Would you like to see everything that we despise about the dirty Jew, in one greasy little bundle? Watch this. Ah, but there is a happy ending!

Now we return to our regularly scheduled blog post…

Why do you Kinist fruitcakes call pastors liars? Isn’t it enough to say they are honestly mistaken? No. Men who have been to seminary have read the great works of the past and learned at the feet of the masters. They know what the Bible says about kinship and nationhood and willfully choose to lie about it. This incredibly boring sermon by one Jeff Black of Wytheville, Virginia, is an excellent example. I’ll spare you a whole hour of your life that you’ll never get back by summarizing it for you. He says it is a sin for Catholics and Protestants to marry but it is the will of God that Whites and blacks marry, and the reason for this is because Moses married a black woman. Except that he didn’t. And I’ll bet not a single person listening to this solemn silliness (if even awake) questioned whether – oh, I don’t know – one or two of the church fathers believed this fable. You know, like, maybe it could be found in a commentary somewhere. Because if this clever tale was invented this side of 1950, it is immediately discredited. Though we don’t expect everyone to have read this excellent proof, we do hope that Christian cattle would tell their pastors to put away the Hugh Hefner periodicals and buy some old books. Live not by lies.

We enjoy listening to the White Horse Inn shows, but after a recent one called “Who Needs Church?” we were left with the nagging question, “Who Needs Liberalism?” Listen to this clip and be amazed at how the church of our time bears no resemblance to the church of the ages that preceded us, at least when it comes to race. And this particular example is instructive because the gentlemen in question have molded their whole shtick around the church’s decline into liberalism.

The error that you just heard is in leaping from the “broad catholicity” of the church to the notion that segregated churches are evil, that nationalities should not be conserved, and that the races should start kissing and copulating with each other like the two people in the famous Armistice photo of WWI since they all belong to the same “family.” This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the triune nature of Christianity (diverse peoples united under one Lord, one faith, and one baptism) that we are aghast (or would be, if we weren’t so used to it) to find that otherwise reasonable men believe it. Even we who are partial preterists in our eschatology speculated earlier about the nature of the Beast that would cause the whole world to fall down and worship it; and quite frankly, there is no other candidate than racial equality that is so widely cherished, even among sworn enemies, in these last days.

Notice that the panel denounces “American” tendencies, which are truly Pelagian and sensationalistic, but lumps into this the quite natural tendency to segregate racially, as about 95% of all churches do, and have always done. Ken Jones says this rebuilds the middle wall of separation that Christ tore down. On the contrary, liberal race-mixers in the churches are rebuilding the Tower of Babel by working against God’s purpose in the world of placing His children in distinct families and nations. Still, we acknowledge that there is a good point hidden beneath the cruft, which is that God is no respecter of persons. The gospel is to be proclaimed and administered to all, free of charge; and where there are divisions among us, these must never divide from Christ. The error is in assuming that the divisions are “insignificant,” as Joe Morecraft puts it, or not ordained by God.

The conversation veers into South African apartheid and the patently ridiculous suggestion that communion is not common unless black men and white men drink from the same cup. “People like to be around people like themselves,” Rosenblatt sighs, and then groans at the old-fashioned and practical idea that cultural homogeneity improves church growth. They even go so far as to say that the natural instinct for homogeneity and consanguinity is the sin of the Judaizers, the heretics of the early church who required that Gentiles become Hebrews!

The point is always missed that social divisions of this kind are enforced primarily according to the will of fathers in determining the futures of their children. This too is in utter disrepute in our time. Separation from foreigners has always been considered necessary, by Christians of all ages, because we have just as much right to collectively determine our own kin and national destiny as a father and mother, under the Fifth Commandment, have a right to chart a course for their own offspring. Therefore, while these Reformed ministers bemoan individualism, they have fallen to the opposite extreme. “The hyphenated church will invariably place too much emphasis on the left side of the hyphen,” says Jones. And the Babelist church will invariably place too much emphasis on the “one blood” of Acts 17:26 and ignore “the bounds of their habitation.” The church of the 21st century has elevated destruction of borders to an essential of the faith.

Let’s go back 50 years or so, just for the purpose of seeing how things have changed. Again, this is instructive because even moderate views from the 1950s are now denounced as devilry, smelling of smoke. And I’m not kidding. Agreeing with your grandfathers is one of the most dangerous things you can do, and Judeochristians won’t simply heckle and cajole you for it; they’ll try to destroy you. You present a threat to their false way of life in a way that mockers or even skeptics do not.

Here is an essay from 1956 by Dr. John R. Rice called “Negro and White.” Here is a photo of the cover. Rice tries to be the voice of moderation during a time of rapid change. From our vantage point, he did not go nearly far enough, but that’s because we have the luxury of our vantage point. Enjoy. As you read, consider how greatly beliefs can change in a generation or two, and yet people are always able to convince themselves that what they now believe is what has always been believed, and anyone who doesn’t conform must be cast into darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Almost 100 years before Rice wrote this essay, the great J.L. Dagg wrote Elements of Moral Science (you can read and download it here). Dagg was extremely influential. Many baptist churches still use his Treatise on Church Order for their church constitutions. He was a contemporary of Dabney and has received the same treatment at the hands of intolerant churchmen today, who decide what to keep and what to throw away from the great works of the past. It fell to Lloyd Sprinkle to republish Dabney’s Discussions and Dagg’s Elements (under the title A Practical View of Christian Ethics), among other things. God bless him for it. Here are some interesting quotes:

