else is responsible for their condition. And as a result, they begin to hate, and they turn their hate into social action, legislation. And we have today, in both parties, a strong vein of envy legislated…

Scott: He said that one of the reasons why the black tribes of Africa had not advanced was that, in order to advance, one person has to do something better than other people, and when the other people see that it works, they begin to imitate it. But the envious will not accept that. They feel that, for instance, if one farmer got a bigger harvest than all the rest, the others would say he put a curse on us to keep our crops below his. So therefore any effort to get ahead of the other fellow is an insult. You’re trying to put him down…you’re trying to get ahead of him. So nobody gets ahead, and when nobody gets ahead, there is no progress. And the primitive tribes therefore froze everything that they did at a certain level. And it stayed that way from time immemorial.

Scott shows here that what whites tend to perceive as black racial solidarity is not really as strong as it appears. They are not bound as brothers. Their perceived solidarity is born of envy, and is a unified reaction to white hegemony. Take away whites as the “evil oppressors,” and black unity dries up, and they regress.

Now, what’s happening to us? Innovation is declining in the United States; innovation in thought, innovation in expression, innovation even in the areas where it is supposedly encouraged, in scientific effort. Because there is a subliminal acceptance of the idea of magic, the idea that you don’t have to do anything to improve. If everything around you falls, you will somehow be bettered, but yet you don’t grow in stature because the other fellow is taller and you don’t like it. You can cut him off at the knees, and it’s still not going to increase your stature.

Rushdoony quotes from Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora that “envy is no more than the anxiety and impatience of a man who sees and acknowledges himself as inferior to another,” that it is the affliction of impotence, is anti-social, anti-solidarity, and is a perversion of charity.

Quoting de la Mora:

The opposite of envy is the communion of the saints, a fellowship in terms of a common faith, a common life. Envy isolates people, and instead of the communion of the saints, instead of community of any sort, you have an anti-community impetus. You have a hostility directed at everyone from a position of isolation, because the envious man is not content to be at peace with anyone.

Otto Scott adds: “The envious feels entitled to do anything injurious to you that comes into his mind…”

At 24:09 is the following exchange:

Rush: We live in a world in which no one preaches against envy, neither in the church nor out of the church. It is regarded as altogether natural to be envious.

Scott: Well, it’s promoted, it’s encouraged, but it is true that you don’t hear sermons about it. I don’t really know what the church today sermonizes against. When we really come to it, all sins seem to have shriveled down to racism. Beyond that, there is no sin.

Rush: Yes, that’s very good. That is about the only sin that is left. And that’s an odd thing to choose as a sin because one of the characteristics of people all over the world has been a preference for their own. People prefer their own families, they prefer their own nationality or their own race, which is entirely legitiimate as long as they don’t abuse and mistreat others. I believe that the world has seen more racism in this century than ever before precisely because we are trying to equalize everything, and we’re trying to obscure the differences, and say they don’t exist. And when you do that, you’re going to create a situation where there will be a bootlegged and resentful recognition of differences…

Scott: The whole idea of a civilized society is based on the idea of mutual respect. But respect is one thing; a denial of reality is something else. If, in order to get along or to placate, we have to pretend that everyone has the same intellect and intelligence, the same ability, then we have downgraded all intelligence and all ability…

Rush: Well, by obscuring the fact of differences, what we have done is to create a climate in which any awareness of reality is gone.

Scott: Well, it’s dishonest.

Rush: Yes, you’re not living in a real world if you don’t recognize differences and say he’s better than I am, he’s of another color, and he or she is not as good as I am in this particular field…

Scott: Well, I had that conversation with the sales manager of the magazine I was with. He said, I was raised to believe that I was as good as anybody. Weren’t you? I said no, I wasn’t. He said he was surprised. He said, well, how were you raised? I said I was raised to think that we were better than some and not as good as others. And I still think that’s true.

Rush: Yes, yes, that was very much a part of our training in our generation.

Scott: Well, now of course, it’s forbidden to say that you’re better than anybody else. That is an evil thought in the popular jargon…

Rush: Yes, well as I said, when you will not allow reality to govern your thinking, you’re going to live in a world of hypocrisy, and that hypocrisy will increase year by year in a more and more warped society. And I believe that the envious character of our society, its anti-racialism, its hypocrisy in one sphere after another, is leading to more and more dislocations, because reality is not allowed to impinge upon our world…

At 35:58:

Scott: There were ethnic identifications, but they were identifications, and they were not invidious. Although [today it is believed that the] language that was used in the 1920s and 1930s [was] insulting and evidence of great ethnic hostility, it was not true. The language was used affectionately. Many of these nicknames were considered harmless. They were used by the people themselves. I recall, in my mother’s family of working-class Irish, when all the Irish in the New York area called themselves donkeys, and were so known, and didn’t think anything of it. The whole idea of the affection that existed between black and white in the United States a generation or more ago is now denied of ever having existed. But it did exist, and there was a lot of affection.

Rush: Yes, Well, our society is being divided by envy. And envy continues to divide a society progressively until it destroys it. And today, envy is institutionalized in every country in the world. There isn’t one that today, in some form or another, has not passed legislation that makes envy somehow legitimate in one sphere or another.

“Demagogues appeal to envy because its universality makes potential victims of all the people, and because the invincible inequality of our own personal capabilities and of the irremediable limitation of many social goods makes it inevitable that the majority will feel inferior to certain minorities. The promotion of this envious feeling of inferiority is the dominant political tactic, at least in the present age. The demagogic promotion of envy, as with everything else that refers to this unpublishable feeling, is not carried out in public but under cover. A contemporary disguise of collective envy is what is called ‘social justice.’ How does this ideological and derivative argumentation run? A fundamental postulate is established that the more just a society is, the more equal its members are in opportunities, position, and wealth; and immediately it is established the party will fight without rest to achieve such justice. The appeal of this axiom and of such a program is evidently unbeatable for the envious, since it promises to abolish the unassimilated inferiority that causes them so much pain. Quality is a paradisiacal promise for the envious—the definitive incentive.” ~ Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, Egalitarian Envy; The Political Foundations of Social Justice, p. 93

Speak of the devil:

The MLK monument cost $120 million to erect, but not without paying almost $800,000 in licensing fees to the King family for the right to use his quotes. This sudden concern for intellectual property is funny, seeing as how a Boston University committee found that that 45% of the first part and 21% of the second part of King’s doctoral dissertation was plagiarized, not to mention the “I Have a Dream” speech and other writings. Yet to keep their own jobs, the committee insisted that “no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.” Oh, of course not. Perish the very thought.

Jackie Kennedy called MLK “tricky,” “terrible,” a “phony,” and said she could barely stand to look at him. She accused him of “calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy,” as the FBI also knew. (The purpose of the “civil rights” revolution was to make it easier for black men to score with white women.) Comes now Jackie’s daughter, Caroline, to say yes, but “she admired him tremendously.” Obviously, Caroline still hopes for a career of some sort.

King’s legacy: In Washington, DC, student enrollment increased by almost 119,000 from 1995 to 2010. Of these, only about 1,000 were white (less than 1%).

I don’t think any of us saw this coming: Obama’s “hip hop charter school” has wasted $700,000 and has nothing to show for it. It fits nicely with the rest of Obama’s achievements.

Headline of the year: “Obama’s Uncle Omar Arrested Outside the Chicken Bone Saloon.” Does the man have any relatives who are not illegal aliens?

Obama voters for whom English is a second language. It reminds me that Koko the gorilla was able to use sign language to ask for candy.

The National Bureau for Economic Research has found that students are more likely to stay in classes and earn higher grades if they have instructors of their own race or ethnicity. That dripping noise you hear is the Rev. Dr. King weeping over the fact that judgments are still not being made solely on the basis of character.

“African American people who identify more strongly with their racial identity are generally happier, according to a study led by psychology researchers at Michigan State University.” But heaven forbid that whites should be considered happier for identifying more strongly with their racial identity. That would be downright racist.

The only kind of public art that is now allowed to express masculinity must depict Negro advancement. They call white art of this kind “fascist.”

Whenever blacks and mestizos attack white people, the news reports invariably say it was “unclear as to what their motivation was.” It’s never a hate crime unless one of the whites who was attacked is later found to be a fag.

Another reason why you want to live in an all-white area.

So even the blacks who are not in the mobs excuse those who are. How would you like to be one of these store owners and know that there is no community, because everyone around you feels entitled to steal what is yours? Spike Lee made a movie about this, called Do the Right Thing, in which the heroes are the vandals and arsonists. Very few blacks understand the meaning of community. Again, their apparent racial solidarity is a reaction against what they call white “racism,” which is actually natural inequality. But if you go to where there are no whites present, like in Africa, you see black “community” for what it is: every man for himself.

James Edwards reviews The Help, which is the latest Jew-fantasy out of Hollywood “depicting the benighted South before the triumph of liberalism.” There is a Jew-happy ending as the “stoic, long-suffering blacks imbued with both homespun wisdom and impeccable moral rectitude” vanquish the evil, white, Southern system of racism and usher in a new era of Equality. Then Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to the alien spacecraft, saving the world. Or something.

Gary DeMar reviews the movie too, and he reveals himself yet again to be a South-hating, white-hating lickspittle. We should write a booklet called Gary DeMar’s Madness. He calls the Jew-propaganda “tremendous” and “powerful,” and bemoans the fact that “supposedly church-going Christians [had] these attitudes towards blacks.” Notice the word “supposedly,” which is meant to convey the idea that Southern Christians in the 1960s who were kind enough to employ blacks, and were quite fond of them, but didn’t want them to become relatives, were not really Christians at all, or were living in sin. Surely Gary realizes that Southern white Christians agreed with countless generations of Christians who preceded them, and yet he doesn’t use the word “supposedly” when surmising the salvation of our church fathers and the great men and women of American and European history.

Gary waxes indignant about the “oppression” that “overwhelmed” blacks during the sixties, but the only example he cites is that a bathroom was built outside for one maid because the family didn’t want her to use the bathrooms indoors. Horrible racism! Wicked spite! Especially when you see how clean and well-groomed the black folks are in this fair and balanced appraisal of Jew-history. No horrific odors from lack of bathing! No diseases!

Southerners are used to being lectured by tools like DeMar, who admits that he never grew up around blacks, doesn’t currently employ one, and probably knows no more than one or two at church. He is a brazen hypocrite, but that’s not the worst of it. He is also a liar, because he knows that the white Christians in question had good reasons for the rules that were enforced to make interracial relationships tolerable. Even today, black women are 23 times more likely than white women to have AIDS. Black women have two-thirds of all new AIDS cases among women. Blacks have two-thirds of all AIDS cases reported for teenagers. Blacks are 7 times more likely than whites to have chlamydia, 5 times more likely to have syphilis, and 16 times more likely to have congenital syphilis. So Gary can feign outrage at “racism” all he likes, but he doesn’t want blacks sitting on his toilet seat either. What an affected, lying, hypocritical bag of mashed-up jackass meat. If it is now a crime to prevent diseases from entering your private bathroom then doctors should apologize to patients for wearing latex gloves.

It’s funny when, in the midst of his movie review, Gary gets worked up because blacks had to “go literally across the tracks into the northern suburbs of Jackson, Mississippi” to find a job. They didn’t just have to suffer the indignity of crossing the tracks, they had to literally cross the tracks! I’m sure the rest of us could never relate to the humiliation of waking up in the morning and actually going to where the jobs are.

At 32:22 in this talk, following a good conversation about Thomas Sowell, Otto Scott says:

The old definition of the word “discrimination” was choice. It was never expected that the right of choice would become illegal in the private sector.

Or in private bathrooms.

Read Gen5′s excellent article on moderate Northerners during the War who opposed disunion but advocated white ethnostates. It’s a shame that the North had lunatics like Lincoln and the bankers representing their interests rather than these men. For those of us who defend slavery on biblical grounds, this article is a needful reminder that what is lawful is not always prudent. African slavery was possibly the worst idea ever hatched by our race, and we’re still paying the price. In retrospect, the desire to halt the spread of slavery to the West was not at all unreasonable, and if Southern elites had not been so dependent on this institution that was forced upon them by the king, more than one half million of our best men, North and South, might not have been destroyed.

Just as the state may legitimately prevent a refinery from dumping known toxins like benzene into a common body of water, it also has the right to prevent pollution of the body politic upon which the entire basis of law and society partially depends…

A great strength and weakness of Southern character is that of pride, sometimes sinful and sometimes not, but never amenable to being told what to do. The thought of these lapsed Calvinist Yankee hypocrites – these heretics who deny the Divinity of Christ – whose own ancestors were the lawbreaking man-stealers who created the slavery problem, telling the South that its entire way of life was an abomination – this was truly unbearable.

Dabney, who was a great defender of slavery, believed that the South was punished for its sins; not the “secular sin” of slavery, but perhaps the entire system of usury that surrounded the slave market.

Note that slave family separations, while occasionally the intention of callous and cruel masters, were mostly initiated by creditors possessing a bankrupted estate, who legally had to auction every slave to the highest bidder. Like all farmers for all history, the Southern planters got excited by high crop prices, which resulted in overinvestment funded by debt, then oversupply, then a collapse in prices followed by a liquidation of assets by creditors of the most overextended estates.

Like Gen5, my love for South Carolina runs as deep as my roots in that state, ”the last aristocratic republic of the 18th century.” The problem was that the men of South Carolina thought they could reproduce English feudalism with African savages as the peasant class. As James Edwards likes to say, you can’t have a First World nation with a Third World population. It was not good enough that the Negroes were merely subservient. Though the gentlemen of South Carolina “can be seen as noble but quixotic reactionaries who were the last vestiges of feudalism against the dehumanizing wave of materialistic modernism,” biology got in the way.

Gen5 explains in just three points why the South failed, and why the empire that conquered it is currently failing to compete:

1. Blacks are definitively materially better off under white rule.
2. As a consequence of #1, blacks will have higher fecundity than whites. Less intelligent, less responsible individuals will always have more children, lacking the self-control to voluntarily limit births. White medical care guaranteed that more of these children would survive to adulthood than white children.
3. The reliance on cheap labor distorts the economy and begets more and more demand for additional cheap labor, a race to the bottom demographically.

The deracinated “Christian” of our time responds that we need to support as many births as possible, naturalize the parents, and adopt the children if they’re not wanted. They treat “pro-lifeism” as an idol. But is the “rescue” of a small number of blacks, to our own harm, really necessary when the science of the white man has elevated Ethiopian life expectancy by 87% in the last 90 years?

White people should consider this carefully: when Africans are now only 90 years behind the Western world (in terms of quality of life), is it really necessary to continue this destructive rescue fantasy where we ruin our own homelands to “save” (and morally corrupt through welfare) a tiny sliver of the Third World?

The task at hand is the self-preservation of European peoples with ethnostates in their historic homelands: Europe, Russia, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, and at least parts of South Africa if possible. We will gladly grant to every other people their place under the sun according to God’s ordained order if our own sovereignty is respected.

Burn that last sentence into your brain. Fellowship is conditional. Good will and respect are not free; they must be earned. As Kevin Strom once said: “Respect White existence or expect White resistance.” Seven little words to remember.

‎”If we do not defend ourselves, none will defend us; if we yield, we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit, we will be trampled underfoot.” ~ John C. Calhoun

Gen5′s comments on admixture are very interesting. We all know the age-old charge against Southern slaveowners of running harems on their plantations. If this were so, it would have resulted in a heavily-mulatto slave population.

Under the most damning set of assumptions for Southern masters, let us pretend that miscegenation has been constant for all of American black history. If we take the year 1700 as the year for the average full-blooded African to arrive in America, and assume the average age of childbirth was 20, we calculate that there have been 15.55 generations of blacks in America. To calculate the average admixture per generation, we only have to raise the inverse proportion of white blood to the inverse power of the number of generations, so (1-0.175)^(1/15.55) = 0.9878 and subtract the result from 1, which leaves us an average admixture per generation of about 1.2%. Since we know most of this miscegenation has taken place since 1900, and on an even more accelerated basis since 1950, these Southern masters were some of the most chaste slave-owning patriarchs in history, which makes sense because of the genetic distance between Europeans and Africans, and the effects of that on mutual attraction between white men and black women (compare by contrast the numerous and frequent pairing with concubines and servants in the Old Testament when both masters and slaves were from genetically similar groups). Also note how liberal rhetoric changed: before the War, racist slavery was said to cause miscegenation, whereas 100 years after the War racism was held to prevent miscegenation, now promoted as a positive good.

By Jove, I like the cut of his jib. Gen5 is a drop-everything writer. Whenever you see that he has written something new, you have to drop everything and read it. You just have to hope that you’re not carrying your bride across the threshold when your phone chimes with a feed alert.

This snippet about the deplorable state of mulatto women was printed in the New York Times in 1874.

“Q. 37. Is it lawful to buy and use men as slaves? A. It is a great mercy accidentally for those of Guinea, Brazil and other lands, to be brought among Christians, though it be as slaves: but it is a sin in those that sell and buy them as beasts, merely for commodity, and use them accordingly: but to buy them in compassion to their souls, as well as for their service, and then to sell them only to such as will use them charitably like men, and to employ them as aforesaid, preferring their salvation, is a lawful thing, especially such as sell themselves, or are sold as malefactors.” ~ Richard Baxter (Puritan), from Vol. XIX of his 23 volume set of Practical Works, p. 210

Generation5 on interracial and transracial adoption. Remember the Vision Forum types who spared no expense to fly to Haiti after the earthquake and kidnap black children to bring them to America and raise them as Oreos? Read about the 29 Makeni children, who were stolen from their families during a civil war in Sierra Leone in 1998. You can see that the circumstances were very similar to the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, with desperate parents wanting their children to be taken to safety but not realizing that evangelical “Christian” lunatics wanted to take their children from them permanently because they think that God has called them to build the kingdom by mixing races.

The families have repeatedly insisted that no one mentioned adoption. Nor would they necessarily have expected anyone to. In their culture, as in many traditional cultures, it is common to exchange children informally but not permanently; as one birth father told me through an interpreter, adoption was not even a word in his vocabulary. In parts of Asia and Africa, moreover, child-welfare centers frequently serve as temporary child-care centers, boarding schools, medical facilities, and feeding centers, even for children who have families…

“But how can they adopt a kid if I didn’t give them that kid?” Suma asked, incredulous. “We agreed that they could educate our kids. At the time they were adopted, there was no official judicial system; everything had fallen apart. They weren’t adopted; they were sold.”

A very good comment from our friend Kevin:

Speaking for myself and not all Kinists I would agree [that race is an extended family] to a degree but I would go a little farther to define race scientifically and genetically as different phenotypes. I’m no scientist and I’m no expert in genetics but I believe that it is very obvious in nature that God does some awesome work with genetics and DNA.

I have two dogs. I have a Cairn Terrier and a Beagle. The Terrier is a hairball of energy and activity and doesn’t meet a stranger. He’s also feisty and tough and very excitable. These are the traits of a Cairn Terrier. The Beagle is calm. She is a natural born hunter. She lives outside and loves it. She comes home with a rabbit in her mouth once in a while and more often than not she likes to be left alone.

Human races are similar to dog breeds in that they have different genetic makeups that give much of the information as to how they will be. This doesn’t dehumanize people in any way in my opinion. I’m not saying that we are as low as animals and I believe (of course) that we are made in the image of God. On the other hand, we don’t need to get too high and mighty as far as what we are on this earth. We eat like animals, we kill like animals (to eat), etc. And like animals, we have different genetic makeups. This doesn’t mean that all Negroes are exactly like other Negroes or all Whites are like other Whites, etc. But it does mean that you will find many physical, mental, emotional and behavioral traits that are common in races.

“Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass. Moses says that Anah was the author of this connection. But I do not consider this as said in praise of his industry; for the Lord has not in vain distinguished the different kinds of animals from the beginning. But since the vanity of the flesh often solicits the children of this world, so that they apply their minds to superfluous matters, Moses marks this unnatural pursuit in Anah, who did not think it sufficient to have a great number of animals; but he must add to them a degenerate race produced by unnatural intercourse. Moreover, we learn hence, that there is more moderation among brute animals in following the law of nature, than in men, who invent vicious admixtures.” ~ John Calvin on Genesis 36:24

“Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you.” ~ Job 12:7

Notice that John Calvin, in this quote, directly associates miscegenation with adultery, and therefore tags miscegenation as a violation of the Seventh Commandment.

Harry Seabrook sent the following to a reader who disputed some of his arguments regarding adultery:

Adultery (moicheuo) was defined in my letter as: “Of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” This is taken from Kittel’s original Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), where you will find the words “ausch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen” (“mixing of man and beast, or a mixture of different races”). The translation to English by Bromiley has been bowdlerized. Kittel undoubtedly believed that interracial “marriage” is adulteration.

