Three cheers to Darrell Dow for reminding us of this excellent passage from Rushdoony. Rush made it one of his tasks in life to shoot down all “universalist abstractions,” in this case “the basic irrelevance of race,” and that Negroes are “only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less.” {Paging Joe Morecraft. Come in, Joe. Can you hear me now?} Rush writes, in The Biblical Philosophy of History:
If Negroes are only ‘white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less,’ then, conversely, white men are only Negroes with white skins, nothing more, nothing less. This means that all cultural differences, hereditary predispositions, and historical traditions are irrelevant and meaningless. It means, in other words, that history is meaningless. And how can one be an historian if it is his purpose to deny history?
The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different considerations… If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. [See the popular definition of "American."] No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.
Abstract identity is not limited to the rough beast called “Americanism.” There is also something called Irishness, which according to this mulatto, is not about “what you look like but what you have inside of you.” So now the “mystic chords of memory” that bind us to our brothers and sisters have been reduced to the level of indigestion.
We like Pastor Bret McAtee, but there are a couple of problems with his treatment of Rushdoony in this article. First, he hangs the whole enchilada (to employ a bit of neo-American lingo in a tortured metaphor) on the word “normally,” as if that is supposed to make acceptable in some cases what Rushdoony recognizes is “against the burden of the law” of God and “against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.” So miscegenation is an offense to God and our people, but sometimes we just have to grin and bear it? What else do you know that could fall into the same category? Nothing that comes to my mind. And when you couple this with the fact that our Christian forefathers unanimously agreed with Kinists that interracial marriage is forbidden, but in our own day agree with Christ-haters on the matter, it causes one to wonder what other issues share agreement between believers of today and unbelievers of today, but not between believers of yesterday and unbelievers of today. Again, nothing that comes to my mind. The second problem is that Mr. McAtee attempts to prove that Rush was not what Communists and Christians call “racist” because he appeals to the apostle Paul’s focus on religiously mixed marriages. But Paul also did not abrogate the testimony of the law and prophets on the matter. And the purpose of that testimony was to prevent physically unequal yoking. It was a matter of differences, as Mr. McAtee says, not of superiority versus inferiority. Are any of the seeds or livestock of Leviticus 19 superior to others, or simply different? Therefore, as Mr. McAtee says, “It is not racist to suggest that people shouldn’t marry across boundaries where profound differences exist.”
There is a general feeling among Christians today that words can be parsed to make them so politically correct that they lose all meaning. It’s as though we can be like Esau and Solomon and engage in behavior that draws us away from God and our people, but that’s okay if we do not commit an actual sin, technically speaking. And while these people busy themselves with sort of not committing technical sins that have been approved by focus groups and signed in triplicate, our country sinks further into oblivion. I should be able to recognize my countrymen by the way they look and the way they sound. Instead, the radio talk show hosts tell us that our national identity is based on what we believe and do. “You’re a great American,” says Sean Hannity, every time a caller approves of killing Ay-rabs for Iz-rul. The other day, I heard a caller on the Bill O’Reilly show say (and this a direct quote) that those who refuse to debate are not true Americans.
Let’s say you have a penchant for premillennial eschatology. What lie on earth do you suppose could lead the whole world captive? What lie would find almost unanimous agreement in the end times among seemingly ordinary folks of all races, religions, languages, and persuasions? What foul beast would cause the entire earth, the great and the small, to bow down and worship it? We have no other candidate than the Lie of Equality. It stands without rival. And this leads me to one of the best posts ever from James Edwards (and that’s really saying something). James mocks both a lying Jew and the covenant-breakers who give him air time on “Christian” radio.
As late as 1958, 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage… Laws against interracial marriage in this country go all the way back to the colonial era, and out of 50 states, there are only 9 that have never had any laws against the practice… White people who have no problem with their sons and daughters marrying Asians, Mexicans and blacks, but are horrified by the idea of gay marriage, are like a man with a gangrenous leg who thinks it’s no big deal but is worried sick about his earache… After reading the article, it’s easy to understand why the philosopher Schopenhauer called Jews “the great masters of the lie.”
Consider the grotesque spectacle of allowing anti-Christs such as Dennis Prager and Michael Medved on “Christian” radio. Michael Hoffman, who has just released his masterpiece - only to have it promptly banned by Amazon, even though Amazon sells pretty much anything, including the Protocols of Zion - sees this as par for the course of so-called conservatism.
Judaism Discovered also has the potential to spark a revival of ancient western verities long abandoned by supposed paragons of 20th and 21st century “conservatism,” these “paragons” having concocted a bastard, “Judeo-Christian family values” movement, which is so deranged it places Orthodox rabbis at the front of the barricades, as allies of Christians in the struggle against, for example, abortion and homosexuality. This conjunction of opposites represents nothing less than the conquest of conservatism by alchemical perversion, equivalent to surgically implanting silicone breasts on male transvestites and proclaiming them allies in the struggle for the restoration of femininity.
Leave a Reply