The curse of Ham’s transgression fell heavily on the Canaanites; but it was not confined to this branch of his family. The enslaved negroes in our midst are his descendants, and their condition agrees with this ancient prediction… They are a denunciation of God’s displeasure at the sin of Ham, and an explanation of the degradation which has fallen on his posterity. (p. 344)

When natural religion would learn the moral character of slavery from its effects in the Southern States, it should inquire what would be the condition of these States, with their present  population, if slavery were abolished. Would there be more virtue, more prosperity? (p. 358)

In judging what our condition would be if slavery were abolished, we are not left to abstract reasoning. The effects of the Emancipation Act in the British West Indies have demonstrated that, in such a population, slavery is far more favorable to virtue and national prosperity than emancipation. If natural religion will compare the present with the former condition of these British colonies, she may rightly infer that slavery is not contrary to the will of God. (p. 359)

Dabney called it a weak argument to justify slavery on the curse of Canaan, and of course, this is not what Dagg is doing. He refers to it merely for the sake of explanation, as Dabney himself does in calling Canaanites and Africans “peculiarly degraded in morals; as actual history testifies of them, so far as its voice extends.” The curse of Canaan also explains the accompanying blessing of Shem and Japheth, who were very unlike other instruments of God’s judgment, such as the Assyrians, who were cursed for administering God’s curse. Canaan’s curse even turned out to be a blessing in part because it imposed restraints for the welfare of the virtuous. An example of something similar to this is the slavery of prison, which redounds to the benefit of those whose behavior keeps them free.

Of course, if one actually knew how to debate the merits of an argument – which liberals don’t – one would show reasons why inferences drawn from the curse of Canaan make no sense at all. For instance, if the slaves were not really under a curse, it stands to reason that freeing them should have led to an increase in their virtue and prosperity rather than genocidal rampages, as occurred in Haiti. Wouldn’t that be the “loving” thing to do? But we all know that the liars in our pulpits today never try to argue with men like Dabney and Dagg, because they can’t.

While the patriarchal form of civil society continued, the right of membership was determined by natural descent… It was the exclusive right of the descendants, and no alien could claim it… The present forms of civil society so far retain the patriarchal features, that membership is universally transmitted by descent, and in many nations men of an alien race are found who are not admitted to membership as children of the family… The patriarchal features, being natural, exhibit the best claim to divine authority; and so far as this natural order becomes modified by human judgment and choice, this judgment and choice ought to be directed to the best possible accomplishment of the ends for which civil society exists. (p. 280)

Earlier, we discussed Calvin’s idea of a vague “equity” as the basis for the constitutions of men rather than God’s law. Rushdoony calls this “heretical nonsense,” and so it is. But inherent in the law is the understanding that not all people have equal capacities or equal outcomes. There can only be equality of justice in this imperfect world, i.e., common protections and duties under the law, which continues to be an exclusively White idea. This is best secured when ruled only by one’s own kinsmen, as the Bible dictates. Aside from this, there is liberty for a diversity of constitutions fitted to the character of the people. Dagg explains:

In an improved state of society, when men generally know their duty, and are disposed to perform it without compulsion, it becomes less necessary that men should be driven to obey by fear. To such persons a milder form of government is better adapted. In every case, that form of government is best which is best adapted to the character of the people. (pp. 284-285)

Notice that the law doesn’t change, but its severity as a schoolmaster does change.

Forms of government which impose but little restraint on the liberties of the people are not adapted to rude tribes of men; and a government which extends over distinct tribes, differing widely from each other in intellectual and moral condition, ought to adapt itself to the character of each. (pp. 338-339)

It would be unjust for an alien people to enjoy all the benefits of a government to which they are not adapted, at the expense of the intelligent and polished people who have instituted it for themselves. (p. 341)

Bingo! This is where we part the men from the boys. Notice that justice was the aim, not some sacrificial reverence for the god of Equality. And who is unjustly treated when bankers in New York, Boston, and Chicago create a sectional animosity that leads to murder and ultimately citizenship for savages (i.e., theft)? Our kinsmen, that’s who. Certainly not the slaves, who were coddled from cradle to grave and were finally given what never belonged to them.

Civil government cannot undertake to effect a change in the character and habits of slaves; and to place them in a higher position, without adapting them to it, would not be benevolence, either to them or to the community. (p. 341)

He elucidates on p. 361 and following. And be sure not to miss, on pp. 365-366, that those who called for the abolition of slavery also called for the abolition of capital punishment. Real Bible scholars, in other words. Kind of like the geniuses today who denounce all of this as “racism” because they could never hope to prove it false.

“It has appeared to some that the South has not done its full duty by the negro. Perfection is, without doubt, a standard above humanity; but, at least, we of the South can say that we have done much for him; if we have not admitted him to social equality, it has been under an instinct stronger than reason, and in obedience to a law higher than is on the statute books: the law of self-preservation. Slavery, whatever its demerits, was not in its time the unmitigated evil it is fancied to have been. Its time has passed. No power could compel the South to have it back. But to the negro it was salvation. It found him a savage and a cannibal and in two hundred years gave seven millions of his race a civilization, the only civilization it has had since the dawn of history. We have educated him; we have aided him; we have sustained him in all right directions. We are ready to continue our aid; but we will not be dominated by him. When we shall be, it is our settled conviction that we shall deserve the degradation into which we shall have sunk.” ~ Thomas Nelson Page