I believe we can also gather from Scripture that adultery is not simply cheating on a spouse. In Hosea 5, it is said that the tribe of Ephraim has been defiled by playing the harlot. Whoredom here is zanah, which means to commit adultery or idolatry. The result of the whoredom is the begetting of strange children, where “strange” is zuwr, meaning the product of adultery. This relates to the problem faced by Ezra and Nehemiah, where the subsequent separation of the mixed multitude was on lineal and not merely confessional grounds, as you know. In other words, the Babylonians and mixed children were sent away because they were Babylonians by blood, not because they failed to pass a covenantal litmus test, such as a confessional recitation or proof of circumcision.

Extra-biblical sources support the concept of illicit intercourse being an adulteration of the bloodline. For example:

“While children mostly resemble their parents or their ancestors, it sometimes happens that no such resemblance is to be traced. But parents may pass on resemblance after several generations, as in the case of the woman in Elis, who committed adultery with a negro; in this case it was not the woman’s own daughter but the daughter’s child that was a blackamoor.” ~ Aristotle, Historia Animalium, Book XII.6

I like Ehud’s definition of adultery: the mixture of those things which are by nature, religion, covenant, culture, or kind, separate. It fits nicely with the sadly relevant question of how two faggots are to be divorced if adultery and desertion are the only biblically permissible grounds for divorce. They can be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sinful behavior, but how can their legal union be annulled if there is not a biblical reason to separate parties that should not be joined? The same rule could be applied to incest. If a man has legally married his mother, how can the church persuade the state to annul it or to enforce the death penalty if not on the grounds of adultery?

You asked for the source of the Hebrew word miyn, or “kind” in Genesis 1, as to “sort out or portion.” This is taken from Strong’s #4327: “to portion out; a sort, i.e. species.” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also defines it as a species.

You asked for the Hebrew source of Noah being perfect in his generations “in a non-covenantal sense.” This is a misunderstanding. I affirm that Noah being a “perfect” (meaning “complete”) Sethite in his generations is connected to his being a perfect covenant-keeper. I don’t know of anyone who takes this to mean that Noah did not sin, but rather that he lived unblemished by the corruptions of his age. The primary corruption of his age is made clear in the first verse of chapter 6, which is that Sethites were intermarrying with Cainites. God’s judgment on the miscegenation was the Flood, and Noah and his family were spared because they had remained pure. Noah’s righteousness by faith (Heb. 11:7) was intimately connected to being a complete Sethite in his generations.

The Barnes Commentary for Genesis 6 supports this:

It is probable, moreover, that he was of pure descent, and in that respect also distinguished from his contemporaries who were the offspring of promiscuous intermarriage between the godly and the ungodly. “Noah walked with God,” like Henok [Enoch].

You asked for the source of “Gentile” as “those who belong to a specific clan or tribe that excludes all foreigners from membership.” I confess that I did not phrase this well. The definition is my own, and by it I mean that citizenship is by nature exclusive. I also mean that the Gentile nations and the Hebrew nation were formed in the same way, as one or more tribes of common ancestry. Babel and the empires foretold in Daniel are, if I’m not mistaken, the only examples to be found in the Bible of pseudo-nations formed by ideology or military might. This is also what we have in America today.

Numbers 36 allows for intertribal marriage only if it is accompanied by a permanent loss of property, which would make such marriages extremely rare. It stands to reason that this rule would also apply to international marriages, and there would be no such thing as dual citizenship. I can find no biblical examples of marriages that are both international and interracial.

You also dispute the following references from Ehud’s blog:

The word “Illegitimate” in Deut. 23:2 used to be translated “Bastard.” In the Septuagint (Greek) the word is “Nothos,” meaning generally, “a mongrel.” So too did the Vulgate (Latin) use the related term “Nothus,” meaning “a mongrel.” And in the Masoretic text (Hebrew) it is “Mamzer,” meaning, among other things, “a mongrel.”

The word mamzer (Strong’s #4464) appears twice in the Old Testament, once in Deut. 23:2 and again in Zech. 9:6. The Barnes Commentary defines mamzer as “one born unlawfully, whether out of marriage, or in forbidden marriage, or in adultery.” Clarke’s Commentary more accurately defines it as “the offspring of an illegitimate or incestuous mixture,” not merely one who is born out of wedlock. Consider Jephthah, who was the son of a harlot (Judges 11:1-2) and therefore a bastard, but was not a mamzer, or a mongrel. He was allowed to enter the congregation and serve as a Judge for six years. It would seem, therefore, that the KJV’s interpretation of the word as “bastard” is not as accurate as the NIV’s reference to a “forbidden marriage.” For some reason, the NASB translates the word as “illegitimate” in Deut. 23:2 but as “mongrel” in Zech. 9:6. It’s the same Hebrew word, mamzer, used in both places. The latter is clearly a more accurate translation because these people were never to enter the congregation (Neh. 13:1). Unlike Noah, they were not complete in their generations.

The same thing that happened in the Kittel-Bromiley translation is happening here. Words lose their meaning to make them more politically palatable (i.e., diversity-friendly), and when the bowdlerization has had enough time to work its way through cross-referential sources, someone posts it to Wikipedia, complete with footnotes, as the consensus definition. (Here’s an article about Wikipedia’s troubling and inventive history with the word “macaca.”)

You dispute this passage from Matthew Henry’s commentary on Lev. 19:

“Here is, I. A law against mixtures, v. 19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen. i. 25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Eccl. iii. 14. As what God has joined we must not separate; so what he has separated, we must not join.” [Deut.32:8]

This is an exact quote. As we’re told in 1 Cor. 9:9-10, this law chiefly concerns human relations. Some additional insight on what Henry means by “monsters” is found in his commentary on Proverbs 30:

In every age there are monsters of ingratitude who ill-treat their parents. Many persuade themselves they are holy persons, whose hearts are full of sin, and who practise secret wickedness. There are others whose lofty pride is manifest. There have also been cruel monsters in every age.

Ehud links Henry’s quote to the legal definition of “monster” found in a passage from Sir William Blackstone that you dispute:

A monster…hath no heritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage… But our law will not admit a birth of this kind to be such an issue as shall entitle the husband to be tenant by the courtesy; because it is not capable of inheriting. And therefore, if there appears no other heir than such a prodigious birth, the land shall escheat to the lord.

This is taken from Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law, Vol. II, Ch. XV. Sources here and here. See here for more on what Blackstone means by this. He writes that there are five methods for acquiring a title to property, and bastards, monsters, and aliens are excluded from the possibility.

He defines a monster as that “which hath not the shape of mankind, but in any part evidently bears the resemblance of the brute creation…but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape it may be heir. This is a very ancient rule in the law of England; and its reason is too obvious and too shocking to bear a minute discussion.”

As I understand it, Siamese twins would be included in this category, as would hermaphrodites or those with acquired or congenital deformities. Ehud’s point is that by combining the Blackstone and Henry quotes, one could imply that a child could be classified as a monster whose resemblance so differs from his parents that he must be the product of extramarital relations. By morphology, he would fit the profile of “spurious brood” without rights of inheritance.

“If a body left out overnight defiles a land, how much more so man’s abusive use of the soil, his contempt of God’s creation, and his attempt to hybridize and mingle what God ordained to be separate?” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1

“Because we have separated faith and the land…faith and possession of the earth…Christianity has ceased to be a biblical faith and has become a type of ‘bubblehead spirituality.’ But all through the Bible, faith and the land are tied closely together.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, from his lecture God and Government (Deuteronomy)

“The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony

Australia is now issuing passports that have three options for sex: male, female, or indeterminate. Why only three?

What in blackest hell is all this?

The Moderator is a retired public and private school teacher who has been married to AfroAm, MexAm, EuroAm and AsianAm ladies and has three wonderful and grown AfroAm-IndiAm-EuroAm daughters and two wonderful MexAm sons-in-law.

And let’s be honest, you shouldn’t marry centaurs either.

A record-high 86% approve of black-white “marriage,” which is almost a reversal of the rate of disapproval 60 years ago. That’s what people are saying in public, anyway. Their private lives tell a different story, as interracial pairing is extremely rare on online dating sites.

1879:

1884:

1885:

1900:

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” ~ Aristotle

Listen again to Rushdoony at 12:38 in this sermon called “The Tents of Shem”:

The term equality, therefore, does not fit a concrete, a real world. It is valid in economics. It is valid in a world of abstractions. The biblical idea is one of vocation and of calling. And the Scripture make abundantly clear that God gives diverse gifts. To some He gives one kind of talent and to others another. And we have no right to be dissatisfied with what God has given us, either individually or racially. Second, we must say that not only does Scripture assert that there are differences between peoples. We must add that natural differences exist and are obvious to all. Different races have different endowments. Accordingly, heredity is important. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches us to despise heredity. Does not the Bible, for example, make clear that genealogical records are kept, that these records are important? That, for example, after the exile, Nehemiah barred from the congregation those who were of mixed blood; such people could not enter in immediately. Heredity does make a difference. And we must remember, not in pride but in humility, that we are different, by the grace of God, because we represent people with 1500 to 2000 years of Christianity behind us. And the effect, the impact of this, is tremendous…

On the other hand, if you take such a people as the Negroes, you find that their background in Africa through countless centuries is one of savagery. No culture was ever produced there. The only kind of life was one of “eat, drink, and get all the stuff you can today because tomorrow you may be dead, you may be in the pot.” And so there was no premium on character or honesty…but only on physical dexterity and killing and escaping being killed. Can untold centuries of this type of living do anything but produce a particular society? It would be the height of folly to deny this. And certainly, everything we know from character and extensive testing does indicate a greatly inferior intelligence, although often a superior physical dexterity on the part of African people.

Clearly, Rushdoony disagreed with the vast majority of neo-Christians today who believe that genetics are inconsequential, and faith is all that matters for “being all you can be.” His colorblind followers know it and hate it. Look back on this thread, where John Lofton splits a gourd at the thought of Rushdoony believing that genetics are effectual. Then he backpedals, claiming that he only meant that Rushdoony never used the word “genetics.” But he only had to read a few paragraphs down the page to see that this was false.

“The modern liberal is very fond of idealizing the various backward peoples of the world, and he consistently portrays the Christian as the despoiler and the ravager of the simple paradise of ‘primitive’ cultures. Our concern here is not with the sexual and other depravities of these cultures, but simply their attitude towards work. It needs to be said, however, that the various idealizations of these backward cultures are works of fiction.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Salvation and Godly Rule

‎”In orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, the problem of the one and the many is resolved. Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The temporal unity and plurality is on a basis of equal validity. There is thus no basic conflict between the individual and the community. The individual lives in community, and the community flourishes as the individual finds himself and grows in terms of consistently Christian faith. Instead of a basic philosophical hostility between individual and government, believer and church, person and family, there is a necessary co-existence. Neither the one nor the many is reducible to the other. They cannot seek obliteration of the other, for it involves self-obliteration. The Augustinian and Calvinistic faith, by its hostility to subordinationism, holds, if developed, the possibilities of true social order, and, to the extent that Augustinianism and Calvinism have been followed, Western culture has developed both freedom and order.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

One could easily add that there is no conflict between race and faith, contrary to the claims of the Alienists. Distinct races may dwell in the Church, and the Church flourishes as races and tribes grow in faith, at their own pace, equally yoked.

“The question which haunts the dialectical culture is this: how to have unity without totally undifferentiated and meaningless oneness? If all things are basically one, the differences are meaningless, divisions false, and definitions are sophistications, in that the tyranny, or destiny, of oneness is the truth of all being. But, if all things are basically many, and if plurality is ultimate, then the world dissolves into unrelated particulars and becomes, as some thinkers insist, not a universe but a multiverse, and every atom is in a sense its own law and being. The first leads to the breakdown of differences and the liberty of atomistic individualism and particularity; the second is the breakdown of fundamental law into nihilism and the retreat of men and their arts into isolated and private universes.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

“The essence of the ancient city-state, polis, and empire was that it constituted the continuous unity of the gods and men, of the divine and the human, and the unity of all being. There was no possible independence in a society for any constituent aspect. Every aspect of society was a part of the all-absorbing one. Against this, Christianity asserted the absolute division of the human and the divine. Even in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the human and the divine were in union without confusion, as Chalcedon so powerfully defined it. Thus, divinity was withdrawn from human society and returned to the heavens and to God. No human order or institution could claim divinity and therefore claim to represent total and final order. By de-divinizing the world, Christianity placed all created orders, including church and state, alike under God. By denying divinity to all, and by reserving divinity to the triune God, all created orders were freed from one another and made independent of each other and together interdependent in their dependence on God. Church and state were alike required to be Christian, but neither was able to be total Christian order.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

Our friend Petr left this very profound comment: about how a trinitarian may interpret the liberal perversions of Christianity:

• Unitarianism presents a false image of God the Father (deity becomes an abstract monadic idol, Babelistic worship of absolute oneness)
• Pelagianism presents a false image of Jesus Christ and His work (Christ becomes a mere “inspiring character” whose example we should try to imitate with our own righteous deeds)
• Gnosticism presents a false image of the Holy Spirit (the spirit swallows up the foul matter and turns the esoteric spirit-initiates into omnipotent deities themselves)

Picking up on what was written a few months ago in a Kinism.net article about Abraham Kuyper, here’s an article that touches on Kuyper’s foolish advocacy of racial mixture.

“White… is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black… God paints in many colours; but He never paints so gorgeously, I had almost said so gaudily, as when He paints in white.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

“Respected” “Christian” “authority” Tim Keller says: “I don’t see much of a role for a purely white church anymore, but I do see a role for the ethnic churches.”

“Anyone who thinks whites deserve countries and communities in which they are the majority is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who concludes from the evidence that genes explain why the average Japanese is smarter than the average Haitian is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who notices that diversity weakens a country is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who thinks masses of Third-World immigrants are not helpful for America and should stay home is a ‘hater’… Of course, the Left still sheds tears over the ‘victims of McCarthyism’ and can think of few things more shameful in post-war America than the Hollywood blacklist. How could a free country have persecuted people merely because of their politics? The vileness of it!”

We reported on this a few years ago when the decision was made, and now the tribe’s Supreme Court has upheld it: the Cherokee Indian tribe has officially expelled the descendants of all slaves once owned by Cherokees. Blacks are calling it a “human rights” issue, as usual, while the Indians hold to the biblical definition of nationhood: an inheritance of blood. “Cherokee Nation officials maintain that the tribe has the right to amend its constitutional membership requirements.” When will white people come to the same realization?

According to Gen5, whites ought to establish ethnostates patterned after Israel:

Since I support the formation of a white ethnostate on the North American continent (or at least, more realistically, a state with permanent white hegemony, sort of like an Israel for white American Christians, likely achieved similar to the Israelis by a combination of gerrymandering and limited suffrage for the residual minority population), and I believe some form of secession is a necessary precondition for such an outcome, there is much to learn from the [South Carolina] fire-eaters, a group that went from being seen as a marginalized group of extremists to mainstream political power in a remarkably short period by exploiting political opportunities.

The fact that 75% of casualties in the Middle East are white is not a problem for Obama. That kind of overrepresentation is to be expected of the white race. No, instead he is focused on a real “problem.” Take it away, Pat Buchanan:

Obama, wrote Isaac Arnsdorf, is targeting “a problem that has been on the administration’s radar. Whites still hold more than 81 percent of senior pay-level positions.”

Now, as white folks are two-thirds of the U.S. population, and perhaps three-fourths of those in the 45 to 65 age group who would normally be at senior federal positions, why is this “a problem”?

As no one has contended otherwise, we have to assume that the men and women who hold these top positions got there because of the longevity of their service and the superiority of their skills.

Why is the color of their skin a “problem” for Barack Obama?

Overseeing this new federal directive “to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce” will be the EEOC, where blacks are overrepresented by 300%. Blacks are already overrepresented in the feral government “workforce” (I hate that Commie term). They are 13% of the population and hold 18% of feral government jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.38. Whites are 69% of the population and hold 81% of senior jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.17. Yet as Pat Buchanan writes, no Democrat U.S. senator can be found who will step aside and allow someone black to be appointed in his stead. The real purpose of “diversity” is to destroy the white race. Ending “racism” is simply code language for ending the white race.

Kevin MacDonald writes that as whites sink into the minority, the rationale for “civil rights” has changed to continue to favor blacks, as we’ve long predicted.

The basic idea is that during the Civil Rights Era, the issue of equal opportunity was framed “in the soaring language of moral justice.” But now, with Whites becoming a minority, the rationale has changed: “The cause of providing an equal chance to all, which was historically framed as a question of fairness, has become an issue of economic competitiveness.”

Jew Ronald Brownstein calls for more “spending,” “reform,” “investment,” “training,” “and finding more creative ways to compensate for the decline of the two-parent family, especially in the African-American community.” In other words, whites continue to have the upper hand, despite their dwindling numbers, because they make too much money. And until this changes by transferring the money to blacks, mestizos, and anyone else who is not white, we will never be able to say that the “civil rights revolution” has been successful. Therefore, whites must “compensate” (ka-ching) for black illegitimacy, because everyone knows that blacks will never birth producers whose taxes can support the sea of consumers. The Jew insists that whites are saddled with this burden forever.

You might recall this Youtube video of Suleiman the Magnificent arguing with Jared Taylor. It’s interesting that in order to disprove the obvious truth of what Jared is saying, Suleiman must argue that some races accomplished great feats in the past but outgrew them for some unexplained reason. In reality, great races fall due to mixture, like the Spanish and Portuguese. Conversely, our accomplishments are not far removed from those of our British ancestors because they taught us to be “racists” and abstain from mixing our blood with savages. Suleiman talks about the Egyptian empire being black, but it wasn’t, and then he refers a couple of times to the Arab empire. If he’s referring to the Sumerian or Babylonian empires, those were Aryan, as Arthur Kemp has documented. The Arabs were bedouins who never cooperated with each other until common oil interests fell into their laps (oil reserves having been discovered and tapped by the white man). They did become organized for a short time when led by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia).

Geneticists in Switzerland have discovered that 70% percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to King Tut, which is another way of saying that Steve Martin was correct back in the 1970s; King Tut really was a honky!

How did King Tut come from western Europe, where the crackers are thick on the ground? The ancient world was apparently very much like the world of today: the cream rose to the top.

Hieroglyphics of Egyptians chasing Negroes:

“We are all, we Europeans of the old stock, in Hamlet’s position. We are born to set it right… One of the many admirable aspects of Hamlet’s counter-revolution was his complete unconcern as to whether the people, the grazers, were for or against him. He knew what his duty was and he did what his high calling demanded of him.” ~ CWNY

If you want to see how white activists are taking the fight directly into the belly of the beast, watch the excellent NPI conference at the National Press Club. It brought out the goons who so hate free speech that they fantasized about dealing with the “terrorists” and “racists” with a cop’s assault rifle.

The SPLC reviews the conference here.

Dr. David Yeagley has filed suit against the correctly-named terrorists who shut down Amren 2010 with their “threats of murder, violence, and other tactics.” God bless him for taking this stand. Now there are people who are going to learn that even so-called “racists” have protected freedoms of speech, contract, and assembly, and it’s going to be expensive for anyone who tries to take our freedoms away from us.

Some terrorists are apparently better than others. And of course, any competition for worthless Jew-currency is “domestic terrorism.”

Speaking of terrorists, here is confirmation that American involvement in WWI was based on a lie, as is always the case. Munitions found on board the Lusitania prove that the Germans were correct that it was a legitimate military target. The Brits whipped up resentment against the “Pirate Hun” for bombing and drowning children, but the true crime lies with the Allies for using civilians as shields. The ship was sunk by one torpedo, only because the torpedo set off tons of munitions “dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.” Among these were four million rounds of Remington .303 bullets. Winston Churchill was a murderer, and the British government has the blood of millions on its hands.

A few decades later, with the same murderer, Churchill, at the helm, Britain again embroiled the West in white genocide on behalf of Poland. Pat Buchanan asks, “Why did Britain do it?”

The American empire is just an extension of the British empire, funded by the same damned Jews, and we pray that its demise is rapid, sure, and permanent. Blessed is the man who throws lime on its rotting corpse.

The debt is growing by $3 million per minute.

Inflation in the last decade:

In terms that are easier to understand:

All according to plan.

For the American economy – and for many other developed economies – the elephant in the room is the amount of money paid to bankers over the last five years. In the United States, the sum stands at an astounding $2.2 trillion. Extrapolating over the coming decade, the numbers would approach $5 trillion… That $5 trillion…is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees. Such transfers represent as cunning a tax on everyone else as one can imagine.

Nearly one in six are now in poverty, and despite Obama’s more expensive health care, the number of uninsured has gone up.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
Blessed are the meek,
For theirs shall be the kingdom
That the power mongers seek.
Blessed are the dead for love
And those who cry for peace,
And those who love the gift of earth,
May their gene pool increase.
Left like a shadow on the step
Where the body was before.
Shipwrecked at the stable door. (Bruce Cockburn)

It’s been more than a year since First Word was updated, but it was well worth the wait. Read about the government’s conspiracy theories.

The dictator of Libya will apparently soon join the dictator of Iraq and Osama bin Ackbar in the club of CIA employees who were terminated with extreme prejudice. As the late ruler of South Vietnam, Nguyen Cao Ky, said when Vietnam fell: “It is very dangerous to be an enemy of the United States. It is positively fatal to be a friend.” I’ve decided to spell Kaddafi’s name as “Codify.” Who’s to say that your spelling is better than mine?

In New Zealand, it will soon be a crime to disseminate “racist” or “xenophobic” material on the Internet. Expect this law to come to a country near you very soon.

Newborn circumcision rates have drastically declined in the last decade in direct proportion to the self-loathing Christian’s lust for strange flesh. Pediatricians no longer recommend the practice, insurance companies no longer cover it, and it is increasingly compared to the female genital mutilation practiced by savages. Yet it is easy to envision a day soon to come when this former mark of the covenant continues to distinguish the people of God from all other peoples of the world.

Thirty-four thousand British schoolchildren, as young as age 3, have been identified as “racist” and “homophobic” in a government database for using words like “gaylord” and “broccoli head” on the playground. I wish the kids had come to us. We could have taught them better words.

As Martin Luther said, “It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

There is no free speech in Europe.

The ten most wanted fugitives in Texas. (Mestizo perps are “white” while mestizo victims are “Hispanic.”)

“Would the issue of race be ignored if a group of White players and coaches had dogpiled a Black referee?” And if I might ask a second question: There are that many Hottentots in Sarasota?

Despite being an abuser of dogs, and despite never having gone to the Super Bowl, Michael Vick is now earning more than those who have actually won the Super Bowl. What if Vick were white?

Sporting While Negro, an international misdemeanor.

Two white men invent a prosthetic tail that saves the life of a dolphin, and so of course Morgan Freeman plays both of them in the movie being made about their accomplishment. Brought to you by the makers of The Help.

A Dodge Challenger ad showing a Negro in George Washington’s Continental Army. It’s about as historically accurate as George Washington posing beside a Dodge Challenger.

Why the Fourteenth Amendment is illegal.

A march in Toronto was organized so that idiot white strumpets could protest a cop who said that women can avoid being raped if they don’t dress like sluts. The bimbos saw to it that the cop was dispatched to sensitivity indoctrination, and now whores everywhere can hold their heads high, flush with the euphoria of liberation.

Mighty-White Idaho has one of the most successful marriage rates in the country.

Holy-Rolling Imbecile Pat Robertson refuses to condemn marital infidelity if a spouse has Alzheimer’s.

This is only a dramatization, just so you know.

A children’s history of the United States written by the Vice-President of the Confederacy. Now that’s what I call homeschool curriculum.

News for homeschoolers: How to squeeze more kids into the minivan.

Proof that blondes are a terror on the highways.

For lunch on the go! Mmm, good.

Batman Begins, the Engrish version.

The Flintstones, the racist Stone Age family. Beaver’s parents were racists too. At least she didn’t say that she would never listen to another Jew again; that would be anti-Semitic.

The big bad wolf is anti-Semitic (6:05).

“How boring is the world of Christopher Hitchens and his fellow science-worshipers!”

Kinism at Wikipedia.

Support the Ten Million Word Project of transcribing Rushdoony’s recorded works.

Listen to Christian Gray’s Kinist podcast! Part the second. Part the third.

I don’t know which is better, this letter from Gary North to Little Davie Bahnsen

or this hysterical reply from Bahnsen.

Good news for writers: John Marshall at Kinism.net is now paying honoraria for accepted articles in the Kinist Review. The award is $100 to $150 for each article, depending on length. He will also pay for back-dated material that has not been published elsewhere, so it does not need to be freshly written or topical. The Kinist Review is the academic side of our movement, and is quite impressive. Kinism.net is also in the process of a site redesign.

And now, one of our corporate training videos.

It kind of reminds you of Braveheart, doesn’t it?

Forty-three years ago, Enoch Powell, Europe’s Cassandra, delivered a speech, just two weeks after the MLK riots, that he knew would go up like a rocket and stay up: It was the famous “Rivers of Blood” speech. The next day he was fired for having a “racialist” tone. Last year, Nigel Hastilow, a Conservative candidate for parliament, wrote in an op-ed piece, “Enoch Powell was right,” and was promptly sacked by David Cameron, the current shadow prime minister. Four decades have brought no change in response to “racism” because the cure for what ails the West continues to be resisted. The only options are voluntary deportation or authoritarian power to force aliens to leave. The latter is followed by war and is to be avoided if at all possible.

“That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.” ~ Enoch Powell

And because nothing was done, Britain has seen, writes Pat Buchanan, “the worst violence visited on that nation and its capital since Goering’s Luftwaffe executed the Blitz.”

Thousands of hoodlums, thugs and criminals have firebombed buildings, looted stores and stripped, beaten and robbed people for no reason other than that they were white.

Overwhelmed cops virtually surrendered the city for three days. By the fourth night, the rampage had taken on a multiethnic cast as Asians and white trash appeared to join in the festival of criminality…

And when the fires burn out, we shall hear anew the old liberal litany about poverty, despair, inequality and unemployment, the excuses that long ago ceased to persuade [the old "depraved because they're deprived" excuse that strangely never applies to whites or Asians]…

The London riots were the work of moral barbarians with no loyalty to the people in whose midst they live and no love for the society to which they give nothing, only take…

Compare this to the notoriously “racist” Japanese who, even without Christianity, have been duty-bound to return $78 million that has been found in rubble or washed ashore.

What were the British thinking when they threw open their doors to mass immigration from the Third World?

Over centuries, they had failed to assimilate a few million Irish, who were European Christians. So, having failed to assimilate the Irish, they decided to invite in millions of Hindus and Muslims from South Asia, Arabs from the Middle East, Africans from the sub-Sahara, black folks from the Caribbean.

We ought to place bets on how long it will take for the “leaders” of Britain to try to buy peace with more free money for diversities. “We’ll give you anything you want! Only don’t kill us or burn us out!”

You have cast us off and put us to shame,
And You do not go out with our armies.
You make us turn back from the enemy,
And those who hate us have taken spoil for themselves.
You have given us up like sheep intended for food,
And have scattered us among the nations.
You sell Your people for next to nothing,
And are not enriched by selling them.
You make us a reproach to our neighbors,
A scorn and a derision to those all around us.
You make us a byword among the nations,
A shaking of the head among the peoples.
Psalm 44:9-14

This rioter warns: “It’s going to happen again. With the spending cuts, I guarantee it.”

Why blacks are angry. Prince Charles says: “it’s a cry for help.” And Charles will be glad to help them with other peoples’ money, but he has no intention of removing the security between him and them. This is called leading by example. Wouldn’t it be great if this could happen to Prince Charles?

Ann Coulter has a spiffy new non-racial theory for why black people riot: because they were “born in the 1990s.”

After London burned, this incoherent Negro was interviewed, and he called it not a riot but an “insurrection of the masses.” The white woman interviewing him can’t understand how he can justify violence just because his neighbors have been searched and questioned.

Black men alleviating their poverty, and the usual suspects cleaning up after them.

The “true face” of Britain.

The Jewmedia sees almost all white faces in the London riots. But read this very important article about the anti-white ringleaders.

The DHS in our own country thinks most terrorists are white. Thank Allah for patriotic blacks, Arabs, and Asians protecting us from white terrorists in this DHS video. A second one.

Watch as a panel of the Professionally Concerned gangs up on historian David Starkey for saying that that the London race riots were a black protest in which white participants have “now become black” because they idolize the thuggish black mythos. In the face of widespread demands for him to be fired, Starkey has stood by his comments, pleading that he tried his very best to focus on culture rather than race (everyone’s favorite escape hatch).

“Nothing makes people madder than saying what’s obviously true.”

If you want to see how “journalism” works, watch this reporter lead a witness.

Peter Hitchens condemns his own people and his own past.

Five new “Britons” are born to a Bimbo. Borders are evil and money is free!

And in heavily-black Detroit, companies are giving employees free money (which they call “forgivable loans”) to move downtown. All they have to do is put their lives and property on the line.

The ruins of heavily-black Gary, Indiana.

Richmond, Virginia, has a Negro problem too, and this reporter asks the boons to get out of the streets and into the art galleries. Now that’s funny! Somehow, it’s now the responsibility of whites to help blacks release their tension in creative ways to prevent murders and mayhem.

I’m pretty sure this crime spree by idle, multi-millionaire NBA players is the fault of white racists too. They’re depraved because they’re deprived.

Free cell phones are now a civil right, so black “youths” can better organize their flashmob riots via Twitter. I’ll bet Enoch Powell never saw that coming.

Rushdoony discusses mercy in this sermon. Is it merciful to yoke those who are unequal? No, because both the strong and the weak will be hurt. This has clearly been the case in the integrated West, where too great a burden has been placed upon the white race. Mercy is a function of the law, says Rushdoony, and he uses for his text Proverbs 12:10: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Listen at 12:27:

The Bible requires us to be merciful even to animals. It follows, therefore, that mercy is under law, not under feeling. The Bible says that our mercy, even of animals, is not to be apart from law. Mercy, therefore, is not godly if it is apart from law. And because the wicked are lawless, lawless because they are godless – they do not recognize God’s law – they cannot give law. And the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. We have, therefore, an obligation under God to be merciful to all men under law, from animals on up. This includes the Negro. But ungodly men today are very definitely cruel to the Negro.

Let us examime a few facts concerning the Negro today. Nearly one-fourth of the Negro women who have been married are now divorced or separated. [This sermon was delivered after the Watts riots of 1965. The statistics are much worse now for all races. The result of unequal yoking has been that whites now act black, as Starkey says, and their children consider blacks to be the greatest role models.] The white rate for women is 7.9%. Nearly one out of four Negro babies born today is illegitimate. The white rate is 3.7%. [Notice how low this number was relative to today.] More than half of all Negro children are helped by [AFDC]. The white rate is 8%. The Negro rate would be higher if you included the number of children who are indirectly helped, because their parents receive some sort of government compensation. But more than half are directly helped. The birth rate for Negroes is 40% higher than for whites. And while Negroes represent only 10% of the nation’s population, they account for 61% of the murders and non-negligent manslaughters, 54% of the forcible rapes, 58% of the robberies, 59% of the aggravated assaults, and from 33-71% of most other major crimes. This is according to police records, and they don’t begin to cover all the crimes. For one thing, if you have gone into the South even briefly, you know how kindly and tolerant they are of the Negro. And he gets away with much there that he is not allowed to get away with elsewhere.

Now, how do the wicked answer, how do the ungodly answer this problem? Their answer is more civil rights, more monetary grants, more votes, more everything. The ungodly, in their tender mercies, are cruel, because their mercy is appeasement. And appeasement is not mercy; it is destructive to the person who receives it. But the ungodly cannot function under law, because being themselves lawless, their idea of goodness is lawlessness. The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

A lawless man doesn’t want the law to function against him, and the ungodly man is outside God’s law. He is an outlaw. He is in rebellion against God’s law, and God’s law is against him, has passed a sentence of death on him, and he is in headlong flight. As a result, he doesn’t want law, and when he sets about to create his man-made law whereby he is going to save man, it is really a form of anti-law. And so the laws he passes are anti-laws, not to establish true law and order but to destroy it. So instead of giving the Negro, for example, what the Negro needs – law – he gives him anti-law. Instead of bringing him under a discipline which will be most conducive to his future and to his development and to his growth, he bribes him into lawlessness. After all, what are these federal grants in the Watts area but an incitement and a grant to further rioting? The more you riot, the greater the benefits. Is this not the implication? And has this not been the practice of the federal and the state governments towards the Negro for a number of years now? The penalty is against the law-abiding, against the police, against the Christian citizenry…

[Resuming at 30:54]

But today, because the principle of the lowest common denominator prevails, there is a move to equalize everything down to that lowest common denominator. Which means that something has to give, and this has to be us, we are told. We have to be integrated downward. All have to be the same, all have to be equalized, so that quality is sacrificed to quantity, thrift to profligacy, virtue to vice. This means that all vice is vindicated. Minority rights means human rights for homosexuals, criminals, and ultimately the triumph of evil. This is inescapable in any humanistic society, in any society which does not recognize the primacy of God, because then it places man not under law but over law, and this is the death of the culture.

If you want to know why Rushdoony was incomparable, listen to the answer he gives at the end of the sermon to the question of whether Christians are no longer under the law but under grace. He asks, What are we saved from? Answer: The effects of our sin. And what is sin? The breaking of the law. Therefore, we are to no longer be law-breakers but law-keepers. We are no longer “outlaws” but “in-laws.” This is what Christ meant when he said that He did not come to abolish the law but to uphold and fulfill it. But most Christians today consider the law to be obsolete, and our love for God is imagined to be on the basis of warm feelings and experience rather than the way in which we are commanded to show love for God: by keeping His commandments (John 14:15). This doesn’t mean that we are saved by the law. We are saved by Christ, and because we love Him we are obligated to obey Him. Sentimentalism leads to humanism, says Rush.

I recall being in a PCA church years ago where the pastor denied that sin is violating the law. Sin is instead the rejection of Christ, he said, because he wanted to be an antinomian rather than a theonomist.

Did you hear the one about the Calvinist who punched the Arminian in the face? The Arminian was asking for it, and the Calvinist couldn’t help himself.

“Any Episcopalians around here?” asked a clergyman at a mountain cabin. “I don’t know,” said the old woman. ”Jim’s got the skins of a lot of varmints up in the loft. Mebbe you can find one up thar.”

Rushdoony has a few more things to say to you white men, taken from Roots of Reconstruction #4:

I was interested recently in re-reading a passage in a book I first read in 1957, and which was written a few years earlier. Felice Belliotti, in the study Fabulous Congo, wrote (on p. 189):

Like all primitives, the negro only recognizes force, and the result of a policy of gradual concession of rights is easy to foresee: as soon as he realizes clearly that no one can hang him or kill him out of hand and that the white men are incapable of casting the evil eye on him there will be no holding him back. He has no conscience, no western code of ethics to guide him in his actions, and when his heart is really free of physical punishment he will become a hopelessly intractable rebel.

The Congo is a shambles today, and the major victims are the Negroes, not because there are more evil men today but because good men have surrendered control.

Another illustration: In the 1830’s, American ships began to suffer savagely at the hands of Malay pirates. One incident is especially memorable. Captain “Josh” Stevens and his [crew on the ship Aurora from Boothbay, Maine, had calm winds and were unable to sail] away from the vicinity of an island. The Malay pirates attacked repeatedly, knowing the ship to be undermanned, and finally all but four men were killed. These four men, all wounded, escaped in the longboat, led by the second mate, Avery. Their only supply was a small store of water and dry biscuits. They could have rowed to a friendly island five hundred miles away. They chose instead to make for the Polestar, from Rockport, Maine, under Captain “Hen” Crossley, a hundred miles away and no doubt becalmed like themselves. With only the briefest pauses, never wasting breath for speaking, the men rowed night and day until they reached the Polestar. Captain Crossley immediately sent men by longboat to Captain Edwards of the Emerald, of New Bedford, and Captain Nye of the Southern Cross sent 15 men, and the Emerald 10 men, to give a total of over 50 with extra weapons also loaned. The Polestar sailed to Perang, where Crossley, pretending that his ship was disabled, began “repairs,” keeping most of his men hidden and his weapons concealed. The Malay pirates poured out in great numbers, happy to have another Yankee ship to loot. The climax is dramatically recounted by A. Hyatt Verrill (in Perfumes and Spices, Including an Account of Soaps and Cosmetics, p. 4f.):

Onward came the Malays. Once again a helpless vessel was at their mercy. Once more they felt sure they could satiate their lust for white men’s blood and white men’s rum, and confident of victory, they dashed alongside the Polestar, leaped from their proas with savage yells, and swarmed up the ship’s sides.

Not until the natives’ heads appeared above the rails did Captain Crossley give the word to his impatient men. Then, with lusty shouts and curses, the fifty-three whale-men sprang up. With blazing muskets and pistols, with deadly spades and heavy lances, they and the merchant seamen fell upon the utterly astounded Malays. Turbaned heads were sliced from shoulders by the blubber spades; heavy lances were plunged through naked bodies by arms that had driven the weapons to the hearts of sperm-whales; broadaxes cut through limbs and skulls; and shot and bullets mowed down scores of the savages. Not a Malay lived to set foot upon the Polestar’s decks. Not one who had attempted to board the ship remained uninjured to drop back to the proas. Dozens, terrified, utterly demoralized, thinking only to escape the fearsome weapons and demoniacal fury of the white men, flung themselves into the sea where they were instantly torn to pieces by the ravenous sharks attracted to the scene by the blood that flowed in crimson streams from the ship’s scuppers.

And when the occupants of the last two proas saw the awful carnage and heard the terror-stricken yells of their fellows, and hastily tried to turn back, Captain Hen trained his single cast-iron cannon upon them and sent a deadly hail of nails, bolts, screws, links of chain and other junk into them with terrible effectiveness. Not a single Malay ever reached the shore alive. Within ten minutes the battle was over. Without the loss of a man the Yankees had completely annihilated the natives and had exacted a terrible vengeance for the murder of Captain Stevens and his crew.

As the yards were swung and the Polestar headed to the open sea, Captain Crossley gazed with grim satisfaction upon the carnage he had wrought. Spitting reflectively to leeward, he glanced at the receding bulk of Perang, at the drifting, shattered, corpse-filled proas, at the sharp black fins cutting the surface of the blood-stained water. “I calculate that’s what ye might call a good deed well done,” he remarked to Mr. Avery. “Derned if I didn’t say I’d learn ‘em a lesson, and by glory I reckon I done so.”

He had. For years thereafter no Yankee ship was every again attacked by the natives of Perang. The mere sight of a weather-beaten, lofty-sparred ship would send them in terror to their jungle lairs, and for generations the islanders spoke in awed tones of the white devils who had avenged their slain countrymen.

…Our problem is thus not evil as much as it is the lack of control over evil by the forces of righteousness. On the one hand, we have vast portions of “good” America talking about “love,” which amounts in practice to a tolerance of and a subsidy for evil, and, on the other hand, we have other portions of “good” America whose answer to the problem is, “Let’s pray about it.” Because God is a righteous God, there is every reason to believe that such talk, on both sides, only angers Him and invokes His judgment. A quick glance at the current scene easily reveals the causes of our crisis.

The following item is important, with respect to the Watts “riots.” A few Mexican-American “direct action” advocates are already saying that the way to get attention – and millions of dollars of aid – is to start a riot. So far this feeling is only in the grim-faced grumbling state. However, if all of the anti-poverty money starts flowing to Watts, another hot spell could mean trouble on the East Side. (Joyce Peterson, “Start a Riot – Get $29 Million Aid,” reprinted in Los Angeles California Jewish Press, Friday September 10, 1965, pp. 1, 5.) We have two powerful forces at work to destroy law and order. First, we have subversives, who are working to destroy America by destroying its legal and moral structure. Second, and even more important, we have the vast majority of “good” Americans, who, by indulging in sentimental and unrealistic fantasies, refuse to exercise the hard and necessary control over evil. And thus control must begin in the personal life, in the family, and it must be rigorously applied to every aspect of American life. This is not a merciless attitude. True mercy can only flourish where justice prevails, whereas, in the words of Solomon, “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10). These “tender mercies of the wicked” are today cruelly destroying the fabric of American life. We have always had evil in the world. We always will have it. The problem lies elsewhere: Will it be controlled? Will godly men meet their responsibility to “occupy” in Christ’s name and enforce God’s law in every area? The world will either be under God’s law, or under His judgment.

This is precisely what we Kinists have always said. When Alienists profess love for the alien, their actions show that they hate their kin. Their “love” is cruelty. So we have riots, massive debt, and intimidation, and Christians want to “pray” about it. The question has always been precisely as Rushdoony stated it: Will we exercise control? That’s what separates the men from the “prayer warriors.”

The black chief of police in Chicago says the Second Amendment is “government-sponsored racism” that goes back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. You see, gun manufacturers are only in business to kill black kids. How can you doubt it when you hear the keyboard player in the background embellishing the Negro preacher cadence?

The black police chief of East St. Louis is a two-time convicted felon. The black mayor, who looks like a pimp, fully supports him.

“What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America,” said LBJ. Truer words were never spoken.

The dedication of the MLK idol in Washington has worked Nina Tayloe into a hysterical fit. She falls to her knees in front of the nearest black man she can find and pleads, “Forgive me. Forgive me on behalf of my family for the ugliness of that time.” In other words, she repents of being born into a race of racists.

DO NOT miss this excellent article on Tayloe by James Edwards.

Three cities – Atlanta, Washington, and Memphis – are the holy triapolis for pilgrims of the King. In Atlanta he was born, and was wrapped in swaddling cloths and laid in the manger of a lowly stable, for there was no room for Negroes in the inn, or at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, or at the front of the bus, for verily did they exude a malodorous stench. Washington is where he recited the “I Have a Dreamworld” speech; except that pilgrims of the King call it a “prophecy.” And in Memphis he was assassinated, as cops gambled for his clothes. On the third day came Nina Tayloe with embalming spices, and behold, the trunk of the Lincoln Continental was ajar, for the lock had been hammered with a pick.

General Motors hates private property and freedom of association. Remember it the next time you’re in need of a car.

Prejudice is simply inherited wisdom. Prejudice is common sense.

“Prejudice is of ready application in an emergency. It previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical and unresolved.” ~ Edmund Burke

Genes are racist. Geneticists have confirmed what everyone knows but few are willing to admit openly, that on-the-spot thinking (fluid intelligence) and vocabulary (crystallized intelligence) are mostly inherited. This means, of course, that “racists” have been correct that trillions of dollars have been wasted over the course of decades in the fool’s hope that every child is born equal, as a tabula rasa. Science shoots down another myth of equality.

Charles Murray writes: “Shelves of books and articles denying or minimizing the heritability of IQ have suddenly become obsolete.”

John Piper believes The Bell Curve claims that “whites are superior to other races.” It doesn’t, of course, unless “superiority” now means the recognition of any average difference whatsoever, backed by exhaustive proof. By the same reasoning, blacks could be called “superior” to whites because they have more of something: melanin. The Bell Curve isn’t just about IQ, either. It shows that races differ in things like crime and illegitimacy rates even when IQ is held constant. Positive stereotypes are a good thing, Piper says. But does this mean that negative stereotypes don’t exist? Piper doesn’t answer. Instead, he says that it’s all irrelevant because we are called as Christians to love others. “Love” now apparently means ignoring facts that offend some people. Then he says that racial stereotypes are “racism,” mere seconds after he states his belief that Germans are clean. Do not ask for whom the bell curves, John; it curves for thee.

Muhammad Ali on intelligence:

On a more important note, what the Hades is going on with Piper’s hair? The wisps are doing nothing for his bald spot.

One of our favorite lines ever from Piper: “God arranged for Ruth a holy tryst with Boaz so that the DNA of David would have Moabite genes to silence ethnic arrogance.” A “holy tryst”! We’ve shown previously that the Bible trumpets the fact that Jesus Christ was the purebred claimant to the throne. Race-mixing impastors contradict themselves by teaching that any Moabite joined the people of God; they were banned forever from doing so.

Piper is a master of casuistry. As Mark Twain said, “You take the lies out of him, and he’ll shrink to the size of your hat; you take the malice out of him and he’ll disappear.”

Seven years ago, we wrote that imperial debt as a percentage of GDP was about 47% at the height of the war in Vietnam. In 2005, it was at 67.5%. A little over a month ago, we wrote that it’s not supposed to rise to 90% until the year 2020. But in his second back-to-back record borrowing binge, Obamination has caused borrowing to reach 100% of GDP. Sixty percent of the increase was eaten up in one day! This is a “government” (if a Zionist terrorist corporation can be called a government) that is on life support. We’re pretty much counting the seconds now, like watching the disco ball drop on New Year’s Eve. Of course, the “government” will prolong the misery by printing money so that we can experience Zimbabwe-like inflation, but either way, it’s over.

Jew Greenspan proposes this very “solution” to the problem of keeping his tribe in power.

The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.

Translation: We Jew banksters can devalue your wealth because we own you. Explain to me again how slavery ended.

This spiral into oblivion is what our friend Petr calls “homosexual economics” because it gives no thought for future generations. It is to be expected from those who long ago were neutered of natural kinship.

Now, for the first time ever, Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the empire’s triple-A credit rating. Remember that the dollar is no longer backed by gold or anything of value. Its price entirely depends on the promise of the empire to repay. Now the promise has been officially called into question, and very soon no one will believe it.

The lavish government can give no more;
Yet we repine, and plenty makes us poor.
John Drysden, 1682

Rural Americans are now just 16% of the population. A century ago, they were 72% of the population. But this means that property in the Great Plains and Appalachia is priced very low, and as the dollar collapses, will only grow to be more valuable.

The racial gap is even greater. Whites, on average, now have 20 times the net worth of blacks and 18 times the net worth of Hispanics. Even more alarming, 35% of black households and 31% of Hispanic households have zero or negative net worth. This means that more than a third of all blacks are totally dependent on taxpayers. About one-fourth have no assets other than a car.

Cutting back on big government is cutting back on black people, says Jesse Jackson. “Big government is us by another name.” There is a new Civil War, he says, with the Tea Party as the South and black people as the North, standing against all efforts to curtail borrowing and spending. It’s states’ rights versus “a more perfect Union.”

The budget deal that was just worked out by Congress and Obama is all smoke and mirrors. They increased the debt limit yet again and promised spending cuts way off in the future that will never materialize. Even so, blacks are hopping mad. The head of the Congressional Black Caucus calls the deal a “Satan sandwich” that his people are being forced to eat.

This black congressman says that money we don’t have must be spent, and if the president has to do it alone, he ought to invoke the illegal 14th Amendment, which is the only way that blacks were made citizens, and the military and schools were integrated. This is another way of saying that our country and our future are now the property of blacks. Explain to me again how slavery ended.

So far this year, the deficit is averaging $110 billion per month.

A visualization of the imperial debt.

“[W]e have been robbed, and not just we who are alive today but our children, grandchildren, and generations of Southerners yet unborn. The American kleptocracy has stolen your patrimony in broad, open daylight, laughing at you all the while. When anyone questioned their tactics, they trotted out the old ‘financial Armageddon’ argument, bolstered by visions of martial law across the land. Our people acted as if they barely noticed and then went back into their self-induced coma. It is truly pitiful to see an enslaved population that believes it is free. They wear their chains as if to make a fashion statement.” ~ Dr. Michael Hill

In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama as the latter was in the midst of promising that his health care bill (now ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court) would not cover illegal aliens. Two years later, HHS has given millions to “migrant and seasonal farm workers” for health care. Immigration status is not a concern to those who are doling out the money. So Wilson was right; Obama is a liar.

Health care is the least of it. Here’s a wetback who has been awarded $200,000 from taxpayers because she was “shackled” while in labor with her latest anchor baby. Her attorney argues that this traumatic experience makes her deserving of permanent residency.

Using “White” as an adjective for “America” is evil wicked HATE! You’re supposed to go along with the new definition of America or you’re downright un-American.

Diversities have major behavioral problems in schools, which clearly means that whites need to be nicer people and realize how hard life is for them. Because we wouldn’t know that.

He be a row model for de yufes!

The University of Tennessee is sponsoring scholarships for black students only. But there’s nothing racist about that, because you have to think of how blacks have been oppressed for centuries, or probably forever.

No word on when the University of Tennessee may help raise funds for needy White students, or celebrate their achievements.

But, then again, I guess White people never accomplished anything as significant as sitting in a bus seat.

Frank Borzellieri, who is both a good man and a good school teacher and principal, has been fired for the Orwellian crime of having “white supremacist ties.” It’s not stated what these “ties” are that are so horrible. The only specific infraction is that he has called diversity (meaning cosmopolitanism) a “weakness,” which is manifestly true. Catholics have decided that he doesn’t deserve to earn a living for refusing to deny this self-evident truth, as all good Catholics are supposed to do.

Catholics have spurned the wisdom of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, who wrote: “So, the Catholic way to live is to follow the rules of the organic society in accordance with one’s family and clan. Following the principles of Catholic doctrine, he should progress and grow supported by his relatives and the extended family close to him. This is how to maintain the strength of the family, the clan, and ultimately, Christian Civilization.”

The family is “the choke point of history,” as our friend Laurel says.

“Everyone wants to join the pack when a ‘racist’ has been flushed.” The words “tolerance” and “diversity” don’t apply.

Jew Robert Weissberg has delivered some excellent speeches at Amren conferences. He explains that the bogeyman of “white nationalism” has replaced faggotry in America’s Pantheon of Horrific Sins.

Just as adults once sought to protect children from homosexuals, who were assumed to be irrepressible child molesters, the great new fear is exposure to white “racists” who might corrupt impressionable youngsters by warning them about the dangers of diversity or, heaven forbid, teach them that race really does exist and that not all racial groups are equally talented…

Alcoholism, illegitimacy, sloth, promiscuity, gluttony, adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, habitual mendacity, and fornication, to name just a few, have all been downgraded from grave moral violations to treatable illnesses or just harmless personal life choices…

I do not exaggerate: to be accused of “white nationalism” or white “racism” is quickly becoming the equivalent of being charged with atheism in 16th century Europe or being a communist during the Cold War. It is the perfect candidate for demonization because “white nationalists” do not riot when persecuted, lack any powerful lobbying group that could get them included in the latest Hate Crime law, and never insist that school textbooks highlight their contributions to American history. Can you imagine a 9th grade US history textbook claiming that a “race realist” wrote the Declaration of Independence?…

Be optimistic. Perhaps in time white nationalists and racists will be able to hold teaching jobs. Some day they may even be able to marry, and their engagements will be prominently featured in the New York Times. And, naturally, people will be shocked to see how many of them come out of the closet.

In another typically brilliant, not-to-be-missed article, Jared Taylor has more to say about Thomas Jefferson’s “racism,” noting that our third president wanted free blacks to be “removed beyond the reach of mixture,” and as the Americas were populated, “nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.” Taylor establishes that our founding fathers hated multiracialism, but now words like “racist” have been invented to demonize dissenters to the anti-white, contra-historical order.

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who would be allowed to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized, and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965. We can be certain that those laws would not have been repealed if it had been known that non-white immigration would reduce whites to a minority in less than 80 years.

People care more for their own children than for the children of strangers, so we have no word to describe such people. [Familists!] We can imagine a nightmare government that ordered that all children be reared in common and that forbade favoritism. Only then would we need a word to describe dissidents who wanted to rear their own children. Americans who have a traditional view of race find themselves in the same situation: without a name for themselves because historically there was never a need for one…

Does it make sense to call Woodrow Wilson, for example, a “white nationalist”? If not, what about whites who today hold views similar to his on race? These would include: (1) A preference for the company of whites. (2) A desire to live in a white-majority country. (3) A love of Western civilization and the belief that only the biological heirs of those who created it will carry it forward in a meaningful way. (4) A desire that their descendants be white and that American whites remain a distinctive people with a distinctive culture forever.

On these four points and more, churches today have officially sided with those who actively and fanatically seek our destruction. They have parted company with their own Christian forefathers. They are patricides, and they cloak their wickedness with professions of faith. If they have their way then, as Chingachgook, the last of the Mohicans, said, “Our race will be no more, or be not us.”

Of course, there were a few exceptions to the “racism” of early Americans. Thomas Morton of Merrymount called the Algonquin Indian tribes of New England “civilized and humanitarian” because he hated his own people, just like Stanley Ann Dunham. The Puritans saw that he “went native” when he erected a Maypole and hosted drunken orgies in honor of Bacchus, Aphrodite, and Venus and her lustful children. And it won’t surprise you that this heathen agreed with all “Christian” ministers of the 21st century on interracial unions with the Indians.

Alas for the eligible young bachelors, Myles Standish arrested Morton and banished him to an island. This effectively ended the party of idolatry and miscegenation. But it wasn’t really thought of as miscegenation at the time. Like John Smith, Morton believed that the Indians were white people with skin made “tawny” by the sun. Even Jefferson believed that “we shall probably find that they are formed in mind as well as in body on the same module with the ‘Homo sapiens Europaeus.’” But our people came to realize that they were mistaken. By 1824, a bill in Congress that would have rewarded whites for marrying Indians (like Patrick Henry’s 1784 bill in Virginia) never made it out of committtee. The next year, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions repudiated its earlier encouragement for its missionaries to marry Indian women in order to promote Christianity. A few years later, Tocqueville observed that the English refused to follow the French in intermarrying with Indians. We Kinists hope for such national repentance in the 21st century. In fact, we fully expect it.

“La Nature aime les croisements (Nature loves cross-breedings).” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

As a friend of ours says: ‎”If a person cannot find a single mate among the billion members of his own race, he doesn’t need integration, he needs therapy.”

“If you do not believe in your own stock enough to wish to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and…I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place because you will have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground.” ~ Theodore Roosevelt, 1911, to liberal clergymen

Feminism paved the way for miscegenation, which paved the way for anti-sodomy laws being repealed, and then for faggots being considered legitimately married – even by nominally Christian mainline denominations. The next big push for perversion is the decriminalization of pedophilia. The American Psychiatric Association, which used to call faggotry a mental illness, is now revising its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Pedophilia will be declassified as a mental illness, probably not right away, but in about the same amount of time that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy inaugurated by Clinton was overturned by Obama. As James says, those who oppose pedophilia will soon be called evil-wicked-haters just like us “racists.” After pedophilia, we expect bestiality to be next. After all, if a black man can marry a white woman, what’s to prevent a person from marrying a Golden Retriever? If marriage means anything, it means nothing.

And so it begins. Jobs are now being lost for opposing sodomy, even on private time. This is the same reason why Christians caved on race 50 years ago, because they could no longer sustain religious beliefs against the new order (which were almost unanimous) when there were repercussions for those religious beliefs in society at large.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is now ordaining fags. It’s the latest step in an unnatural progression away from chastity. Just a couple of years ago, they resolved to “combat systematic white privilege.”

One of the most prominent and pervasive evils in our national heritage and cultural routines is racism – that is, biased assumption about the genetic or cultural inferiority of certain racial-ethnic groups, and/or subordinating practices that exclude persons or deprive them of their full humanity because of their racial-ethnic identity. Racism so permeates our customs and institutions that none can fully escape participation in it. Indeed, no member of a dominant group can fully avoid benefiting from it, and no member of a subordinate group can avoid the intention of oppression. Racism is finally about power – the abuses of power by a dominant group intent upon preserving its economic, social, political, or ecclesiastical privileges and the resulting deprivations of opportunity imposed on a subordinate group.

It is difficult for African American churches, congregations and members to be fully convinced of the sincerity of the call of their European American counterparts for unity as equals, if the latter are not willing to actively struggle to dismantle the obstacles to social, political and economic equality presented by systematic white skin color privilege, and to give up some of the perquisites they enjoy under it… As a group of churches struggling to be one true community, Churches Uniting in Christ must address the continuing effects of oppression upon African Americans simply because that is the most glaring condition of evil that confronts us today…

In other words, the “pervasive evil” of denying that all peoples have equal capacities or cultures can only be remedied by giving more money to black people. A different religion, indeed.

God made men and women complementary, as is obvious by the way in which he created Woman. Men are primarily concerned with law and order, and women with personal matters. Only in the welfare economy of the zoo, taught Rushdoony (20:11), are animals more concerned with sex than dominion.

When [a woman becomes] concerned with problems of law and order, it is because these problems have become personal, because her family and its safety are endangered. It means that things are far gone. In every age, when you see that women are concerned with what’s going on in the world of politics and economics, when they are the ones who are reading and studying and carrying aloft the cause of conservatism, as today, it means that there has been an extensive abdication by men, so that women are compelled by necessity to defend law and order. It is an unnatural condition, and it puts an undue strain on the woman [and by consequence, the family]. She carries an undue share of the responsibilities…

A matriarchal society always comes about when society is in breakdown, when men have abdicated. Look around to see where you have full-fledged matriarchal societies. In America today, the Negro populace has been, from the time it landed here, as it is in Africa, matriarchal; women rule. Why? Because the men are irresponsible. They cannot be depended on to support the family. And so it’s a matriarchy. It’s unhealthy. And nothing the federal government can ever do will change Negro society until Negro men become responsible. The same is true of American Indian society… And the consequence is deadly. It is a society in a state of collapse.

A matriarchy does not mean that women are in power. It means that women are burdened because there is no real power. They are trying to do two things, be father and mother, and cannot do either successfully when they are so burdened. And the trend to matriarchy is present today in all Western cultures.

Even in white churches, men are allowing women to run everything. In politics, the new saviors are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

“As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths.” ~ Isaiah 3:12

Michelle Bachmann had to retract her endorsement of a family pledge when it became known that the pledge is “racist.” What’s so racist about it, you ask?

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Hatefacts are racist. Of course it’s true that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.” It’s not arguable!

A staggering 70% of black women are unmarried, across all income levels. The reason is simple: They don’t want to deal with niggers any more than we do. A black Stanford Law professor writing in the Wall Street Journal has thunk up an ingenious solution to the problem: black women can marry white men! One snag with this plan, as he admits, is that “Numerous studies of Internet dating confirm that black women are the partners least desired by non-black men.” But hope faileth not! “Even if a majority of white men are uninterested in dating black women, that still leaves more than enough eligible white men for every single black woman in America.” It all sounds so easy. But Negroes understand each other, including their aroma. “As one 31-year-old schoolteacher in D.C. told me, ‘It’s easy to date a black man because he knows about my hair. He knows I don’t wash it every day.’” And then there’s the famous “racism” of blacks. Cecelia, a corporate lawyer, broke up with her white boyfriend because, as she puts it, “I wanted chocolate babies.” Dr. King’s Dream has yet to be realized, apparently. “Cecelia wanted chocolate babies not just so they would stay connected to black culture, but for another reason as well: So that no one would ever question whether they were hers.” White evangelical women no longer worry about this; they go in search of non-white children to adopt, even though it makes them look like whores. This is the new version of the “gospel.” Let’s call it the whore-gospel.

Steve Sailer offered a similar suggestion to black women in an awful 1997 article, Is Love Colorblind? But he now admits that it was bad advice because “black girls like black guys. A lot.” Steve is a brilliant man with a couple of brilliantly useless ideas, notably extolling “Citizenism” over Kinism. At least he can admit when he’s wrong.

Don’t you think it was racist of Elvis to make these black women participate in the singing of Dixie?

Even while stoned, that boy could sing anyone off the stage. His song In the Ghetto blames white people for allowing black kids to grow up in “desperation.” Money solves everything, as all white people know.

It’s nice to see blacks and whites come together in a spirit of brotherhood and camaraderie.

They even sing in harmony!

The modern Pentecostal, holy-roller, speaking in tongues movement began at a black church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906. Charles Parham gave this commentary on the proceedings:

Men and women, white and blacks, knelt together or fell across one another; a white woman, perhaps of wealth and culture, could be seen thrown back in the arms of a big “buck nigger,” and held tightly thus as she shivered and shook in freak imitation of Pentecost. Horrible, awful shame!

Pentecostalism is now the fastest-growing segment of “Christianity” and in size is second only to Roman Catholicism.

Yawning, burbs, hurling, and TNB: Just another day at church for Agape Bible Fellowship. Helpful hint: You don’t want to be standing in front of the guy in the yellow shirt when the demons are exorcised. In our household, we fight the demon of high prices by clipping coupons.

Learn how to whoop like you’re sanctified, 90% off.

Here’s a very good Political Cesspool show on Christianity vs. Paganism, starring Hutton Gibson (Mel’s father), who calls the Political Cesspool his “home away from home.” James Edwards says that it’s one of the most important shows they’ve ever aired. Just after five minutes into the show, you’ll hear Bill Rolen give an excellent defense of Western culture and civilization, which are fundamentally Christian.

Nathanael Strickland and Nil Desperandum wade into the Political Cesspool.

The Onion gets real.

Always a bridesmaid, never a side of beef.

Optimal waist circumference for those of European descent is less than 94 cm (37 inches) for men and 80 cm (31.5 inches) for women.

Meet Al Sharpton, professional journalist.

One small fireball for Kenya, one giant leap for Negrokind.

Yard sales are racist and homophobic.

These Chinese villagers mistook an atrophied ape for an alien. (Insert your own joke here.)

It’s considered perfectly natural to cast white men as buffoons in these commercials, but they would never be made if anyone dared to suggest that the racial roles be reversed.

The superhero myth takes a bold leap into the 21st century as Peter Parker is killed off and is replaced by a black/mestizo/fag Spiderman.

The Johhny Reb toy cannon.

Why the SCV is worthless.

George Wallace, 2012. Death is no excuse.

The Outlaw Josey Wales was written by a speechwriter for George Wallace and a member of the White Citizens Councils.

“John Brown has been reincarnated as a Norwegian.”

“As soon as it was confirmed that [ABB] was an ethnic Norwegian instead of one of their pet minorities, the media delightedly fell all over themselves to label the attacker as a ‘conservative Christian’ and a ‘right-wing extremist.’ Wikipedia describes him as a ‘nationalist’ and a ‘right-wing extremist.’” It would have been a big win for the Jewmedia if a blond-haired Christian nationalist murdered scores of white children. But then the facts started to roll out.

Breivik is a Freemason who is a self-described agnostic and anti-racist, and he fought for his “Zionist brothers” by murdering his own people on the 65th anniversary of the Zionist-terrorist King David Hotel bombing. He is a positive advocate for faggotry. He believes that even Afro-Asians should be allowed to settle in Norway. He just doesn’t want Muslims there. He seems very similar to Geert Wilders.

Breivik has frequently been called insane. He is insane in the sense of being a neocon who views himself as the heir of Charles Martel, but as Pat Buchanan writes, he is an intelligent, calculating, and cold-blooded killer who purposely targeted the children of the Labor Party leaders who allowed Muslims into Norway and the West.

This picture was taken on the island where the murders took place. You can see why a radical Zionist would target these people.

Some Breivik quotes:

[W]e have to ensure that we influence other culturally [sic] conservatives to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought…

Ethnocentrism is therefore the complete opposite of what we want to achieve…

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus… It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter).

Obviously, Breivik is capable of being a member in good standing with the Norwegian State Church.

A friend of ours reminds us of a timeless Joe Sobran quip. The Jewmedia was in a frenzy when an aide of Louis Farrakhan preached a “sermon” in which he attacked White people, Southerners, Christians in general, Roman Catholics, corporations, America, and Zionists. The Jewmedia didn’t care about anything other than the fact that he attacked Zionists. So Sobran asked, “What do you call someone who hates White people, Southerners, Christians, Catholics, corporations, America, and Zionists?” Answer: “Anti-Semitic, of course!” This is how the Jewmedia transformed the KKK from what was in the 1920s essentially a Knights of Columbus organization for White Protestants to a semi-criminal organization. Whenever a crime was committed by someone even tangentially associated with the KKK, the Jewmedia headlines would trumpet his credentials. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy and caused real criminals to be drawn to the Klan, turning it into exactly what its Jew critics claimed from the beginning. This is why the headlines about the Norwegian don’t read: “Terrorist Identified as Zionist!”

Well, better luck next time, Jews. The Great White Christian Defendant is out there somewhere. When you wish upon a swastika, dreams come true.

Jews hate free speech, and they hate the First Amendment or anything else that protects it. Some of them tried to get Facebook to ban Holohoax denial, and to its credit, Facebook refused, citing free speech rights. This is unusual. Negative publicity is usually enough to keep a company in line. Remember, views of history that are not approved by anti-Christs are sinful.

Kitler’s Nazi salute. Cats are anti-Semitic.

I’m sure by now you’ve seen the video of Glenn Beck announcing that he is a Jew. Our favorite part is when, in a quivering voice, he begs of the Jews, “Entreat me not to leave you,” and the rest of Ruth’s famous speech to Naomi. He entreats them not to leave him because he blew his lucrative Fox show after a two-part exposé of Jew George Soros, which prompted the ADL to label him an “anti-Semite.” This was after he accused Obama of being a racist and a hater of white people, which was followed by Beck himself being accused of being a racist, which Beck handled via a huge rally on the Washington Mall to honor MLK, the sainted prophet of philandery. After losing his job to both racism and anti-Semitism, Beck is trying to stay in the business, and that requires some ankle-grabbing in front of the “Christians United for Israel” summit.

We have our own brief history with Glenn Beck. Long before he built the third most popular radio show, an Alienist named Pablo who had his panties in a twist over what he read at the old Little Geneva blog (whose archives are hosted here at SWB) called the Beck show and attempted to draw nationwide attention to Kinists and their hideously anachronistic ideas. This is what happened.

If only Glenn had treated Little Geneva as a real threat to the Babelist order, it could have scored points early on with the very gang of thieves before whom he has prostrated himself. Well, hindsight is always crystal clear. Beck is now dealing with “hindsight” of a different kind, as he buries his face in the collective Jewish rump. It’s sickening to watch a talented white man humiliate himself in this way, all for the love of Federal Reserve notes.

“Our Greco-Roman heritage is the heritage of the utopian Greek philosophers and the race-mixing Romans who put loyalty to the idea of Rome above loyalty to one’s blood. The startling fact that comes to the forefront when we look at the European’s history is that the classicists have always regarded the European as a barbarian because the European regarded the purity of his race as something sacred.” ~ CWNY

Tolkien’s books reflect three aspects of the European nature, which he depicts in the form of elves, men, and dwarfs. I always wondered what made him choose dwarfs to represent stubbornness and persistence. Then I saw this very interesting article. Did you know that there was a massive network of underground tunnels that criss-crossed Europe from Scotland to Turkey, dating from the Stone Age? Even after 12,000 years, many still survive. (See the very good Australian movie, Beneath Hill 60.)

Pictures of the cast of The Hobbit. More hobbits.

The earliest surviving intact European book is a seventh century gospel of John that was buried with St. Cuthbert. It’s in prime condition.

William Tyndale, the benefactor of mankind who was killed for his benefactions.

“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.” ~ John Adams

Speaking of Adams, I like very much how his son John Quincy described American foreign policy in 1821: “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” The same is true for Kinism. While Kinist principles are helpful for any race, we really only propose to speak for our own.

“Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.” ~ Martin Luther

The duties of sons and daughters.

From Richard Baxter’s The Special Duties of Children Toward Their Parents:

Marry not without your parents’ consent. Nay, if it may be, let their choice determine first of the person, and not your own: unexperienced youth doth choose by fancy and passion, when your experienced parents will choose by judgment. But if they would force you to join yourselves to such as are ungodly, and like to make your lives either sinful or miserable, you may humbly refuse them. But you must remain unmarried, while by the use of right means you can live in chastity, till your parents are in a better mind. But if indeed you have a flat necessity of marrying, and your parents will consent to none but one of a false religion, or one that is utterly unfit for you, in such a case they forfeit their authority in that point, which is given them for their edification, and not for your destruction; and then you should advise with other friends that are more wise and faithful: but if you suffer your fond affections to contradict your parents’ wills, and pretend a necessity, (that you cannot change your affections,) as if your folly were uncurable; this is but to enter sinfully into that state of life, which should have been sanctified to God, that he might have blessed it to you.

“In saying, that Hagar took a wife for Ishmael, Moses has respect to civil order; for since marriage forms a principal part of human life, it is right that, in contracting it, children should be subject to their parents, and should obey their counsel. This order, which nature prescribes and dictates, was, as we see, observed by Ishmael, a wild man in the barbarism of the desert; for he was subject to his mother in marrying a wife. Whence we perceive, what a prodigious monster was the Pope, when he dared to overthrow this sacred right of nature. To this is also added the impudent boast of authorizing a wicked contempt of parents, in honor of holy wedlock.” ~ John Calvin on Genesis 21:21

Willliam Dickson Boyce, who founded the Boy Scouts of America, also founded the Lone Scouts of America. Here’s the “racist” magazine for these “racist” white boys.

This was from a “racist” time when white people were not in fear for their lives.

Now prepare to be sickened.

The mulatto Rihanna spends $14,000 a week to tame her Negro hair and become a redhead. It looks so natural! Even the humblest and homeliest of white women is blessed with more beauty.

It’s kind of funny to see Jessica Alba horrified to find that she’s 87% white. She’s very dejected, and the crowd is shocked into silence, as though the news has been broken that Alba has AIDS. She wants to know if Spain counts as white. She clings to the hope that it does not, knowing that white people are so yesterday. This is what we white men call taking out the trash.

“[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.” ~ Benjamin Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc., 1751

“Yes, sir, these tyrants know that if they can mix the race of Washington and Lee and Jackson with this base herd which they brought from the fens of Africa, if they can taint the blood which hallowed the plains of Manassas with this sordid stream, the adulterous current will never again swell a Virginian’s heart with a throb noble enough to make a despot tremble… Now, who that knows the Negro does not know that his is a subservient race; that he is made to follow, and not to lead; that his temperament, idiosyncrasy and social relation make him untrustworthy as a depository of power?” ~ R.L. Dabney

The actress Thandie Newton is a lot like Halle Berry in that she is a mulatto who is considered very beautiful because she doesn’t look very black. (Unlike Halle Berry, she has a white father and a black mother, which probably means that her father didn’t leave the “family.”) If you want to see the alienation and identity issues that arise from selfishly bringing such a person into the world, watch Newton’s TED speech, which is all about her pretended attempt to be something “other” so that she wouldn’t have to be herself. Racial and sexual identity confine a person, she says, and so we ought to strive for Oneness “with the earth and every living thing.” As you can guess, this atheist agrees with most “Christians” today that race is merely a social construct. “Race is an illegitimate concept that we have created based on fear and ignorance.” The Self is a projection that our brains create in order to cheat the reality of death, she says. But she says the Self must be connected to its Creator! This is another example of how atheists can’t deny God’s existence. The catch is that, for Newton, the Creator is “you and me.” So to the atheist, “sin” is divisiveness and judgment, and “redemption” begins with self-awareness and ends with a sense of equality that is the drug for ultimately embracing death. She talks about having a “connection to the infinite,” which is another interesting borrowed phrase. Her conclusion: Don’t “live in yourself” and mistake it for life, whatever that means.

At 51:12 in this talk, Rushdoony says:

I think our equalitarians are very often the worst racists. Because what they are, in effect, saying with their equalitarianism is that we don’t like what you are, therefore we are going to treat it as nonexistent and obliterate it. Instead of respecting the differences…

Otto Scott replies:

Well, really, the differences are crucial to know… We all know that people have certain basic similarities: childbirth, death, etc. It’s the same with all members of the human race. But what we really need to know are the differences, not to eliminate them but to respect them.

“Yes, exactly,” says Rushdoony.

“Inequality is written into the very nature of the universe by the infallible, ultimate, and sovereign decree of God. God has said there is a difference, an inescapable difference between the present natures of men… Do you realize what that doctrine does to the Great Society? Do you realize what that doctrine does to every champion of democracy and equality? It shatters his position. He either has to surrender or to wage war against the sovereign God and the doctrine of predestination… And if you are a humanist and you are affirming the sovereignty of man, you…are going to say, ‘We’ve got to bring all people together from all over the world and have a One World Order, an integrated order, and therefore it has to be an order that is characterized by equality. Otherwise our godhead, Man, will fall apart. A true Christian theology asserts the unity of the Godhead: three Persons, one God. There is no subordination of Persons in the Trinity. There is a perfect equality of the three Persons. And the minute you tamper with that, you destroy the doctrine of the Trinity. In the same way, if you tamper with the doctrine of the unity and the equality of Man, you tamper with the godhead of humanism… God, in His sovereign decree, ordained that men should have differences and different destinies… It is only when you deny that these differences have any right to exist that you can give all power to the state to try to right this terrible wrong and unite all peoples and integrate all peoples and equalize all differences. And the result is that because you can’t raise some of them up, you’re going to lower all of them. You’re going to have, to use Van Til’s excellent phrase, which is applicable to every realm: ‘Integration downward into the void.’” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Politics of Predestination (16:47)

“Christianity must be blended with black voodoo, Islam, Judaism, and every non-Christian faith of the colored tribes. And how can the sexual perversity of the heathens be condemned? They are non-white and therefore without sin. We all remember the horrible image of Pope John Paul II celebrating a Mass with bare-breasted African women. ‘Once our grace we have forgot,’ by accepting racial diversity as a consummation devoutly to be wished rather than an abomination to be condemned, all the other faiths and sexual orientations come streaming through the church door and make themselves at home with the good ‘Christian’ people of Europe.”~ CWNY

“Now it is clear that the several rights of different individuals in the same society must differ exceedingly, because the persons differ indefinitely in powers, knowledge, virtue and natural relations to each other. From that very law of love and equity, whence the moral equality of men was inferred, it must also follow, that one man is not naturally entitled to pursue his natural well-being at the expense of that of other men, or of the society. Each one’s right must be so pursued, as not to infringe others’ rights. The well-being of all is interconnected. Hence equality, yea, a true equality itself, demands a varied distribution of social privilege among the members, according to their different characters and relations. In other words, an equal government must confer very different degrees of power, and impose very different degrees of restraint, upon different classes of members.” ~ R.L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, p. 255

“But, conditioned disastrously by sin as it actually is, the human race is not a heterogeneous collection of individual units, but a great aggregation of families; and through whatever of conservative influence still results from the laws impressed upon the family relation, that relation exercises a restraining and wholesome effect upon society. Were the population of the earth not thus composed of families, it would be a wild and ungovernable mob destitute of the first principles of law and order, of religion and morals, a promiscuous herd of human wild beasts, – nay, worse, for beasts of prey are not wont to rend their own species, and animals are controlled infallibly by the law of instinct beyond which they cannot pass. But when human beings transgress, as they do, the laws imposed upon their nature, the evil multiplies itself until the genius of license, misrule, and disorder riots in undisputed and unlimited sway, and sweeps its hapless victims, as if possessed of demons, onward to every social excess and agitation, communistic, socialistic, anarchistic, nihilistic – to universal revolution, amidst the terrific explosions of which all legitimate, time-honored and venerable institutions are in danger of being whelmed in one common and fearful ruin.” ~ John L. Girardeau, A Sermon on Family Religion

“Whatever the biological reality, race as a social concept is a powerful force uniting and dividing people. Whether visible on the physical surface or simply felt in the emotional depths, race provides the cohesive groupings in which cultures have been concentrated, transmitted, and carried around the world. However, the erosion of both racial and cultural distinctiveness has been as real as their persistence. A worldview of race and culture must encompass both.” ~ Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture: A Worldview, p. 6

A writer for Puritan News Weekly has denounced Kinism as an unbiblical solution to the unbiblical situation in which we find ourselves. It’s all very confused, with a lot of talk about how language and culture ought to be preserved, but without barriers for marriage. Yet what does he prescribe as the way out of the mess that has been brought about by free intermarriage, which he advocates? A repartitioning of the country along boundaries of blood! He says the Navaho and Lakota Indian tribes need their own land, as do “Spanish-speaking Mexican Americans” and blacks. But of course, this implies that whites are entitled to the same.

David Opperman responds.

Here’s another example showing that an accurate representation of Kinist beliefs is not to be found among the opponents of Kinism. Get a load of this line: “The seed of the kingdom is the word of God, not the semen of tribal chiefs.” According to the Alienist, if we say that our race, created by God and blessed of God, ought to survive, and that we have as great a duty to this end as to bring children into the world and raise up a new generation, we must therefore believe that to be white is to be Christian, and not to be white is not to be Christian. We believe no such thing, and neither did our ancestors.

J. Daniel Hays of Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, has written a paper called A Biblical Perspective on Interracial Marriage. It came to our attention because it has been positively and glowingly reviewed by several seminary professors. The central theme is today’s (but not yesterday’s) popular view of Numbers 12.

Hays repeatedly calls opposition to miscegenation a white problem. He ignores the vast numbers in other races who oppose it, often very loudly. He says it’s one of the biggest problems faced by the Church today, and it’s largely ignored by pastors and teachers.

Surprisingly, there has been very little biblical study or theological reflection on this topic. Even though this is one of the most critical and crucial social issues in the church today, our seminaries and Christian universities rarely address it, and it is virtually absent from the major textbooks used to train pastors in theology (both systematic theology and practical theology).

He writes about the “mixed multitude” coming up out of Egypt with the Israelites but makes a number of risky assumptions. He assumes that the Egyptians did not turn back but wandered with the Israelites for 40 years. But there is not a hint of Egyptian influence that followed the generation of the Exodus. He assumes that “black Africans” which were conquered by the Egyptians were among these followers, and blended into the Israelite nation without a ripple, so that the nation of Israel was filled with mulattoes. In fact, he says it is “highly likely,” and “there is strong evidence.”

He writes that “the case is extremely strong” that Moses married one of these black Africans, even though the idea can be found nowhere in the major Bible commentators. He writes, “[I]t is quite clear that Moses marries a black African woman.” Quite clear! He does not hesitate to identify Moses as a polygamist. Then he says that Miriam was jealous of Moses because she wanted him to marry her instead! His own sister!

His conclusion: “Interracial marriage between Christians is clearly supported by Scripture.” But he doesn’t really offer any proof, just a lot of speculation. His promised “historical and exegetical arguments” never materialize. Nor does he illuminate “the flimsy and shallow exegesis that has been used by white scholarship in the past to argue that this wife of Moses is not really black.” We’re just supposed to take it on faith that John Calvin, the Puritans, Matthew Henry, etc., etc., didn’t understand the Bible very well. If I were paying a man like this for a seminary education, I would have to demand a refund.

“I do not by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah, since we hear nothing of the death of Zipporah, nay, she had been brought back by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the delivery of the Law; whilst it is too absurd to charge the holy Prophet with the reproach of polygamy. Besides, as an octogenarian, he would have been but little suited for a second marriage. Again, how would such a marriage have been practicable in the desert? It is, therefore, sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah, who is called an Ethiopian woman, because the Scripture comprehends the Midianites under this name: although I have no doubt but that they maliciously selected this name, for the purpose of awakening greater odium against Moses. I designedly forbear from adducing the frivolous glosses in which some indulge. Moses, however, acknowledges that it was not accorded to him to have a wife of the holy race of Abraham.” ~ John Calvin

(Midian was the son of Abraham’s concubine, Keturah.)

It makes far more sense to infer, with Calvin, that the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron was occasioned by the marriage of Moses to a woman who descended from a concubine of Abraham and not an actual wife. It shows the strong bond of blood shared by the Israelites, and it also ridicules Hays’s theory that “black Africans” could merge into the Israelite nation with nary a yawn.

Some friends drafted this list of topics that are affected by the Kinist worldview:

1. Race
2. Hierarchy
3. Foreign policy
4. Economics (hard currency)
5. Interposition
6. Presuppositionalism
7. Complementarianism in marriage, and career women violating their calling as mothers
8. Penology
9. The Jew Question
10. Opposition to the New World Order
11. Revisionism, or a conspiratorial view of history
12. Agrarianism
13. Confederate/Anti-Federalist understanding of America
14. Dominion of Christ in every area of life
15. Children as blessings rather than afterthoughts or liabilities
16. Modest dress and modest living
17. Opposition to state-sponsored education

There are many more. But whenever we Kinists field complaints from Alienists in authority, we know which of these is considered the felony, without even asking. It’s number one with a bullet, specifically as it relates to equal-opportunity marriage. The point is that Kinism is not just about race.

One of our friends writes that even though Kinists differ in various ways, the level of agreement is stunning compared to all other Christian groups. It is almost impossible to find among any Christians an organic orthodoxy, even at the local level. But for Kinists, it is routine.

I mean, seriously, Kinists seem to be the only Christians who are concerned enough about the erection of idols in America to oppose them openly. Most other Christians now insist that the presence of idols is merely a “better opportunity for preaching the good news.” They are actually resolved to the view that God wants the proliferation of idols.

Kinists are nothing less than the last sane remnants of the Church.

Dan Brannan is one of the best writers and artists you’ll find. He’s the one who led the Christian protest of the pagan statue in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. One of the local liberals, Devin L. Heilman, wrote an opinion piece in the CDA Press on July 14, and Dan was compelled to respond. It’s so perfectly written that we are compelled to republish it.

Dumb Idols and Self-Hatred

I didn’t want to write this. Really. I tried my best to ignore Ms. Heilman’s attack upon my city, my countrymen, Western civilization, and Christendom, but my conscience eventually got the better of me. In her zeal to explain why she regards the idol of a foreign god as a boon to our city, Ms. Heilman opens her letter by brazenly insulting her readers, saying, “Coeur d’Alene is quite frankly cultureless.” From there she descends into a protracted barrage of name-calling, describing the people of Coeur d’Alene as “bigoted,” “closed-minded,” “small-minded,” and “ignorant.”

And aside from being an insult, it is just patently untrue. Far from being “cultureless,” Coeur d’Alene and greater North Idaho are a bastion of traditional Americana with roots deep and wide. There is a reason, after all, that these territories are regular recipients of awards, commendations, and universal praise as “a Rockwellian vision,” “America’s best place to live,” “a slice of old America,” “Mayberry RFD,” etc. Why, this very publication has run numerous articles underscoring the point.

Living in Coeur d’Alene, my family buys produce from local farmers on the honor system: The farmers leave their products at an appointed public location unattended, and in exchange their customers leave money in a common pot. You can’t do that in LA, Dallas, or New York. Not even in Spokane.

Here most folks leave cars and houses unlocked. Strangers smile at one another in public and share more generously with their neighbors than in any locale I’ve ever seen. Visiting any one of our distinctly Northwestern coffee houses one may hear a cowboy Folklorist spinning the saga of Lewis and Clark or witness the unsurpassed beauty of Celtic tunes played on Celtic strings. At Christmas, carolers stroll the downtown singing the old hymns. And our annual Rodeo always opens with an invocation in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s our culture. Old America. The Occident. Christendom.

That’s what people come here seeking – the things that have been lost in most other corners of the country. The “cultureless” atmosphere which Ms. Heilman so callously excoriates is the very culture which traditional Americans and Christians so cherish.

And Ms. Heilman herself admits that the Ganesh statue represents “a culture very different from our own” and that those who oppose the statue of Ganesh “keep our community the way it is.” Clearly, she knows we aren’t “cultureless.” It’s just that she thinks our culture inferior to all others and advocates for its replacement with another. Any other.

But despite Ms. Heilman’s contempt for Western civilization and our people, we can forgive her “closed-mindedness” because that too is a part of our culture.

This is Kinism versus Alienism on the scale of Godzilla versus Bambi. Could a bloodless “Christian” who cares nothing for our kith and kin write anything of the kind? If the answer is no, can the bloodless “Christian” really mount a defense against idolatry? I think the answers are obvious. Just read the news if you doubt it.

A comparison of cultures, and races.

At 20:35 in the Q&A portion of this sermon, Otto Scott asks Rushdoony to comment on the finding of Charles Murray that the white race had then reached the same level of illegitimacy that blacks had reached 20 years earlier, which had led Sen. D.P. Moynihan to conclude that the black family had disintegrated. Rushdoony responds that few are willing to tell the obvious truths about minority groups, for obvious reasons. “They are unwilling because they are living in terms of fictions.” Then he says something fascinating, which is that libel and slander laws have become unenforceable in the courts because of the fear to be politically incorrect. He asks Otto for the name of his friend who had been the victim of “some amazing slanders.” Scott responds: “Jared Taylor.” They are referring to Taylor’s book, Paved With Good Intentions. Says Rushdoony: “The people who refuse to recognize the truth attack him for having called attention to it. And a society goes into slavery…when it abandons the truth. And we are moving very rapidly into [slavery].” Well, we don’t need to tell you what Taylor’s book is about, nor the truth to which Rushdoony alludes. Taylor just wrote a follow-up called White Identity, and it’s even better than the book that Rushdoony and Scott admired.

Can you believe that Mark Rushdoony is promoting the “racism” of Jared Taylor? Shocking.

And if you think that’s bad, listen at 20:15 in this sermon. Otto Scott comments on the rewriting of history. Rushdoony replies:

Modern historiography is contemptuous of all meaning…and an honest historiography is not tolerated. The news yesterday indicated that David Irving had been expelled from Canada, and he had been accused of being a racist, a Nazi, which is as far-fetched as anything can be. This is an intolerance of anybody’s attempt to understand the meaning of events.

Can you believe that Mark Rushdoony is promoting the “anti-Semitic” revisionism of David Irving? Doubly shocking.

We love it, of course, but the colorblind reformitards are going to have aneurysms after their fill of SWB today.

If you’ve never been exposed to the brilliance of Otto Scott, his lecture on The Family and History is as good a place to start as any, and there are 21 more on that page which are simply excellent. He calls the family a “little race,” and he laments that marriage is now “bloodless,” ungrounded in either the past or the future.

Calling families little races is not, when you look at it, very far off the mark. One notices physical types and even talents recurring through the family for generations. Such observations may no longer be fashionable, but they are unmistakable.

Clearly, Otto Scott has no use for Franz Boas. He links the survival of the family, and by consequence civilization, to agrarianism. You can hear quite a bit more of Scott on the Easy Chair talks and other recordings at pocketcollege.com.

Listen at 11:10 in this sermon to hear Rushdoony describe how Christians are masochistic because they are so afraid to speak the truth about various races and religions.

At 14:45 in this sermon, he says, “People are afraid to state obvious facts lest they be accused of racism… Guilt is a very powerful means of controlling and castrating people… It cannot even be said today that there is a higher rate of illegitimacy among blacks and others. That’s racism… If we are held to be guilty because of our race and national past, or because of the imagined sins of Columbus, there is no way of removing that ostensible sin and its guilt… We are in the business today of manufacturing new sins.” The definition of a barbarian, said Rushdoony, is one who has forgotten his past. He is like a man with amnesia.

“Sometimes the best business of an age is to resist some alien invasion; sometimes to preach practical self-control in a world too self-indulgent and diffused; sometimes to prevent the growth in the State of great new private enterprises that would poison or oppress it. Above all it may sometimes happen that the highest task of a thinking citizen may be to do the exact opposite of the work which the Radicals had to do. It may be his highest duty to cling to every scrap of the past that he can find, if he feels that the ground is giving way beneath him and sinking into mere savagery and forgetfulness of all human culture.” ~ G.K. Chesterton, Appreciations and Criticisms, A Child’s History of England

“To be born white is held to be an example of sin; it means an immediate inheritance of centuries of supposed guilt, exploitive propensities, and assumed arrogance. The white man is told he should feel guilty. The black man has a similar guilt trip laid on him. He is told that he is by nature inferior, or that the white man has made him inferior and exploited him, and that he is a betrayer of his race and destiny if he works, minds his business, and enjoys life. Wherever he turns, a guilt trip is laid on him. The same is true of every racial and national group; false pride and false guilt are posited, and a false doctrine of sin which blames others for their past, and then for failure to become engines of revolution.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Report No. 174, February 1980

At 19:43 in this sermon, Otto Scott asks Rushdoony about the genocide then taking place in Rwanda. Scott observes that it was treated by the West as “a natural calamity and not the activity of people”; no accusations of discrimination. He asks if this is because there are no Christians or white people involved. Rushdoony states that the West has blinded itself to the evils of black Africa and has kept throwing more and more money at it. (This is the favorite hobby of white people, as you know.) White men created the boundaries in Africa that have guaranteed civil war, he says. Then Scott asks, “Well, if the blacks are not integrated with one another, why does everyone expect them to integrate with the whites?” “A very good question,” replies Rushdoony, for not even Indian tribes in America have integrated, even when the government puts them all on the same reservation. “And we felt that all would be well somehow. And we haven’t stopped doing that. So of course, it has meant trouble wherever we have applied that policy. We believe that there should be peace, so we put enemies together and say, ‘Now, don’t you really love one another?’… And yet nothing has been ever done to correct it or to say these people have hostilities that go back for centuries. They’re not going to live together in peace. Let’s give them each their own territory. There are boundaries of a natural sort there. But we will not recognize it.”

At 52:00 in this sermon, you’ll hear some very good comments from Rushdoony about the 1967 Detroit riots. He quotes Strom Thurmond that there were five reasons for “the racial explosions throughout the country”: Communism, false compassion, “the preaching of civil disobedience and so-called nonviolent resistance,” court decisions that have disarmed law enforcement and protected wickedness, and criminal instincts. Has anything changed since 1967?

At 38:00 in this sermon, Rushdoony comments on a press conference with Governor George Wallace, and he says the governor masterfully handled questions about race. (I presume this was in 1972.) An African reporter asks Wallace if he believes black people are human. Of course, replied Wallace, but what about you people (Africans)? “You eat them.” Rush had a good laugh about this, and so did the people of his church. Rush then read some other stories of interest about Negro gang leaders getting federal jobs, a black power conference, riots, and police being told not to arrest the rioters but to let them run wild. He connects the actions of “civil rights” revolutionaries to the Radical Republican terrorists during Reconstruction. He quotes Dick Gregory that riots were occurring in Democrat (i.e., pro-White) cities because Democrats were not giving blacks the same handouts as Republicans, and he connects this to the cargo cults of the South Pacific, where people believe that ships will someday arrive to give them everything they desire, “and the positions of black and white will be reversed.” Behold the Democrat Party. It’s unthinkable that most pastors today, much less a famous theologian, would follow a sermon with this kind of Kinist commentary.

‎”It is indeed a sorry white man and white woman who, when put on notice of the inevitable result of mongrelization of their race and their civilization, are yet unwilling to put forth any effort or make any sacrifice to save themselves and their offspring from this great and certain calamity.” ~ Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, 1946

At 42:45 in this sermon, Rushdoony is asked a fundamentally Kinist question: Is there a singular Christian culture, or are there Christian cultures? His answer is rather weak, sad to say, at first. He leans towards the former when he defines culture as religion externalized. “That’s all culture is.” But this is false. It ignores the gifts that God has bestowed on mankind, and God does not bestow gifts equally. If all the world were converted, there would not be a singular culture because there is not a singular people, as much as Alienists love to harp on the fact that we all descended from Adam. When the questioner asks him to clarify, Rushdoony answers correctly by denying his previous statement that culture is merely religion externalized. He correctly brings genetics into the equation:

God has created the diversity of mankind, and therefore each of the Christian cultures will begin with the sovereignty of God and the authority of His Word. But there are areas where their particular talents and diversities will be expressed, so that, even as I, for example, have aptitudes in certain areas and a very dear friend of mine has aptitudes in another area, and is every bit as zealous for the Sovereignty of God as I am, but when he talks in the area of sciences he loses me in about the second or third sentence. But he is applying the word of God…in the context of his situation. Now that’s a little more extreme than cultures or nations, but there is no question that different peoples have different aptitudes and abilities… I.Q. tests are today artificially constructed so that they will eliminate sexual differences (women will come out ahead in most fields except the two I mentioned) and racial differences, because there are variations. People of one ethnic background will have marked abilities in one area and not as marked in other areas, but they don’t want to believe that there are these differences, you see, therefore they try to eliminate them. Well, in a godly culture we will consider those as blessings of God to be developed.

At 46:02 in this sermon, Rushdoony calls slavery a welfare system, and slaves non-productive. Elsewhere he calls the laziness of slaves “an albatross that hung the South, that bled it.” He quotes Dabney, “one of the greatest theologians this country has ever produced, a tremendous man,” that “slavery was a form of Communism.” But Northern industrialists were creating a more vicious form of slavery, Dabney knew. Corporations, said Dabney, have no soul to be damned nor a backside to be kicked. In other words, the white race took the occasion of the Negro’s presence in the New World to make a choice between whether domestic government would survive or imperial government would usurp it. You can see this in every court decision that has transferred more power to the empire (power which does not belong to it). The excuse is always that the empire will prevent inequalities from manifesting themselves. But Ephesians 5-6 is clear that domestic government is built upon the very foundation of inequality! (See the anti-egalitarianism of Matthew 10:24-25 as well: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master.”) Our people were not mature enough to choose liberty over slavery, and this is why we Kinists could never call ourselves “white supremacists.”

As Learned Hand said, liberty rests in the heart, not in constitutions, laws, and courts. And when it dies in the heart, “no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

At 20:35 in this sermon, Otto Scott observes that names have lost significance, especially family names. But what is really happening, he says, is the destruction of the genealogies of the people themselves. Rush agrees, saying that clan names also used to mean something.

As is true in some countries to this day, if your family is not known in some of the out-of-way portions of the world, you cannot get a job because you are anonymous. And if your family is not known, you are assumed to be an outlaw because you have separated yourself from those who can vouch for you, back you, and post, if necessary, a bond for you. So we have worked, actually, for anonymity… A desire for anonymity goes hand in hand with the rise of evil.

Otto Scott remarks that blacks have been rejected by their own people for bearing the names of white men. “Yes,” replies Rushdoony, “and that’s true in South Africa” as well. He says that prisoners were first given numbers rather than names in reformitories, whose purpose it was to “reform” the prisoners by dehumanizing them. Rush calls this a great evil. Scott adds that the same is true in the monastic orders, where new names are taken to symbolize rebirth in a new creation. But by doing so, they show that they are leaving the world that God called good for us, which is the heresy of Gnosticism. Perhaps this carried over to the masses by giving children the names of saints. A fascinating discussion follows about how Americans are treated as dehumanized prisoners by being assigned Social Security numbers for identification. And while even soldiers are asked to memorize the serial numbers on their rifles, Rush comments that frontiermen like Daniel Boone gave names to their rifles. Guitar players also give names to their guitars. The personal is always associated with a name, never a number.

Some interesting comments follow about statute law versus common law being the difference between democracy and theocracy. What we now call legislative bodies used to serve as watchdogs for the people over the aspirations of kings or elected officials. The common law was based on biblical law. Now the system is entirely man-centered, so that legislatures pass laws which courts are expected to authorize against the standard of precedent rather than Scripture. This is far different than establishing God’s law and charging councils with balancing the will of rulers against a true standard. The latter leaves courts with the adjudication of relatively minor disputes. But as the saying goes, if you reject God’s Ten Commandments, you’ll be forced to suffer under Man’s Ten Thousand Commandments.

Centuries ago, when clan government was replaced by police forces funded through coercive taxation, there was no longer a need for the frankpledge (frith-borh). According to this law of kinship, every ten households were joined under the leadership of a tithing-man, who was responsible for testifying for or against one of his number who had been accused of a crime. He was to either produce the accused before the court or stand in the place of the accused. Policemen came about through the Norman and Saxon conquests. But clearly, this is yet another example of how kinship really meant something to the old-fashioned Christians.

John Dewey rejected Christianity for being aristocratic, because it makes distinctions among men, and is therefore incompatible with democracy. Well, at least he was perceptive. The humanistic lust for imperial paternalism is summed up perfectly in the famous quote from Cicero: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.” Remember that during the French Reign of Terror, Robespierre’s governing body was called the “Committee of Public Safety.” The American empire is patterned after the Roman empire, which was foretold in a vision to the prophet Daniel, and the “law” to which we are subjected has no higher referent than Man. Therefore, salvation to the humanist is of Man rather than Christ, and through law rather than faith. But by striving for salvation through law, the humanist renders all law meaningless, and brings down upon himself the curse of the law. Rushdoony discusses this here. Cornelius Van Til taught that unless God exists it is not even possible to argue against Him. Likewise, without God’s Law, which is His Word, which is the testimony of His eternal and infinite Being spoken to Moses through the burning bush in the words “I Am He Who Is” (Exodus 3:14), everything spirals into anarchy.

“The chuch today has fallen prey to the heresy of democracy.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 747

More hand-wringing from “Puritans” over Kinism, and whether Dabney should have been brought under church discipline for being a racist. One of them says, “If Dabney lived today, he wouldn’t be racist.” I’ve always wondered how anyone could write such a thing. What, besides the threat of semitical correctness and the loss of a job, would convince Dabney that anything about the perverted time in which we live proves that he was wrong? And what in Dabney’s life could convince anyone today that he would be so cowardly as to fear the opinions of beaten men?

This sermon against racism is illustrative of the lies that are told by ministers of the gospel to defend the present atrocities. There are so many lies that I can’t list them all. One is that “the South advanced into the North long before the North advanced into the South.” He could be referring here to Fort Sumter, but the fort was the property of South Carolina, the Yankee troops were repeatedly ordered to leave, and Lincoln lied that they were leaving, even as he was reprovisioning them.

Another lie in this sermon is that Southerners did not educate their slaves. It’s true that they didn’t want their slaves to read abolitionist comic books about how to murder them with farm implements, but they also built many schools and churches for their slaves.

Another is that a free black man who stepped foot in the South immediately became a slave. There were a quarter million free blacks living in the South in 1860! The number of free blacks in Maryland alone in 1860 was 90,000 and rising. There were also hundreds of black slaveowners in the South prior to the war, and one of these, William Ellison, was so wealthy that in 1835 he purchased the home of Stephen Miller, the former governor of South Carolina. Ellison owned 63 slaves and 900 acres of land where his family gladly grew much of the corn for the Confederate Army. (After the war, the Ellisons lost everything, and in 1879 their land produced only six bales of cotton.) It’s hard to take anyone seriously who tells such lies, and it makes it even more difficult to hear him pronounce “secede” as “succeed.” Remember when preachers were expected to be literate?

When such liars emphasize the fact that the South tried to protect slavery, don’t forget that the Constitution itself protected the institution. Believe me, they hope you’ll forget it, or they hope you were never taught it. They hope you won’t know that the North’s interference with allowing Southerners to migrate westward with their property was born of the same unconstitutional practice of refusing to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act. This preacher even says: “the Southern states believed that this was a breach of the Constitution.” Can you see what he’s attempting? It had nothing to do with what the South believed. It really was a breach of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. The subsequent anger over that decision was really anger at the Justices for refusing to legislate from the bench, as liberals are now taught to do in law school. The Justices read what the Constitution plainly said and rendered judgment accordingly. They were strict constructionists who were not willing to pacify the abolitionist mob. The irony is that ignorant Christians today associate Dred Scott with Roe v. Wade as two decisions that were infamously unjust. There is no comparison between the two. And now we have preachers excusing the crimes of the North, and effectively blaming the South for the North’s inability to amend the Constitution. Then they defend the North’s murderous war upon the South, which was punishment for secession, even though the North could not support Lincoln’s decrees legally. They even refused to put Jefferson Davis on trial after the war because they knew they would lose the case. From the perspective of the South, secession was the most peaceful resolution to the cold war of the 19th century. And there’s nothing unusual about secession; it occurs throughout the world on a regular basis. Just don’t expect your lying preacher to understand the nuances of history, because he has an agenda, and he’s going to give it to you good and hard.

My favorite part is when he says: “I’m not a human being anymore! I’m alive in Christ!” Which is far more serious than lies about history. This is a lie about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It fits well with the Satanic caption on his Vimeo page: “Colossians 3:2-17 | We must die to ourselves and be reborn in Christ so that we are no longer associated with a human race, but a heavenly Savior.” We Kinists have worked for years within the existing system of Christian churches, trying to salvage what remains of pure religion, but I must tell you, this bears no resemblance to Christianity. It is a false religion. The tree of Alienism bears the fruit of Gnosticism.

Imagine someone saying, “I’m not a male or female anymore! I’m alive in Christ!” At 7:05 in this sermon, Rushdoony counters: “Our sexuality is a property that we must not attempt to divest ourselves of, for to do so is an abomination in God’s sight. It is filthy behavior.”

The pastorcide above does make the good point, however, that in the Bible, the words “nation will rise against nation” really mean that race will rise against race. Obviously.

Then you have other impastors who are all too eager to belong to the human race as long as white people are not considered a race within the human race. But it’s perfectly fine to such people if a black race exists. At 37:50 in this sermon, the pulpit pirate declares that the following persons from the Bible are black: Caleb, Jethro, Moses’ wife, David’s relatives, Zephaniah, the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon of Cyrene, Simeon, Lucius, Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba, and Ruth. The early church fathers Augustine, Athanasius, and Tertullian were also black, he says. I think he might have learned this from Jeremiah Wright.

Getting back to Lincoln’s War, the tariff on imported goods certainly didn’t help relations between North and South. One of the first laws passed in the new country was the tariff of 1789, which imposed a duty of five to ten percent, which raised more than 90% of federal revenue. Most trade came through Southern ports, and Southern planters were quite wealthy. Northern industrialists knew that if they could raise the tariff high enough, Southerners would no longer find it economical to trade with Europe, and would be forced to purchase Northern goods instead. Congress passed a tariff averaging 35% in 1824, then the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, raising duties to an average of 50%. John Randolph of Roanoke called the Tariff of Abominations the most selfish piece of legislation ever passed by a government. It meant that the South paid 87% of total federal revenues. Only 50 years earlier, both North and South called this sort of criminality “taxation without representation.” (You can see a good image of Yankee hypocrisy in the opening scene of The Birth of a Nation, where Puritans alternately bless the cargo of slave ships and thunder from their pulpits that the slave trade must be abolished.)

The famous orator Daniel Webster voted in favor of the Tariff of Abominations after having a history of voting against tariffs. In 1830 was the famous Webster-Hayne debate on not only tariffs but the future of the country. The French Revolution was then 25 years old, which was enough time for Jacobin ideas to work their way across the Atlantic. Feudal heritage gave way to the forging of a people under “the nation” as a unitary whole, without restrictions, and law was fashioned after the “general will.” What began as a debate over public lands brought Webster and Hayne to the fore, and it turned into a showdown between their respective states, Massachusetts and South Carolina. Webster ridiculed the idea that a public debt would corrupt the people; on the contrary, he believed that it would bind the Union together. (This is evidence of the “American System” of Henry Clay, Lincoln’s mentor.) Hayne countered that public lands were a sacred trust, not a common treasure to be sold. The purpose of the Constitution, he said, was not to consolidate the government but to consolidate the Union. (The perceptive reader will notice a strong similarity here in the Kinist-Alienist debate on absolute versus multifarious unity.) Hayne even reminded Webster that Massachusetts had not thought so highly of the Union in 1812 to support the war against Britain. In fact, the New England states almost seceded from the Union during their Hartford Convention in that year. Webster stood against South Carolina’s interposition or nullification of tariff law by avowing that the states are not sovereign, and the national government is the judge of the extent of its own powers. Therefore, in Webster’s view, South Carolina did not have the right to any judgment, even for its own welfare, if it was contrary to the “general will” of “the nation” (words straight out of France).

Here’s an example of Webster’s considerable skills of oration in weaving his Jacobin fantasy:

I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the changes of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, and belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies steaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “What is all this worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first and Union afterwards”; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear on every true American heart, – Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!

As Richard Weaver wrote, this is grandiloquence but is certainly not the philosophy of a free society (just like Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address). The debate was between liberty and power, between history and possibility. The South was conservative and on the side of liberty and history. The North was liberal and wanted consolidation and power and money, and damn the Constitution if it got in the way. In Weaver’s words, the North epitomized “the Faustian obsession to decry limits and to reach out for an infinitude of experience and power.” (Again, the perceptive reader will recognize similarity to the debate between Calvinism versus Arminianism, or Augustinianism versus Pelagianism.)

The West sided with the North, and the die of war was cast. There is no doubt that slavery was “the most exciting and inflammatory of the symptoms of difference,” as Weaver wrote, but an honest appraisal of history reveals it to be merely the point of attack for one nation against another. Webster maintained that if any state was allowed a veto, the national union would be a “rope of sand,” and therefore weak, and therefore not what the founders intended. But he, like Clay before him and Lincoln after him, could not make this argument from history or law, but rather from the perceived demands of the “common welfare.”

Now that interposition – the right to resist imperial edicts without severing union or fomenting revolution – has been shot down, the Supreme Court, contrary to the intentions of the founders, has become the arbiter of disputes between the states and national government, with the result being that the states are impotent. In other words, the struggle between liberty and security was won by security, and 150 years later, we are more insecure than ever – our currency worthless, our future bleak.

The South, wrote Weaver, “represented legitimate aspirations toward unity insofar as these were reconcilable with liberty. Beyond that it had no right to go. A nation was a means toward a higher end, not a self-glorifying structure which improved as it gained size and authority for coercion. True nationality was always connected with historical facts which consolidated a people as far as that was compatible with their happiness in a state of civil liberty. These facts were geographical, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and political; and they furnished the substance for any claim to independence. Political union which transcended these should be for purposes limited in proportion to the transcendence.”

Thus did South Carolina respond to Yankee extortion with “nullification” of federal tax law. President Andrew Jackson agreed to roll back the tariffs to 1816 levels over a ten-year period. They were down to 15% by 1842, and in 1857 they were at the lowest level in history. Then, on the eve of war, came the outrageous Morrill Tariff.

Tom DiLorenzo has sold quite a few books on the theory that the South did not secede in order to protect the “evils” of slavery, but rather because the North squeezed the South with tariffs. This is not entirely true. The declarations of secession are concerned primarily with slavery and the North’s interference in trying to keep Southerners and their property from migrating west. On the opposite extreme, Karl Marx wrote at the time that secession “did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.” The truth is that the Morrill Tariff was yet another example of Northern aggression against the South. All together, it amounted to too much.

The North knew that “fining” the productive, agricultural South for purchasing foreign goods would result in the vast wealth that continues to give the North an economic edge over other parts of the country. The interesting thing about this is that the very same people’s descendants screamed “protectionist!” when Pat Buchanan ran for president. Buchanan knows that restoring tariffs will encourage the purchase of American rather than foreign goods (if for no other reason than that other countries do apply high tariffs), while his critics argue that it will cause higher prices and the loss of jobs. Buchanan counters that jobs will be gained since more American goods will be purchased. But the point is that even the critics of protectionism concede what was known in 1860. On December 10 of that year, just days before South Carolina formally seceded, the Chicago Daily Times wrote that Southern secession would have a brutal impact on the North’s economy:

In one single blow, our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half of what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins.

You can see why they prosecuted the war relentlessly. The grand scale of murder was preceded by theft on a grand scale. Of course, it was not technically theft when North and South comprised one country. But it was felt as theft nonetheless in the South, and when the South left the voluntary Union to form a nation of its own, Yankees knew that only steel and gunpowder ripping the guts from the bodies of Southern men would allow the theft to resume.

The Morrill Tariff reversed Jackson’s compromise 30 years earlier, and the average rate rose from 15% to 37%, and then to 47% within three years. With no Southerners in the U.S. Congress to protest, the rate went to 49% by 1868. Since then, taxes have kept going up, and the value of the dollar has kept going down.

Obama’s “stimulus” only cost $278,000 per job. If he does any more to help the economy, there will be nothing left of it.

This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen published by Fox News (because it’s true):

Our Founding Fathers Would Not Have Recited the Pledge: Another patriotic tradition that gets a lot of attention, particularly around this time of the year, is the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge did not exist during our Founders’ lifetimes – something that is very clear when looking at its text. The Pledge was written over a century after America’s founding, in 1892. It was also written by a socialist – Francis Bellamy, whose original text was: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” According to our Founders, the states are not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary, just as an extra precaution to make sure that that state right was understood. Our Founders took their states’ rights very seriously and considered the U.S. Constitution to be a compact amongst the sovereign states so that any state could secede if it felt the federal government had become oppressive. So, if not with a pledge, how would our Founding Fathers begin meetings and celebrations? The answer: most likely with a prayer. In fact, the very first resolution brought before the First Continental Congress, and immediately passed, was the declaration that they would open every meeting with a prayer.

Who was the man “who led us out of the wilderness of hateful, monoracial, segregated families and churches?” You might be surprised by the answer.

The “Rev. Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee wrote a very good paper in 1967 called Nationality, Race, and Intermarriage. Read it here. He explains race by expositing from Scripture the principle of pluriformity, beginning from the very beginning.

[W]e find eternal and indestructible differences between the three Persons. A profound variety, within the divine unity. Only the Father has paternity. Only the Son possesses filiation. And only the Spirit enjoys procession. All human attempts to minimize or eradicate these distinctions within the very essence of God, are basically blasphemous…and when even within the unity of the human race we see the variety of sexes, personalities, nationalities and racial colours – we must remember that God Who is Himself both a unity and a variety, from all eternity foresaw and foreplanned it all the way it actually is.

God even refers to Himself in the plural, with the pronouns “Us” and “We” and “Our.” Rather than being told in Genesis that God created the “universe,” with its singular prefix “uni,” we read that God created diverse heavens and earth, and then attended to the work of dividing and separating: light from darkness, day from night, water from water, land from sea, season from season, seed from seed, creature from creature, woman from man, Sabbath from work, children from parents.

And “God saw that it was good” and that all these creatures were destined not to interbreed, but to mate only with their own kind.

And that’s only the first two chapters! The rest of the book is about the division of mankind: Cain from Abel, the seed of the Serpent from the seed of the Woman, and covenant-keepers from covenant-breakers.

John Calvin on violating godly distinctions, from his commentary on Genesis 6:

Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate.

Then we read of more divisions: language from language, race from race, nation from nation, tribe from tribe. We are even told when the nations were divided, in the days of Peleg. The Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites were dispersed.

At this point, you’ve only read eleven chapters. Even among God’s own people, we read of Abraham separating from Lot, Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, Jacob from Laban, Joseph from his brothers, and Israel from Egypt. The book of Genesis is filled with divisions! We go on to read about the separation of Israel from the nations, Northern Israel from Southern Israel, and Judea from Babylon. This is where Ezra and Nehemiah come into the story, and Dr. Lee quotes from the national repentance.

“We have trespassed against our God, and have taken foreign wives from the people of the land! Yet now, there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now, therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and such as are born of them!”

“‘Separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the foreign wives!’… Then all the Congregation answered and said with a loud voice: ‘What you have said, we must do!’”

“I cursed them and smote certain of them and plucked off their hair and made them swear by God, saying: ’You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons or for yourselves! Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things?’”

But…but…but what about unity? Are Christians not of the same body? Dr. Lee answers:

It is sometimes contended by liberal theologians that…Christ would have all believers worship together, irrespective of their race, in the same geographical locality – on the basis of His high-priestly prayer, “so that they may all be one.” However, not only is this a geographical impossibility, but our Lord also indicated in what way he would have His children be one – “as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You – so that they too may be one in Us.”

In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ would have His children be of one existence, as He is of one essence with His Father.

Augustine described this as one Wisdom shared by the Father and Son but not one Word. (Christ frequently appealed to the authority of the Father.) This is the Athanasian, Nicene, anti-Arian theology which views Christ as being homooúsios with the Father. “In the fourth century,” wrote Rushdoony, “the church repeatedly condemned St. Athanasius, as the state listed him as a wanted outlaw. He was accused (by churchmen) of trying to stop the food supply to the capitol. He was accused of murder (but the dead man was proven to be alive). He was charged with magic and sorcery, and much else, and his life was lived in flight, with five periods of exile… [But it] was Athanasius and not his enemies, nor the powerful churchmen of his day, who shaped the future. History then as now is not shaped by majorities but by men who provide the faith and ideas for living.”

And He would have them differ in personality, even as the Father and the Son thus differ from One Another. The believers’ being “one in Us” – if taken geographically or without respect to their differences of personality (which includes even differences of nationality and race) – would thus amount to rank Pantheism!

(I think Dr. Lee means monism rather than pantheism, but a heresy nonetheless, and one which plagues our age.) For an example, he points us to Acts 6, where the unintentional neglect of Greek widows in the young Church was not resolved by pretending that everyone in the Church was equal since all were Christians. Instead, it was resolved by appointing Greek deacons to care for Greek widows; the Judean deacons were already caring for needy Judeans, which was the point of contention in the first place.

Even here we see national feelings exerting themselves in the Congregation – and this, among solely Jewish converts. [They were all Hebrews, even though some were of Israel and some were of Greece.] Yet those feelings are by no means discouraged by the Apostles, but rather understood and accommodated…

The Scottish Theologian Macpherson’s comment in his book Presbyterianism, is striking: “We have in Acts 6 an account of the election of seven men… [It may] be concluded with good probability that the seven became members of a Board, as specially representing that portion of the church out of which they themselves sprang, and that their presence on the Board secured for it the confidence of the Greeks.”

In other words, converts to the faith were not expected to abandon their filial duties. What was the result of this ethnocentrism and pluriform unity?

“And the Word of God increased; and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly.”

Dr. Lee reminds us that Paul intentionally preached to Gentiles in a building separate from the synagogue. “Yet liberalistic theologians never tire of pointing to Ephesians, Colossians and Galatians – in support of their integrationistic position.” They especially love to quote Galatians 3:28. Dr. Lee responds:

But here again, the reference is to spiritual unity – not the elimination of nationality or even class distinctions here on Earth… This by no means implies the unimportance of these categories…

So, in spite of the unity in Christ, there is also the variety. For Paul himself teaches us that even though we are “all one in Christ Jesus” – inside of this unity there are still Jew and Greek, bond and free, and male and female. And common sense irrefutably confirms this.

What was common sense in 1967 is no longer very common in 2011. Now we have lying preachers who boast that they are no longer part of the human race!

Briefly aside, the Eastern Orthodox, with their system of ethnic churches, are not confused on this point, even during the perverted time in which we live. They resolve:

In the Church there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (Rom. 10:12)… [I]n her there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11)…

Compare this to any Protestant liar today who leaves out the spiritual-ecclesiastical-covenantal qualifications.

The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions. On the contrary, the Church unites in herself the universal with the national. Thus, the Orthodox Church, though universal, consists of many Autocephalous National Churches. Orthodox Christians, aware of being citizens of the heavenly homeland, should not forget about their earthly homeland. The Lord Jesus Christ…identified Himself with the people to whom He belonged by birth… St. Paul, in his letters teaching on the supranational nature of the Church of Christ, did not forget that by birth he was an Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), though a Roman by citizenship (Acts 22:25-29)…

Among saints venerated by the Orthodox Church, many became famous for the love of their earthly homeland and faithfulness to it. Russian hagiographic sources praise the holy Prince Michael of Tver who gave his life for his fatherland, comparing his feat to the martyrdom of the holy protomartyr Dimitrius of Thessaloniki: The good lover of his fatherland said about his native city of Thessaloniki, “O Lord, if you ruin this city, I will perish together with it, but if you save it, I will also be saved.”

In all times the Church has called upon her children to love their homeland on earth and not to spare their lives to protect it if it was threatened. The Russian Church on many occasions gave her blessing to the people for them to take part in liberation wars. Thus, in 1380, the venerable Sergius the abbot and miracle-maker of Radonezh blessed the Russian troops headed by the holy Prince Dimitry Donskoy before their battle with the Tartar-Mongol invaders. In 1612, St. Hermogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, gave blessing upon the irregulars in their struggle with the Polish invaders. In 1813, during the war with the French aggressors, St. Philaret of Moscow said to his flock: If you avoid dying for the honour and freedom of the Fatherland, you will die a criminal or a slave; die for the faith and the Fatherland and you will be granted life and a crown in heaven…

The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world. This love is one of the ways of fulfilling God’s commandment of love to one’s neighbour which includes love to one’s family, fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens…

If only Protestants could return to the faith and sound as reasonable (i.e., sound like their own fathers), what a wonderful world it would be.

“The heroes in the novels of the English author A.E.W. Mason and the Southern author Thomas Nelson Page all have one thing in common: they are uprooted from their one special spot of ground that they love over all, and must fight for spiritual and physical survival in foreign lands. In the case of Mason’s English heroes, the foreign land is usually India, and in the case of Page’s Southern heroes the foreign land is the North. But the heroes do not go to the foreign lands alone. They take their homeland and the code that sustains their homeland with them; it is in their blood. Hence, when Mason’s heroes face down howling devil worshippers, the servants of Kali, and prevail against all odds, they have made that spot of ground part of English soil, part of Christian Europe. And when the Southern heroes of Thomas Nelson Page refuse to abandon their bred-in-the-bone chivalry for the ethics of the utilitarian moneylenders of the North, they too have made foreign soil part of their soil, part of Christian Europe.” ~ CWNY

Now back to Dr. Lee:

[T]he teaching of the Bible presupposes the necessity of man’s development into nations and races…

Nor does Paul avoid referring to traits of racial character. For he does not hesitate to agree with a certain prophet of Crete that “the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” Paul himself adds that “this witness is true.” And from his various other inspired epistles, it would appear that the Corinthians were factious and passionate; the Galatians foolish; and the Thessalonians lazy, etc.

It is also of interest to note that the epistles of Paul and John are not addressed to all Christians everywhere indiscriminately, but to separate national or regional churches or groups of Congregations – each with its own style of life, and each with problems meriting the special attention of these Apostles…

[O]ur Lord also stressed the great importance of the diversity of the human race and the importance of nationality. To love one’s neighbour like oneself, not only implies one’s sincere love of one’s neighbour – but no less also one’s sincere love of oneself… And again, it is very significant that He would have His Apostles go teach “all nations” – as nations, and not just as human beings.

Let me pause here to say how humbling it is to know that on the day of Pentecost, Shemites who had acquired Japhetic and Hamitic languages heard the gospel and understood it. This was a miraculous preview of millennia to come. Dr. Lee is correct that, far from reversing or overturning the judgment at Babel, Pentecost sanctified it. It is also very humbling to read our Lord’s words that “many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). These are the adopted heirs from the far reaches of the West (our people), and perhaps in ages to come, the Asian peoples. “But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Dr. Lee states that the book of Revelation “implies the continued existence of national distinctions forever.” Even the white stone given to each of God’s elect, with “a new name written on the stone which no man knows except he who receives it” implies “the continued existence of personality (of which nationality and race are also aspects) even after death.”

As these national distinctions will remain with us (even among Christians) down to the end of the World – they are still with us today. No amount of liberalistic attempts to ignore them or integrationistic attempts to destroy them will meet with success…

Yet the forces of Satan will indeed try to bring about a one-world race. Significantly, this is one of the goals of Communism, and long looked like it might characterize Earth’s latter days in the new Babylon yet to be (re)built – when someone like Nimrod the Hamite might rule again. Perhaps the present and increasing Afro-Asian domination of the United Nations and its tendency toward the idea of World Government, might try to orchestrate this. But such plans would not succeed, for they run counter to God’s will and His plan for all the nations.

From the time that Abraham was declared the father of “many nations” (plural) until the new heavens and new earth (plural) are revealed, where kings and nations (plural) walk in the light of the New Jerusalem and bring their glory and honor into it, the heartbeat of Creation is Kinism. It is sinful to rebel against God’s purposes for mankind.

At that time and thenceforth for ever, the covenant of grace will have unfolded completely. It shall blossom in all its national and international glory – with all its manifold variety within its essential unity.

…[E]verything He created within His universe reflects this variety. Including the variety within mankind – particularly the variety of human personalities, races and nationalities which would have unfolded even without sin…

So next time, before the “Christian” integrationist starts to pray: “May Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven!” – he should first carefully consider precisely what he is praying for. If he does this, he will either have to change his views on the race question – or else cease praying for racial integration altogether. For if he then continues as before – he could no longer be called ignorant. But only hypocritical and dishonest.

Dr. Lee on Babelism.

You should also listen to Dr. Lee’s sermon, Race, People, and Nationality. Me rikey.

“Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor – the cultural treasures – of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” ~ Dr. Francis Nigel Lee

“Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…can and must be done away with historically.” ~ Karl Marx, Karl Marx’s Collected Works V:103, as cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved… However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.” ~ Nikita Khrushchev, The Road to Communism: Documents of the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Oct. 17-31 1961, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961, pp. 559f

I read from a Christian-imbecile on Facebook: “The races benefit from intermarriage. God receives glory from Christians marrying other races because the veil has been torn from top to bottom.”

A friend has wisely said that Alienism is really Oikophobia: fear and hatred of one’s own people and culture.

The human brain is hard-wired to not recognize (as easily) those of other races.

Here’s another excellent article from Kinism.net on degrees of love. You will see strong similarities to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes’ catechism in Bishop William Nicholson’s A Plain and Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, 1655. We learn that godly love is impartial yet effected through degrees of proximity.

The spouse in the Canticles [Cant. 2.4.] prays in this form; Ordinate in me charitatem. It is her petition that her charity be well ordered, and well ordered it will never be, till it become Dilectio, that we know what to choose, and what to hate, and why to choose, and why to hate. Now the method and order of love in brief is this: Ex. 28.12,

1. That we love God first and most…

2. The next step is, that we love our neighbour, i.e. every man, be it a friend, or be it an enemy. If a brother, there is in him proximitas originis, a nearness of blood; if an enemy, proximitas natures, or societatis, a nearness either in nature in general, or some bond of civil society. Now in this love of our neighbour, heed would be taken of two things:

1. That our love be not erroneous, that we take not our neighbours’ sin for our neighbour, and love their sins because we love their persons…

2. That we look to the degrees of proximity, and accordingly extend our love; for our neighbour is to have the priority of our love before another, as they stand farther off, or are nearer unto us. And the order is this:

1. The nearest conjunction among Christians is that of the Spirit of grace, of religion, and these are to have the first place in our love…

2. Among these, if there be no disparity, then those first who are nearest unto us, either in friendship, blood, or some other way.

3. After, as they stand nearer or farther off in relation,

[Being:]

1. The husband or wife. Parents.

2. The children, and those of the family.

3. Our kindred.

4. Our friends or acquaintance, near neighbours.

5. Our countrymen.

6. Societies of men before any particular. But this is not perpetual, and may be broken by many accidents, and intervenient occasions.

3. As thyself. Our own selves are set for the rule to love our neighbour. “No man hates his own flesh, but loves and cherishes it,” [Eph.5.29.] and so he must deal by his neighbour. But it is to be observed, that the adverb sicut, “as,” is not a note of parity, but similitude, and shews not the quantity, but the quality of our love. For no man is bound to love another equally, or so much as himself, but with that truth of love that he loves himself: the love then of man to man ought to be true and not false; real, and not feigned nor adulterate…

Read the sermon that Bob Jones preached in 1960 (after sixty years of preaching) that was his defense of segregation and denouncement of interracial marriage. Some of it is silly and much of it is repetitive, but when he is on point he serves as a fine witness to what God desires for mankind. He understood Acts 17:26 as few preachers understand it today. Ten years after this sermon was preached, the IRS threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status for its position on race, and finally did several years later. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where a very dangerous precedent was set – that the IRS, without the approval of Congress, could revoke the tax-exempt status of any organization that sets rules contrary to established public policy. Only William Rehnquist dissented. This is one reason among many why incorporated churches are a joke today, and why preachers are doing the bidding of the pagan State. The precedent of the BJU decision will be immediately cited as soon as any church attempts to stand against the mania of faggot “marriage” that is sweeping the country. Once these churches are threatened with the loss of income, they will discover strange new revelations in Scripture that rubber-stamp whatever the State wants to do. We already know they are hypocrites because we see how they caved on race a few decades ago.

“Either the faculty at Bob Jones University is to allow social practices it believes the Bible teaches to be sinful and against the will of God, or Bob Jones University must face the official lash of the government of the United States. The lesson of this public policy, now established in our latest judge-made law, is clear: All religions in America are entitled to official neutrality and equal treatment, except those fundamentalist Christian faiths that preach and practice separation of the races. All Christian interpretations of Scripture are entitled to official respect – except interpretations that do not conform with the integrationist ideology and edicts of the national government. I hope Bob Jones University has the courage to tell the federal government to go to the devil.” ~ Pat Buchanan

See the letter that Bob Jones III wrote to one young critic. He is correct that “to make a racial issue” out of the marriage of Moses to Zipporah “is to argue a point beyond all reason.”

Unfortunately, Bob Jones University did a complete about-face on their love for races, but it was only 11 years ago that their ban on interracial dating was lifted. They were among the last to hold out against the worship of the Beast. But we Kinists remain.

Coinciding with the loss of true unity to the false unity of amalgamation has been the loss of economics to fiat money and usury, the loss of nationhood to a Satanic “brotherhood of man,” the loss of constitutions to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” the loss of politics to bribery, the loss of sound doctrine to incorporation by the pagan state, the loss of kinship to taxpayers and militarists, and the loss of sex to “gender.”

David Opperman was asked whether losing sight of tribal identity and forgetting one’s ancestors necessarily leads to a decline in faith. He was asked if evangelism truly matters to the Kinist in light of our belief that nations are held together by common heredity. He was asked if the Kinist esteems blood higher than God’s law.

His answer (and you know it’s good if we post it here):

You took issue with this paragraph:

“It is certainly true that Babel was a punishment for sin, but it was also an act of mercy from God in order to restrain the evil that typically arises in cosmopolitan societies who have lost sight of their tribal identity. Raceless or tribeless societies become decadent due to anonymity and loss of patriarchal authority, which is inevitable in these regimes. When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!”

You asked, “What? I thought theonomy-believing Christians, kinist or not, affirmed the corruption of man and society as being due to forgetting God’s law and esteeming man’s own law above it (humanism).”

This is indeed where kinists and anti-kinists diverge. I think that all kinists would agree with your statement that “the corruption of man and society [are] due to forgetting God’s law and esteeming man’s own law above it (humanism).” We have no disagreement there. I think that one of the fundamental differences that the two camps take in approaching the issue is that kinists affirm that ethno-nationalism is built into the law itself, whereas anti-kinists see the issue as tangential at best to the law.

Specifically, kinists see kinism and ethno-nationalism rooted in the Fifth Commandment, and violations of kinism as rooted in violations of the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, from a kinist standpoint it stands to reason that the subversion of ethnic identity is symptomatic of generalized infidelity to God’s precepts and disrespect for God’s law. I think that in context the point that I was trying to make with the paragraph you cited was that God ordained separate nationality so that the nations would seek after Him. When the people are one as in Genesis 11:6 they will be unrestrained in evil since traditional patriarchal authority inherent in a strong sense of ethnicity is undercut by humanistic “oneness.”

The statement that “When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!” was intended to be a paraphrase of Edmund Burke’s famous and true dictum, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Paragraph 56).

The importance of viewing ethnic identity as God’s ordinance and intrinsic to the law is why kinists see tribe, identity, and ancestors as a source of keeping corruption in check. While ethnic identity is not the source that restrains corruption, it is a means that God uses to this end. The source of restraint of corruption is of course the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit as well as the common grace that God has given that restrains man’s baser instincts. God accomplishes this through the use of means. One example is in 1 Corinthians 7:14 where God states that he uses believing spouses to sanctify their unbelieving spouses. Kinists believe that Acts 17:26-27 is stating essentially the same thing. This doesn’t mean that evil is corralled by means of ethnicity, marriage, or family apart from any adherence to God’s law, but that God’s law is kept and transmitted to generations by these means by the grace of God.

A kinist has no desire to replace the importance and necessity of God’s law by noting the importance of something like ethnic identity. What we are aiming to do is demonstrate how ethnic identity finds its place in the law of God and is based upon fidelity to the Fifth Commandment. Again, ethnic identity doesn’t take priority above the law. Ethnicity is integral to the law and is a means by which the law is transmitted.

You also stated, “It also feels as though kinism is a response to some idea that Christianity, in its mandate to ‘go into all the world’ and redeem it through Christ, seeks to ‘amalgamate’ the world into one people/order – sort of like a Christian version of the humanist’s goal of creating a one world order.”

I think that this is accurate if I understand you correctly. Kinists are opposed to conforming to the world’s idea of unity. Humanists believe that intermarriage, equal civil rights, and full integration are positive goods that foster lasting and righteous unity between people. Kinists disagree. We think that all of the above will forge a unity that is neither lasting nor righteous.

You then stated, “I would agree with you that within that Scriptural command there are certain realities that ought to be kept distinct and that I believe, as such, would not contradict that command: the retaining of different languages and the need for separating nations by both boundaries and governments, for example.”

This is basically where kinists are coming from. I would clarify that the boundaries that kinists support aren’t arbitrary geo-political boundaries but are rather boundaries defined by ethnicity. We believe that this is what the Apostle Paul is referring to in Acts 17:6-27. The word for nations here refers specifically to ethnic identity.

Your next question was “You maintain that nations are held together by common heredity and that this is the ideal to strive for, yes? If that’s the case, what role can evangelism possibly play?”

I do maintain that nations are held together by common heredity. This was true in the Table of Nations which identifies nations taxonomically by their heredity (“after their families”) and is implicit in the word ethnos. Kinists affirm that this is true after conversion as well and is implicit in the directive given in the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19-20. Christ commands His Apostles to disciple the nations in the plural, and they remain plural after the Great Commission has been fulfilled. There is no indication that the definition of a nation has changed from hereditary to non-hereditary after conversion and discipleship. Evangelism is best demonstrated by the work of the Apostle Paul whose work in the book of Acts indicates that he established a community of Christian converts and then turned over the work of the ministry to the natives.

“Heredity is not something that can be changed, so are only those nations who have the ‘right’ heredity the redeemed ones? From this is implied the idea that God’s law is only applicable to the saved nations, rather than to His whole world…?..”

I agree that heredity cannot be changed. I believe that it doesn’t have to change in order for conversion to be efficacious. I don’t believe that only those nations with the “right” heredity are redeemed. Redemption occurs without heredity being a factor. God’s law is applicable everywhere, and should be universally recognized. This universal recognition doesn’t mean that ethnicity is rendered irrelevant since ethno-nationalism will still be characteristic of fidelity to God’s law. In a Christian world, separate nationality would exist and the second table of the Commandments would be applied universally, but the notion of universal civil equality would dissipate.

There would be no reason for me to believe that just because I’m a Christian that I could become a permanent resident of Japan, permanently own large amounts of property there, to vote in any elections that might take place, or hold any positions in civil government.

This is what kinists typically mean when we deny universal civil rights. We do believe in applying the second table universally regardless of ethnicity. Everyone has a right not to be stolen from, murdered, lied to, etc. Everyone does not have an intrinsic right to immigrate anywhere they want to, especially not with the intention of becoming permanent residents (the word “stranger” in the Bible can often mean peaceful sojourner). There is no intrinsic right to vote in elections or to hold office. I think that I pointed out in the article that God can use and does use exceptions to this rule. Joseph was an example of a righteous regent in Egypt, and Cyrus ruled Israel righteously by allowing them to return to their homeland and restore their political and religious identity by rebuilding the Temple. I’m sure that as the Gospel spreads throughout the world other such exceptions will occur. The caveat is that these are exceptions and that there is no right established by the existence of these exceptions. The concept of universal civil rights regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, etc. is a post-modern innovation that was developed apart from Christian morality.

From an eschatological standpoint God promises the stranger who keeps His law and covenant an everlasting inheritance with God’s people. The stranger is anticipated as being concerned for his future posterity since he might think that the Lord had utterly separated him from God’s people or the nation of Israel (Is. 56:3). The presumption is that because the stranger is a non-Israelite, he will not ultimately enjoy the benefits of being an Israelite. The son of the stranger along with the eunuch will be given an everlasting name and inheritance.

This is more fully fleshed out in the New Testament. We are told that God redeems out of every nation, language and people (Rev. 5:9, 7:9). We are told that the Church is comprised of multiple nations of them which are saved (Rev. 21:24). The Tree of Life in Heaven is also said to be for the plural nations in Rev. 22:2. What will this be like? I believe that the unity that God desires will finally be realized in the eschaton. The nations will be unified in their worship of God. My guess is that we will thoroughly enjoy each other’s company. I don’t think that this means that familiarity as we know and enjoy it won’t exist in Heaven. I think that it will. Our parents, relatives, spouses, and children will still retain their relationship to us. When fellowshipping with other Christians, we will enjoy their company, but I think that we will still enjoy our own home, family and people the way we are intended here as well.

More imbecile “Christians” who are perverting the gospel by working against God’s purpose for them.

What in the name of all that is holy?

Are you ready for Rushdoony’s take on adoption? You can hear it at 29:31 in this sermon.

When the family is again restored to its biblical place and biblical law again prevails then the levirate again will probably quietly take its place in that framework of law. Finally, a word concerning adoption which is related to this. Adoption as a word appears in Scripture, in the New Testament, in a theological context. That is, St. Paul speaks of our adoption in Christ as sons of God. The word reflected a family fact. But adoption in the Bible differed radically from the modern practice of adoption. There was no legal adoption in biblical times until the child reached maturity and proved his character. So that the legal adoption came only with the mature, seasoned person who had proven his faith and character. We have a reference, for example, in Genesis to such an adoption when Abraham, believing that he would have no heir, adopted Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. 15:2-3) to be his heir. In other words, a tried and true servant, a man of mature faith and character. Abraham chose [Eliezer] out of his household, out of his slaves and servants, to be his heir prior to the birth of Isaac. Thus faith and character are basic to heirship, and maturity was required to provide evidence of these facts before adoption became a legal reality. Thus the law of the levirate unfolds to us not only an important aspect of biblical law but the significance of the family in biblical society and of property in its relationship to the family.

How many “Christians” still believe this? It totally refutes the basis of 21st century evangelical kingdom-building, which is the taking of little black and Chinese babies into white homes in the hope that Christianity will spread to those races. But you can’t flout God’s law or the patterns that our fathers gave us to emulate and expect good to come of it. Sometimes God works miracles in spite of our sins, but it doesn’t mean that we ought to continue in sin so that grace may abound.

At 25:24 in this sermon, Rushdoony makes some reticent comments on interracial marriage, and we partly agree and partly disagree with his conclusion. From 36:35 to the end of this sermon, he goes into more detail. The question is asked: Is Scripture opposed to a racially mixed marriage if both persons are of the same faith? He replies:

The answer is, there is not a law against it, but there is basically a principle that militates against such marriages, so that you might say they are just barely legal, but in principle Scripture is opposed to them. Because the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term helpmeet means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see. So that it can be technically a marriage, but it isn’t one in which the wife can be a helpmeet. So that while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors which normally, in almost 99 cases out of 100, would militate against it…

If the same question were asked of us, we would not use so many qualifiers. On the other hand, those (mostly theonomic presbyterians) who have taken it upon themselves to clear Rushdoony of the “taint” of Kinism need to be honest enough to represent Rushdoony’s actual views. But this they cannot allow! Do they dare to agree with Rushdoony that 99% of interracial marriages are unscriptural? Do they even acknowledge so much as a principle in Scripture that militates against such marriages? Obviously not. They preach that it is “a positive good” to be “celebrated,” in the words of John Piper. As for us, we fail to comprehend the difference between an explicit law and an implicit principle in terms of sinfulness. There is no explicit law in Scripture against cannibalism, but we infer that this is a sin on the principle that the human body is sacred, and not merely animal tissue. Miscegenation is another unthinkable practice that Scripture does not need to cover in great detail, except to say that idolatry follows it like envy follows spite.

Rush is asked whether Rahab and Ruth are examples of interracial marriages.

In those cases of Rahab and Ruth, there wasn’t, of course, the racial difference because they were similarly Semitic peoples, or closely related. The linguistic differences were not even great; they could understand these languages because they were related tongues, so that it would not be an objection. Now, of course, Scripture raises an objection legally against a marriage to a Moabite. It is not permitted until there are so many generations of faith. However, exceptions were made, we know, from time to time in Scripture, in terms of the faith of a person, and Scripture clearly makes an exception to its own law in the case of Ruth…

We deny that this is as clear as Rush makes it out to be. Only by presuming that the regions from which these women came also identifies them genetically can any clarity on the issue be claimed. But this is not a safe presumption, as we’ve explained elsewhere. And on the face of it, it requires one to argue that Scripture contradicts “its own law in the case of Ruth”; that forbidden marriages became permissible if there were “so many generations of faith.” This is false. Moabites were forbidden from entering the congregation forever, as it says in Nehemiah. Even if it was ten generations, this still excludes Ruth.

There are some evidences with respect to mixed marriages. We have, for example, quite a bit of evidence in American history of what was known as the halfbreed, the person who was a product of a marriage of a white settler with an Indian woman. There are some interesting evidences there. Such a person usually had a superior physical ability and strength because he combined the white man’s resistance to diseases, which the Indian did not have, with the ability to endure, which the Indian had… The halfbreed usually combined both of these aspects very powerfully, and it made him a person to be reckoned with and feared. But he was also an outsider, in a sense, to both cultures. If you remember the stories you read of Indian life and lore, how often the halfbreed – and this appears, of course, in Mark Twain (Injun Joe) – was a rather nasty character too. Because he didn’t belong, he didn’t fit in to either culture, and as a result was distrusted by both, and ended up, in a sense, at war with both. This was the tragic fact. His inheritance made him an outsider to both… [He was of] a pathetic lot, in that [he was] neither one nor the other. There are sometimes some genetic advantages, there are sometime genetic disadvantages, but there are generally markedly social disadvantages which tend to warp the child’s entire life, and these social factors are extremely strong. So that in countries where you do have this kind of group, they do represent a rather bitter and unhappy group, a rebellious group…

In the Orient, there is a great deal of prejudice against such marriages, and in a fair percentage of the marriages of American servicemen, say with Japanese girls, these Japanese girls do come from the lowest strata… And very few such marriages were contracted. And this is the usual thing. When there are marriages between races, very often it is not the best of either, and this is another factor that commonly militates against the success of such marriages, in that it is the lower levels which tend to unite in most cases…

Having denounced 99% of all interracial marriages, Rushdoony goes on to say that the perpetrators live in Section 8, and their children are bitter, unhappy, and rebellious. What a ringing endorsement. But Rushdoony was no “KKKinist,” as John Lofton likes to say! Yeah, right. Dealing with Lofton brings to mind the words of Confucius: “Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up.”

Rush tried to keep open the fabled desert island scenario for racial intermarriage, but that’s not a realistic world of habitation. In the real world, we have mothers and fathers, and not a single one of them wants to see children marry anyone of a different race. That’s the hard, cold fact, and you deny it at your own peril.

There is an element of dishonor to father and mother and of a break with the family, so there are very serious objections to it…

For example, this beautiful white woman is all smiles as she publicly craps on the Fifth Commandment. CNN calls it “Defining America,” but of course they mean Redefining America.

Seven years later and three half-Asian/half-Caucasian children deep, the discussion of race rarely comes up in our home. But only because we worked so hard to make sure the inconsistencies we were both taught in our parents’ homes about what kinds of people were worthy to love would never be a part of our home or life together.

It’s like these faggots talking about “natural progression.” Like atheists and feminists, they have to borrow the terms of the godly to make sense of their lives.

Back to Rushdoony:

Now, one of the interesting facts…with respect to intermarriage…is this. Historically, whenever you have two peoples close together and one in a position of power and the other in a position of either slavery or inferiority, it takes only a very short time for the two races to merge, no matter how great the hatred between them. Thus, when the Normans took England there was nothing more hateful to the Anglo-Saxon peoples of England than a Norman. And yet, because they were of conquerable abilities, in spite of that intense hatred, they did merge ultimately.

Same race. It’s not wise to transpose the history of Europeans on the history of the world.

But when you find two peoples of very different intellectual and cultural levels close together, they can be together generation after generation, and the amount of merging is very slight. So there is no disappearing of the one as against the other. This is why the Negro did not disappear in the South. Had the slaves been, say, of another racial group, it would not have taken more than a hundred years of slavery for the two groups to have merged. But you had a couple of hundred years of slavery in the South, and the Negroes did not disappear. So this is the remarkable fact.

Had the slaves been “of another racial group,” the same thing would have happened, because unlike Spaniards and Portuguese, our British ancestors were what preachers now call “racists.” And because they were “racists,” the white race continues to survive in America. So God bless them. Whites have only merged successfully with fellow whites. Does anyone want to argue for Mexico as a shining example of the success of miscegenation?

As a result, when you hear stories told about how the Negro women were exploited and so on, these stories tend to be exaggerations. As a matter of fact, the truth was usually the other way. It was very difficult to…rear children in the South, because one way of promotion was to capture the interest of a white boy or a white man. Now, this goes counter to the Marxist thesis. But when you study the history of the West, you find that one of the best things that ever happened, incidentally, to the morality of the upper classes was modern inventions which abolished, progressively, the need for servants in a home. Because one of the major problems that existed was the seduction of the boys and the men in a household by servant girls. Now, according to the Marxists, it was the other way around. The poor working girl was exploited. But for the working girls, it was usually a ticket for support for herself and her child, and it meant a dowry to help her get married to someone else. So there was a tremendous exploitation and a continual corruption of the upper classes by the presence of a large body of servants… And modern technology has eliminated what was once the continual cause of corruption of the upper classes and the upper-middle classes.

At 22:28 in this sermon, Rushdoony says that when a man is treated as an abstraction, he ceases to be a man.

And this is why modern sociology is so demonic, and why modern historiography is so demonic…

At the beginning of [the book of one brilliant scholar,] as he analyzes the South and the history of the South, [he writes] that the Negro is simply a white man, a Southerner with a different skin. And he says, “I will not consider anything about his racial background, or his intelligence, or his culture, or his environment. I will consider him as a man, pure and simple.” Well now, take away your history, your racial background, your family upbringing, your faith, your character, your intelligence. What have you got? Not you. Just an empty abstraction. A meaningless concept of man. And this is, of course, the liberal fallacy. It takes away everything that makes us what we are and then says, somehow, this is the real man. And then it says, you see, all real people are just the same. Hence, they are all equal. And, of course, this is a monstrous absurdity.

The same liberalism has infected the Church. Judeochristians have stripped from men everything that makes them what they are, and have abstracted them to the point of absurdity.

Near 38:15 in the same sermon:

The so-called primitive peoples of the world are people who have gone downhill, deliberately. For example, we find among the peoples of Africa evidences of civilization in their background. But…when they talk about the great African civilizations, they’re talking about the Arab civilizations in which the Negroes were slaves… As soon as these civilizations disappeared, the various tribes and peoples went downhill immediately. In other words, they deliberately took a downward turn. They didn’t attempt to reestablish or to maintain the civilization they overthrew. They went downhill, and have gone progressively further downhill…

Robert E. Lee said the same thing about Negroes, and advised his son to do no business with them because of this fact.

Our prayers tonight are with Elizabeth Wright, a courageous and brilliant black writer who would be an inspiration to millions of her people, if the world were not rife with perversions. She is now in hospice care for cancer. Unfortunately, hospice is usually the place where they send people after the doctors can do no more. Godspeed, Elizabeth.

Our prayers also go out to the family of the Rev. Pete Peters, who passed away at too young an age.

And to Ernst Zundel’s attorney, Doug Christie, who was recently diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer.