We like Kevin MacDonald, but this reply to Pat Buchanan is just plain embarrassing.
Positing a God to explain human behavior and human traits is useless. It doesn’t really explain anything, because we then have to ask why He would make us to be so prone to inflict suffering on others. And why would he create animals that inflict so much suffering on other animals.
He asserts that evil is simply the process of natural selection. But that’s all it is—an assertion. It doesn’t really explain anything. Any presuppositional apologist could slice and dice such a weak argument. Not only can evil not be understood without the standard of good and morality and truth, it can’t even be recognized. If you have never seen a dollar, and I try to pass off a counterfeit as the real thing, how would you ever know the difference? Now suppose that a real dollar does not exist (hey, no Federal Reserve jokes). You could not even understand the concept of a counterfeit. This has been hashed and rehashed by much wiser and more eloquent men for ages, and Darwinists never fail to make themselves look foolish when they touch on the metaphysical. It’s like C.S. Lewis said: If the universe has no meaning, we should never have discovered that it has no meaning. But the Darwinist really and truly wants to believe that his thoughts are meaningful. He imagines that good, evil, knowing, truth, logic, and all else that make life worth living are simply conventions born of the struggle to survive, and this makes him an educated fool. “Positing a God to explain human behavior and human traits is useless.” Wrong! Unless there is a God, it is impossible to explain human behavior at all. John Calvin wrote as much on page 1 of Institutes of the Christian Religion, long before Darwin was born. And if Calvin is wrong, and MacDonald is right, I don’t really love my wife and children at all. I simply have an instinct, programmed into my genes after countless years of trial and error, to propagate said genes like a virus, and my wife is a useful piece of meat to achieve this goal. That’s the Darwinist conception of love: a virus. And the Passion of Christ makes a mockery of it. “No greater love hath any man than this…” But more to the point of white nationalism, if I don’t really love my wife and children, why should I care about my race? Why should I stick my neck out for anyone? And if this sounds like it would lead to libertarianism, it should. These are destructive ideologies, and the kind of mental masturbation for which white eggheads are renowned. We Kinists want to see the white race thrive, and we want our own families to thrive, but because it is our duty and desire as Christians to glorify and obey God. If we are merely survivalists with “genetic interests,” what makes us any more significant than blood-sucking mosquitoes? MacDonald can try to divert attention from his moral vacuum by complaining about wars of religion, but it’s not working. He claims that Churchill would not have been a war criminal if he had been a good Darwinist, but this misses the point entirely. To the Darwinist, what is a war crime? What is a crime? Why are your genes and inclinations more important than mine? You see what I mean? Pure foolishness. It’s a carefully crafted way of suppressing the truth about sin, and it has led our people to a Big Fat Nowhere.
To the London Times
Regarding your question: What’s wrong with the world?
I am.
Yours truly,
G.K. Chesterton
And then, when MacDonald says the West has died because Darwinism has died, it’s just so ridiculous that I wonder if he’s joking.
Now, here’s the interesting thing about this. It turns out that Darwinist MacDonald actually has quite a lot in common with the Ken Hamite young-universe creationists. MacDonald’s main argument against the existence of God is that there is suffering in the world, even among animals. Likewise, Ken Hamites believe the universe could not possibly be billions of years old because it would imply suffering on the part of animals. Here’s a graphic from Answers in Genesis that presupposes what is “good,” makes a strange distinction between some animals against all other animals and plants, and features what appear to be Mulatto Adam and Eve:
More agreement between Kevin MacDonald and Ken Ham – that race is an evolutionary construct, not an instrument of divine purpose:
That which has no divine purpose has no covenantal purpose. Here again, we arrive at the libertarianism being pushed across the board by 21st century pastors. Tim Harris parses Ham’s unbiblical, unscientific, and fundamentally libertarian ideas.
Blood relation differentiated into races vanishes next to the “really important” action of bloodless Individuals marrying and giving in marriage according to individual impulses, and guided by no principle above the Individual except being “equally yoked” according to propositional belief. The City of God/City of Man becomes the only relevant collective having covenantal, eschatological ramifications.
Tim ably reveals the hypocrisy of race-mixing clergymen, in part because he has personal experience dealing with some board members who are just like this.
The deepest intent of the theonomic miscegenation defenders seems to be to guard against declaring anything as a sin that is not defined as such in a commandment. They are “okay” with having a preference for one’s own race, provided one does not forbid others. But does not their typical “preference”—they “just happen” to “prefer” that their own daughters marry white boys—go against their racial ideal of creation? On their view, should not the table of nations be seen as a deviation from divine intent, which should be positively resisted? They need to reflect on creation ordinance in view of these considerations. If the divine intent were humanity-as-mulatto, would it not be sinful even to prefer marrying within one’s own racial identity? Should not that which produces mulattoes be advocated as the norm? Once the Christian Libertarians start to think more biblically, their recourse to the preference vs. sin distinction may actually backfire on them.
For such men, anti-Christian libertarianism is of greater importance than obedience to the Fifth Commandment.
The “theonomic” men on a Board that I dealt with actually were forced to admit that if a father or magistrate forbade miscegenation, their children or subjects would be free to disobey such an order, because they do not see how such a prohibition is contained in a specific law of God. In other words, authority equals “correct exposition of the law of God.”
Authorities and fathers on this view only have authority to the extent that they are restating the law of God given in precepts—they are merely expounders of the law of God to those that are less knowledgeable therein. Their subjects can always do what they want to do if they are convinced that there is not a divine precept specifically forbidding the behavior.
This is the point at which Tim shifts from outstanding commentary to brilliant commentary, because he shows that the hypocrisy of the ministerial stinkweeds grows from a dangerously false view of authority itself.
If the subject always has the right to decide that a command is “not a reflection of a law of God,” this really means that there are no authorities, properly speaking. “Authorities” so-called become, at best, only persons more likely to know the law of God. Respecting authority, on the typical theonomic-libertarian model, amounts to consulting persons likely to know the law of God. Leaving aside the fact that lawful authorities in reality are often clueless as to the law of God, this view vitiates any concept of authority. It is just Libertarianism and the raw Individual before God masquerading as a biblical social theory.
As Tim knows, this is a common ailment among Reformed Bible sheriffs in the mold of Joe Morecraft and others. As Kinists have always said and as Christians have always known, children have a duty to obey their parents and foreparents, even a non-Christian father, simply because he is their father. And if a father doesn’t want his name and heritage besmirched by rebellious children, it’s not the business of the Morecraftian propositionalist bobbleheads to tell him that it’s not rebellion at all because he doesn’t “understand” the law of God. Only an egotistical blowhole who names a splinter-church after an ecumenical council would give so much credit to knowledge. The real issue at hand is duty, the most sublime word in the English language. If these loud-mouthed presbyterians who pride themselves on their knowledge could come to realize that duty is more important, their view of the Fifth Commandment would not be so perverted. Nor would their understanding of Romans 13 be perverted. Please remember, dear readers, that the Reformed Bible sheriffs gladly ascribe authority to the most godless civil magistrates, purely because of the offices they hold, while condemning Christian fathers, despite their office, for disallowing grandchildren who look like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg.
Does Scripture countenance obedience to patriarchal authority that commands “adiaphora” i.e. outside that which is commanded by Scripture? If we can find even one such example in Scripture, it will be enough to refute this so-called “biblical” social theory of theonomic libertarianism. And indeed, we do find an example.
The Rechabites were a tribe whose ancestral head had commanded his descendants to live in tents and not to drink wine, nor even to own vineyards…
This example is particularly interesting, because libertarian theonomists take particular delight in promulgating that wine-drinking is adiaphora, and not prohibited by God’s law. They also are inclined to live in houses, not tents. But Jeremiah praises the Rechabites, contrasting their faithfulness to the rebelliousness of the people of Judah…
The Board men thought they were principled theonomists, but in the end, their theory was simply plain old libertarianism, lightly seasoned with desultory appeals to Scripture. The motif is deeply embedded in the thinking of Christians in “our circles.” Overthrowing it will not be quick work.
But if libertarianism is false, then on what basis will Ham be able to say that parents and tribal leaders may not steer marriages away from the inter-racial, or employ various other criteria that might be deemed important?
Tim Harris is a treasure in these dark and foreboding times. God bless him.
Miscegenist Ken Ham writes here, with presumably a straight face, that the belief that dinosaurs lived and died off before men existed “undermine[s] the authority of Scripture” and causes “young people to walk away from the church.” Quite honestly, it frightens me that nutlogs like Ken Ham and Doug Phillips have appointed themselves as scriptural authorities. As Tim has shown, they don’t understand the first thing about authority. If anything is going to cause young people to leave the church, it is going to be race-mixers, like these two quacks, telling them that their people are expendable and their heritage is an accident. I think we’ve already mentioned what such men should do to themselves, but we can’t elucidate at this time, being a family-friendly website and all.
What in the name of all that is holy?
Actually, Martin and Vaughn have written an interesting book. They say they are covenantal creationists, which means preterists. They argue in their book that belief in a 144-hour creation period and a global flood is intimately linked to dispensational premillennialism. “Young-earth creationism requires futurism,” writes Martin. Gary DeMar has also recently made the point that young-universe creationists are almost always dispensational premillennialists. This is the reason why Henry Morris spread the ideas of Creation Science when he did. He believed that those who took Genesis literally would take Revelation literally. The problem, of course, is that if “day” in Genesis 1 & 2 has one “plain” meaning, and could not possibly mean anything else, then dispies have a problem with Matthew 24:34. When Christ said “this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place,” did He mean this generation, to which He spoke, or that generation, to come thousands of years in the future? According to dispies, the “plain” meaning of this verse is obviously wrong, but if you disagree with what they call the “plain” meaning of Genesis 1 & 2, they will say you worship a different god.
Protestants have rejected the idea that the Bible is equal in authority to the traditions of Rome and decrees of popes. But here is the supreme irony of 20th and 21st century evangelicalism: The Bible is now considered equal to feelings and burning bosoms and personal testimonies. “You ask me how I know he lives. He lives within my heart.” This is the worst theology ever set to music. It would be bad enough if evangelicals had merely traded the gospel for experience. It’s much worse than that. They have traded Rome for Joel Osteen. Faust made a better deal.
Be that as it may, our advice to Vaughn is to study less of Genesis and more of Ezra and Nehemiah. Send away that hideous “family” and stop murdering our people.
Aaron Wolf, who works for Crazy Uncle Tom Fleming, writes that the Hebrew word for Adam means “of the red” or “of the soil.” This is partly true. The word is specifically chosen for its similarity to adamah, the earth from which Adam came. But our friend Aaron isn’t giving you the straight poop because he doesn’t want anyone to think that he’s a “racist,” like the founder of his church, Marty Luther. The primary meaning of the word is to show blood in the face, to blush, or to turn rosy or ruddy. I wish we didn’t have to work so hard to correct theologians, but if they could do us a favor and stop lying to people, we could take up other interests, like air hockey. It’s all the more egregious when found in an article about the patria and the mores majorum. Can I ask an impertinent question? Who besides white people does Crazy Uncle Tom think would read his faileocon magazine or care about such $10 words?
In comment 22 on this page, Crazy Uncle Tom says he has been taken to task for omitting race from his conservative credo. He harrumphs and explains that race is not “a palpable reality that guides our conduct.” Which is why blacks and whites, most of whom call themselves Christians, are about the same in terms of crime, disease, and achievement. He goes on to say that racialists, who make incredibly accurate predictions based on such data, are “silly,” but that “ethnicity and race will have some importance at some times.” Nevertheless, “racism” has “ill effects…on character and community.” Fleming is smart enough to know that almost no racialists think race is everything. But the very same racialists refuse to let him get away with minimizing it and lying about it as he does. Here’s the plain and indisputable fact, friends: Whatever ill effects that racial hatred might have on a community, and there can be many, they are as nothing compared to the ill effects of “conservatives” burying their heads in the sands of history and caring more for wine and cheese at an annual convivium in Rome, where eggheads can impress each other with their intimate knowledge of the regularity of the Caesars, than about the future of their own people in the here and now, and all that it entails.
“Nation-building” is based on behavioralism, which holds “that the social and natural sciences are not so different, both being devoted to the discovery of law-like regularities that govern the behavior of atoms, hamsters, humans, whatever. Two of behavioralism’s reinforcing assumptions were: Things that can be quantified can be controlled. And everything can be quantified.” In other words, warmongering has a lot in common with Scientology.
Brother Pat knocks one out of the park.
Observing the lightning breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chinese take ethnonationalism with deadly seriousness. American’s elite regard it an irrelevancy, an obsession only of the politically retarded.
After all, they tell us, we were never blood-and-soil people, always a propositional nation, a nation of ideas. Our belief in democracy, diversity, and equality define us and make us different from all other nations.
Indeed, we now happily predict the year, 2042, when Americans of European ancestry become a minority in a country whose Founding Fathers declared it set aside for “ourselves and our posterity.”
Without the assent of her people, America is being converted from a Christian country, nine in 10 of whose people traced their roots to Europe as late as the time of JFK, into a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Tower of Babel not seen since the late Roman Empire.
And your lying pastor is pushing for it more than anyone, because he has rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, which promises salvation for us and our children.
The Pope has called for a “world authority” to solve the global economic crisis through “redistribution of wealth.” You know what this means? Catholics and Protestants have finally unified! Everyone in the asylum is now equally insane.
“Ask yourself: which is worse, to favor the Nazis, believing they perpetrated the Holocaust, or to favor the Nazis, believing they did not?” The latter “is basically the continental version of Roosevelt’s New Deal.” And while we’re neither socialists, liberals, nor Democrats, the New Deal is hardly the worst thing ever to have happened. It was probably no worse than the George W. Bush regime. But denying the Holohoax now equates to illegal incitement, fascism, and Nazism in courts of law. Brother Tim asks another important question: Which is worse, to reject authority or to lie? The theonomic libertarians he knows have asked if they could get back to him on that.
This is a very good article by our friend Christopher Donovan on how the Anabaptists, who are largely German and who have always relished their role as outsiders among their own people and equal to everyone else, love to denounce Hitler and compare their suffering to that of the Jews. You would think that not watching TV would give them more sense than that.
Would Geneva have ever been possible in a mixed-race Europe?
Texans don’t like pro-amnesty senators. And when I say “Texans,” I mean white Texans, of course. What other kind is there? I want to go home to the armadillos, country music from Amarillo and Abilene—the friendliest people and the prettiest women you’ve ever seen. That’s a good line from David Allan Coe, who wrote another racist song about his daughter having skin as white as snow and eyes as blue as the Montana sky, and another racist song in which he is tryin’ like the devil to find the Lord, workin’ like a nigger for my room and board… Where was I? Oh yes, amnesty. Texans need what Southerners have always needed—thousands of tolerant, enlightened, faggotty gasbags from Massachusetts to come south and cure them of H8.
Massachusetts was dead-set against the South having the innate right to secede from a voluntary union, but now that everyone in the state has turned into a faggot, books by Jefferson and Calhoun are being read in order to contravene the imperial Defense of Marriage Act. Now they’re happy to assert state sovereignty since it meets their agenda.
Here’s a very good video assembled by Ted Pike on Attorney General Eric Holder’s pathetic attempt to convince senators that a hate crime bureaucracy is needed because of the “historical” likelihood of certain groups to be targeted for violence. He says it over and over again. But as we showed last time, from Senator Felton to the present day, white women have been overwhelmingly targeted by blacks for rape. But these aren’t called hate crimes because the victims are white. And while they do nothing to abate the flood of barbarism, there are already laws on the books against rape. Senators asked Holder to give just one example where a fag or a black was not already able to have a case tried under present laws, and every time he dodged the question.
“Hate” includes the act of leaving supportive comments on blogs deemed “racist” by anointed anti-haters.
“The sooner the GOP collapses and is replaced by a party that will speak up for white people, the better.”
California tumbles into the sea. That’ll be the day I go back to Annandale.
No one even knows about the purge of 200 whites from the New York Senate. And if you told your neighbor, Joe Wigger, about it, he would ask what it has to do with the tragic death of Michael Jackson, a victim of colorism. With black power comes increased employment for thugs as bodyguards, as in this case, which ultimately leads to military coups. It’s all very predictable; representative democracy and constitutional republicanism are utterly foreign to groids, and you get exactly what you deserve if you put your future in their hands. Study the history of Africa to see what lies in store for your fair lads and lasses. Your lying preacher will tell you that all this will change when he makes Christians of the strangers, but blacks in America are already the most self-declared Christian people on earth.
Magic Johnson mentioned Kentucky Fried Chicken five times at the Michael Jackson funeral, but let’s not dwell on this because stereotypes are racist.
“The parents brought their children eagerly, desperately. ‘What’s wrong with sharing love?’ Jackson said in 2003. ‘You don’t sleep with your kids? Or some other kids who need love?’ If you don’t think that’s creepy, then your creep-dar is beyond repair. ‘It’s almost like a crucifixion, in terms of the cross you have to bear,’ said professor Cornel West. ‘We reap the fruits of the resurrection, in terms of the power that emanates from [Jackson's] sacrifice. He sacrificed his childhood because he loved us so. He didn’t just entertain us, he sustained us.’” At Jackson’s “creepy requiem” and “macabre circus,” the eulogizers were merely performing, even thrusting a microphone into the hands of his “daughter.” The rest carried on about “existential agony” and the “spooky European geography of fleshly possibilities.”
Michael Jackson’s murderer has been found!
A mob of 50 Nigers attack a white homeschooling family in Ohio. Clearly not a hate crime.
Poor Emmet Till’s father was a rapist before he was born and now his bones are being molested after his death.
Those who could not recognize their own fathers in a lineup are probably not going to have much respect for your dearly departed.
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
~ Alexander Pope, Essay on Man
It’s hard not to think of Negroes when reading that.
I wonder if China would like to borrow about 30 million of them. They’re not doing so well with the whole integration kind of thing. I was just feeling mischievous and thinking of what I could do to cause them problems like they’ve never imagined in the hell of their darkest nightmares. If I’m ever in a Birmingham jail, I’ll write them a letter on toilet paper.
Integrated neighborhoods and schools turn black kids into scientists. This was the rationale behind the Brown vs. Board of Education decision,which has been consistently disproven over the last half century. Liberals hope that a few trillion dollars more will finally do it.
Marty Nemko, of U.S. News & World Report, writes:
Despite almost 50 years of large and accelerating efforts to improve the school achievement of African-American students, the gap between their achievement and that of whites and Asians remains about as large as ever.
Yet proposals for what to do about it seem basically unchanged: Spend more money and divert existing money to reduce class size and train teachers better, have more students take a rigorous college prep curriculum, work on improving self-esteem, eliminate ability-grouped classes, use cooperative-learning techniques, and reassign top teachers to schools with a high percentage of African-American students.
I have become especially doubtful about whether those approaches will work better in the future than they have in the past when I read this report from the trenches.
And please, be sure to read that zoological report. I wonder if 20-year-old idealists getting their education degrees, having been trained to believe in the eradicability of racial cognitive differences, realize that they are going to spend the next 40 years as glorified babysitters for savages. High school is really just expensive minority daycare. These people are given diplomas without even knowing how to speak English. But the important thing is that the Supreme Court put an end to Hate 55 years ago.
My students had only the vaguest notion of who pays for government services. For them, it was like a magical piggy bank that never goes empty. One black girl was exhorting the class on the need for more social services and I kept trying to explain that people, real live people, are taxed for the money to pay for those services. “Yeah, it come from whites,” she finally said. “They stingy anyway.”
“Many black people make over $50,000 dollars a year and you would also be taking away from your own people,” I said. She had an answer to that: “Dey half breed.” The class agreed. I let the subject drop.
Private swim clubs are racist when they don’t let 60 screaming, wild, unhygienic black kids take over the pool. And here’s why: “The average black kid is a low IQ punk, brought up in a one parent ‘home,’ raised on the streets, who has no respect for other people or their rights, especially white people… Didn’t the owners of the swim club get the memo—ever since Martin Luther King, there’s been no such thing as private property rights.”
“The first study to demonstrate differences between blacks and whites in the delay of gratification was carried out by W. Mischel in Trinidad in the late 1950s. He offered black and white children the choice between a small candy bar now or a larger one in a week. He found black children were much more likely to ask for the small candy bar now, and this difference has been confirmed in three subsequent American studies.”
“Black people are known to be primarily afraid of three things: Dogs, Ghosts and Registered Mail.” Also paternity tests, but I suppose the results could come by registered mail.
Social networking was supposed to be the dawn of a new, utopian future in which race is vanquished, but it’s not working out that way. Whites use Facebook and non-whites use MySpace. “What we’re seeing is a modern incarnation of white flight,” says Danah Boyd, a Microsoft researcher and Harvard Law School fellow. “It should scare the hell out of us.” Precisely! I’m scared to death that my kids are going to take an interest in MySpace.
“There’s one in every neighborhood.”
According to blacks and Jews, blacks and Jews “explain America to the world.”
Hebes who spit on the cross and spit on women. These psychotic Jews believe it is a crime for a woman to sing.
“They took some bastard and they believe he rose from the grave,” says a Jew taunting Christians who were giving away second-hand clothes outside a chess club. “Where is your bastard?” the man demands, laughing quietly.
Michael Hoffman’s book is finally available on Amazon!
After nearly four years, Germar Rudolf has been released from Jew-jail!
Architect Richard Gage does an excellent job here of explaining why the Judaic government is lying to everyone about 9/11. This is amazing, aired six months in advance.
“A bad poem on an old French statue is not an immigration policy.” ~ Kathy Shaidle
Italy has the honor of passing Europe’s toughest anti-immigration law:
1) Those harboring illegal aliens in their homes face up to three years in prison.
2) Immigrant parents must prove legal status to register a birth.
3) Illegal immigrants must be deported to detention centers in Libya before they can apply for asylum.
4) Illegal aliens will face huge fines and will spend six months in detention centers before repatriation.
5) Child panhandlers outlawed.
6) Sanctions for unarmed citizen patrols to aid local police.
Two things have happened in London: 1) So many non-Whites have been allowed to enter that the under-20 Third Worlders are now at 40% of the total population; 2) rapes in London schools are up 100%. As Christians, we believe that to allow our people to be subjected to this terror is pure hatred, and one of the most evil things we can imagine. Those who consider it more important to prop up a system of usury and transfer payments with foreign labor than to guard the chastity of the children of their people are not Christians at all, and in fact we wonder if there remains with them an ounce of humanity. Please, I beg of you, call me a “racist” and a “hater” any day, if it distinguishes me from these ravenous beasts.
Admin, I’d appreciate it if you would clarify something for me, and think this through with me. If I recall correctly, recently you disagreed with Nixon’s statement that it would be appropriate to abort mixed-race babies. In this most recent blog post, you call on Jeff Vaughn to “Send away that hideous ‘family’ and stop murdering our people.” How is “sending away that hideous ‘family’ not a form of murdering the people who are sent away? For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism talks about the 6th commandment requiring us to seek to preserve the life of others by resisting all practices which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any, and forbidding us to take away human life except in case of public justice, lawful war or necessary defense, including specifically a prohibition against neglecting or withdrawing the necessary means of preservation of life. Likewise it says that the 8th commandment requires to render to everyone what is their due, and forbids us to commit injustice and unfaithfulness is contracts or in matters of trust, or taking away from our neighbor what belongs to him.
Surely 1 Tim. 5:8 means that the children are entitled to receive sustenance from the father. Even if one takes the position that the inter-racial marriage constitutes fornication, the children are innocent victims and have a right to expect not to be murdered. But that creates a further difficulty in that “having a right to expect not to be murdered” would have to include the expectation that they can be raised in a life-giving environment in which their mother and father love each other as husband and wife.
I think it is important to push this point because I don’t see how one can take a halfway position. If the “hideous ‘family’” needs to be sent away, then it is legitimate to take away the life of the children, and further one would have to agree with Nixon that it is appropriate to kill mixed-race babies. And conversely if one cannot condone killing mixed-race babies then the “hideous ‘family’” has to be allowed to stay. The underlying 6th commandment issues seem to be pretty clear.
By the way, it may still be too early to draw a definite conclusion — especially since Vaughn is the one introducing his own family — but if God is intending to curse Vaughn for his miscegenation, He seems to be going about it in a rather unusual way. To read Vaughn’s description of his own family life, they certainly give every appearance of enjoying God’s blessings.
Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Very good questions. The reason I referred to Ezra and Nehemiah is because of the dilemma of the strange wives and mixed children after the return from Babylon. And it is a dilemma. But those people who were sent away, including what were considered to be covenant children, ranging from infants on up, were not murdered. They were sent away just as Hagar and Ishmael were sent away, even though Ishmael was blessed. The “marriages” to the Babylonian women (and men, presumably) were illegitimate, and so the children were illegitimate. We’re not told all the details, but they were surely sent away with great wealth. The larger point is that to not send them away would have murdered the nation of Israel, just as our own nation is being murdered.
Whenever this point is raised about Ezra and Nehemiah and the mandatory divorces, race-mixers counter that it was a religious maneuver; only non-believers were sent away. But no one has yet explained how children who were too young to speak could have recanted their sins or why we are not told of there being a theological census or why the covenant was suspended at all. Instead, we are told that Nehemiah went apoplectic and tore hair from the beards of men who were reluctant to heed his very simple command, delivered at maximum volume: Do not give your children to their children! To your point, if “innocent victims have a right to expect not to be murdered” then innocent children have an even greater expectation not to be disinherited.
You raised the point that God is apparently not cursing Dr. Vaughn for his miscegenation. We should never place too much weight on evident blessings and curses. There are always consequences for actions, but these often do not manifest themselves quickly, not even in a lifetime, and rarely in ways that we would expect. Job and King David were perplexed by this paradox (Job 21, Psalm 73) because they had the same natural tendency that we have. If one prospers, they thought, there must be a reason for it that we can understand, or if one is destitute, there must be a reason for it that we can understand. For instance, we see this blessing in Psalm 102:28:
The children of your servants will live in your presence;
their descendants will be established before you.
But in Job 21:8, it is noticed that the wicked don’t seem to fare much worse.
Their descendants are established with them in their sight,
And their offspring before their eyes…
Their bull breeds without failure;
Their cow calves without miscarriage.
They send forth their little ones like a flock,
And their children dance.
This gets into the whole matter of theodicy, which is an old philosophical stunt to explain God’s actions. But this will get us nowhere. Aside from the sacraments, God does not deal with man in this world by applying markers of approval or disapproval for everyone else to see. His rain falls on the just and unjust. If this were not so then God could be accused of injustice for failing to reward the righteous and punish the wicked, which is the Epicurean heresy. And this is exactly what happened in the time of Malachi.
So now we call the proud blessed,
For those who do wickedness are raised up;
They even tempt God and go free. (3:15)
In hindsight, we see God’s mind more clearly. We know that the Messiah came 400 years after this, and the world was changed.
Two items for the ‘I don’t believe it’ department.
This first is the Rev. James Manning. Gotta love this man’s preaching style.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2018399%3AVideo%3A11389
The second is the depth to which some will go, in ‘elevating’ Barry Baby to status of Fornicator in Chief.
(look at the pics at the bottom of this post- unbelievable)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2115296/posts
FYI, as always, my folk.
I haven’t followed the Obama “birth certificate” controversy too closely- until now. I just heard about this yesterday. Absolutely fascinating: http://www.military.com/news/article/anti-obama-gis-afghan-orders-revoked.html
It looks like a lot of people are pursuing this with vigor. It’s not going away:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574
The Obama birth certificate controversy isn’t going to go away, but it isn’t going to make any difference either. If these guys can assassinate a president and then control all the subsequent presidents, and manipulate us into a series of utterly ridiculous wars for their profit and expansion of personal power, a mere birth certificate isn’t going to make a bit of difference to them.
Rev. Manning is great entertainment and often very insightful, but does anyone know if he ever does expository preaching from the Bible?
Kevin MacDonald’s reply to Buchanan’s article on Darwin is discussed and debated on this thread:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52002&highlight=lamarckian
I make the following arguments:
“You are still assuming that right-wing social Darwinism is “truer” form of Darwinism than lefty-liberal Darwinism.
Well, it might be relatively true – egalitarianism and human rights go quite clunkily together with Darwinism.
But the vain protestations of right-wing Darwinians like KMac to the contrary, Darwinism offers lots of fodder for revolutionary subversion as well. It gives scientific garb to Heraclitus’ “all flows” ideology and thus denies that any social institution can be really sacred or permanent. The anti-conservative, deeply relativistic implications of this notion should be obvious.”
“And yet, I believe that with different approaches, a case could be made both for right-wingers and left-wingers being closer to “true Darwinism”. But that’s just the problem – Darwinism happens to be so darn malleable (read: un-falsifiable) theory that it can be made to support almost any anti-Christian ideology, left or right.
The case is further complicated by the fact that both rightist and leftist Darwinians are usually unable to swallow the Darwinian animalism in all its inglorious ugliness, and thus instinctively, covertly (and parasitically) borrow Christian or generally theistic-teleological materials to sweeten their grim worldview – lefties things like human dignity and rights, righties things like social harmony and art aesthetics.”
The Black on White crime is organized, funded and empowered with protective legislation, a hate crime bureaucracy (to police whites) and media censorship of Black terrorism, hate crimes etc.
This is because White ethnic cleansing is part of the Judeo Marxist agenda for WW III.
These crimes are political: they are organized, funded and directed. They are only made to appear random, sporadic and impulsive (for now) acts of Black degenerates.
Kinists should seriously pursue this topic. Please read the full speech of Rabbi Rabbinovitch to the Emergency Council of Eurlopean Rabbis in Budapest Hungary Jan 12, 1952. This text has been found by Rose Rabbinovich and posted on http://www.rense.com/general45/full.htm. Nov 30, 2003 rabbinovich@bluemail.ch.
See also her “Our Race Will Rule Undisputed Over the World”. http://resne.com/general45/race.htm.
I would imagine that Rose Rabbinovich made great personal sacrifice to post this material. If European Christians can match her courage and integrity, there is hope for us.
The content of Rabbi Rabbinovich’s speech is basically “we must now work with every means to precipitate WW III.”
Two strategic means are outlined.
1. “Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans te reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effectiveness and we [Jewry] will stage anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America which can then be silenced [i.e. through hate laws and bureaucracy] and weilded into a devoted anti-Russian unit.” Rose Rabbinovich notes 9.2 “Protocols of the Zion – organised anti-Semitism is controlled by Jewry]
An excellent example of this is the funding of the American Nazi Party, the Fuehrer of which is Frank Collin – a Jew. Please see July 15, 2009 post on http://curtmaynardsnewestblog.blogspot.com.
2. “We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa.”
“We will forbid Whites to mate with Whites. The White Women must co-habit with members of the dark races; the White men with Black women. Thus the White race will disappear from the mixing of the dark with the White means the end of the White man and our dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of 10,000 years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.” http://www.resne.com/generals45/full.htm.
Black on White terrorism is financed and organised by the Kahals. The situation in South Africa is under a total media blackout in the West as was the genocide of the white Russian Christians by the JudeoBolshevik Revolution. However, the world’s biggest security co G4S states that post apartheid South Africa is a more dangerous place for them than both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Black on White violence is organized and pervasive. The Whites are being ethnically cleansed according to the dictates of the Agenda outlined in the Rabbinovitch speech. Read the South African English blogs for the reports of these events. http://www.zasucks.com/?p=4240. The South African blog ‘South Africa Sucks’ is reporting this urban and rural ethnic cleansing.
For clear statements of the JudeoMarxist principles involved, you have to look at a blog like Fernando Pena’s ‘Principles of Progressive Politics’.
His banner quote is Marxist Max Horkheimer. “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions, and their political offices, transforming them into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
http://principles-of-progressive-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07.
For Pena’s July 11, 09 post, he abandons the ‘gradualist boiling frog’ approach and openly advocates the platform that is in keeping with the Rabbinovitch platform.
“The White race is the cancer of humanity.” Susan Sontag
“Whites must be reduced to a minority, the sooner the world can be remade into a united global society based on justice and dignity.”
Now that the Rulers of the U.S. of A have their Hate Bill they can create a hate bureaucracy to assist in Black NKVD police for the ethnic cleansing and terrorism of Whites, muzzle White discourse about it [as hate] and affirmatively action Blacks into the police and new emergency cadres where they can use the law for the kinds of Black police on White crime that you can read about on the South African blogs.
This Agenda is not fundamentally anti White; it is Anti-Christ. Rabbinovich says it himself – the race wars the Kahals will finance are only a tool. The European race is being targeted for ethnic cleansing because (as a race) Europe and the West was Christian, just as the Russians were targeted for genocide because historically they were/are Christian.
As Christians, they and we have a legacy that can never be reconciled to the Pax Judaica.
Ultimately, this is not about race. This is about faith. And unless the European peoples, the White race, can return to the source of its strength – the historic Christian faith and Church, they can not wind against the forces that are moving against us.
Witmer,
No, it probably won’t make any difference, but one never knows. Couldn’t hurt to try. If enough people start haranguing their “representatives” and demanding action, it could be that the judiciary might see a chance to immortalize their names by ruling that Baboona isn’t a “natural born citizen”, and therefore ineligible for the Office he now holds. Of course, it’s a very, very long-shot, but there’s still entertainment value to be had by attempting to break it wide open to the degree of effectively forcing major media outlets to pay attention and cover it. I just don’t think this is one we should all let go. Start calling your senators and congressmen!
Unbelievable- yet again.
“Which brings us to the question I have as a rabbi: Forget the Austrians. Is Brüno good for the Jews?”
-http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/is-bruno-good-for-the-jews/
The young people love Sasha Baron Cohen and he is virtually mobbed by adoring crowds of the young wherever he goes. All his comedy blasphemes Christ, depicts the Christian faith as a farce, ridicules Christians as superstitious racists, persecutors, nazis and hate-mongers – especially as anti-semites who have this bizarre, irrational antipathy for the Jews as a people, deny their millenial sufferings. He is the top of the pops.
Lest the clueless goyim get a clue about the method to this madness, we have the wise reservations of The Rabbi. In this pil-pul he is merely operating dialectically – raising his concern so as to suggest to the fair minded that fair minded Jewish sensibilities are also entertaining the idea that perhaps Cohen’s comedies might be going too far. Yeah right. Would Cohen be outrageously promoted on all media 24/7 if he were not good for the Jews?
And who owns the media one might ask?
An excellent post of Michael Hoffman’s gets right into this schtick. ‘On the Contrary’ July 18, 2009.
Judaic Front Group Secretly Promotes Neo-Nazism
Hoffman writes: “Nazism has always been a deep-cover, black op of Judaism. Hitler was influenced and directed by Kabbalistic, oriented occultists (see this writer’s “Judaism Discovered” and my introduction and bibliography in Eisenmenger’s “Traditions of the Jews”, as well as my investigative report “The Russian Roots of Nazism” in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 39. ”
These evidence based discourses demonstrate from Judaic sources the rabbinic modus operandi which Hoffman states in his maxim: ‘whoever hates and oppresses the Jews increases the power of the rabbis.’ Therefore, the Jews organize and control their own opposition and much of the ‘hate speech’ that is leveled against them in public fora.
It is imperative for everybody – including the uninitiated Jews – to get a hold of this truth.
These texts are definitive and essential reference works for anyone who would learn and understand our present time and its history. These books should be in every home school, every parish library and in the resources of every blog that concerns itself with the crisis of the Christian faith and the white peoples of European ancestry.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/07/judaic-front-group-secretly-promotes.html.
Good point about the dialectic of Jews, Lynda. I think.
Hoffman?
Why does his blog’s sub-tagline reek of “The Jew is Good”?
First sentence, “Talmudic Judaism was devised by Jew-haters.” What? Are you a Jew?
Second, “The Israel state is a counterfeit-state–Israel.” Okay, cool. You’ve got my attention (the dialectic thing).
Third, the modern papacy and modern Protestantism are in league with this counterfeit.” Okay, every practical definition of the church is bad. Sounds jewy.
Fourth, “Moreover, I cannot be categorized according to the absurdly one-dimensional ‘Holocoust-denier’ neologism, which defines ‘denial’ only in terms of one ‘Holocaust’. Back to the anti-Jew dialectic. But what is his take on the Jewish holohoax? You wouldn’t know by reading the “above the news” fold. Perhaps there are goodies if you dig in. What a tactic.
Fifth, “I affirm the…” Okay, here are the holocausts perpetrated against white non-Jewish countries. But what race is Hoffman? Arian or Mongoloid? We wouldn’t know, because in this sentence he fights for both, and throws in the Semitic Lebanon to save face.
Sixth, here we have the answer to which race he is: race doesn’t exist: “I oppose all forms of racism, and in particular the most pernicious strain: the Holy People of megalomania of Judaism.
Are you kidding me? A so-called expert on the Jews and he opposes “racism”? Racism is the center piece of their glossary! What is usually denounced as racism are the healthy warnings of fatherly heads to preserve their kinsmen. But for Hoffman, white is nothing. Maybe skin color.
I’d rather be the follower the real Hoff. But you decide who is more drunk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82-FJyniP7A
You make an interesting point about Hoffman, JPC. I saved one of the comments he left on the old Little Geneva blog, though I’ve lost the date, and it’s a real head-scratcher. The guy actually threatened to shut down his comments entirely, just because the Little Genevans (Reformed Confederate Theocrats) were linking to him, out of appreciation! One can only wonder what credibility he is trying to salvage by not being associated with “racists.” Here it is, for your bemusement:
Why do you keep linking your webpages to my “On the Contrary Blog” about Iran and the Atomic bomb? If I posted something about the Confederacy or Presbyterianism I could understand your link; but I do not know why you are using my blog as your online highway billboard. At the least it is discourteous; at worst unscrupulous. If you do not desist, I will be forced to turn off this feature for everyone, just because of your misuse of it.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Hoffman II
Lofton & Joe Morecraft discuss the Wise Latina
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1401/tavMorecraft20090717a.mp3
Lofton & Tom DiLorenzo discuss Lincoln, who would have wanted to deport Obama
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1403/tav20090715a.mp3
Lofton & Herb Titus discuss Sotomayor, God’s Law & the role of judges
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1402/INTERVIEW__Dr._Herb_Titus_On_Sotomayor__God__s_Law__The_Role_Of_Judges.mp3
Admin,
Re: the following:
“The problem, of course, is that if “day” in Genesis 1 & 2 has one “plain” meaning, and could not possibly mean anything else, then dispies have a problem with Matthew 24:34. When Christ said “this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place,” did He mean this generation, to which He spoke, or that generation, to come thousands of years in the future? According to dispies, the “plain” meaning of this verse is obviously wrong, but if you disagree with what they call the “plain” meaning of Genesis 1 & 2, they will say you worship a different god.
All non-preterist Christians agree that the “plain” meaning of this verse is “wrong”, do they not? But, I’m wondering on what grounds? Is there any justification for such an interpretation? Indeed, would an “interpretation” be required at all were it not for the fact that if the verse means what it reasonably appears to, it would be an example of a prediction (a prophecy, if you will) of the Lord which failed to come to pass, thus throwing a giant spanner into the works and creating serious, if not fatal, problems for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy?
Wow, Admin! Hoff’s post was amazing. And very telling. How can he oppose the Jew and not understand his playbook’s bread and butter play? The word “racism” should not be in any revisionist’s vocab.
Moreover, if Jews are 2-3 percent of our population, then what is the real percentage of the true Jew, the ass of which Hoffman is puckering before? His front page is a plea to render himself kosher to, what, .5 percent of the population?
Why the back-bending effort to salvage the term “Jew”? Amazing.
Julian, yes, I agree that no “interpretation” is required in Matthew 24:34 if we simply take the words at face value. But Ken Ham says the same thing about Gen. 1-2, that one is not reading and understanding Scripture if one is “interpreting,” because interpretation implies that the direct meaning of a verse is never clear and the hidden meaning must be rooted out. But this is a hermeneutical matter. Some Scripture is poetic, and there really is a “hidden” meaning. We all understand the purpose of poetry. When God is called a mother hen in Scripture, we understand why. But some people want to make a capital case of hermeneutics, which is a science that requires a degree of tolerance.
Hoffman is a Roman catholic traditionalist. His racial POV is tied to that communion’s skewed perception of ‘who’ is the Chosen People, and who are the ‘Church.’
I’ve written of this awareness of many in the ‘kinist’ sphere, (and I am including a larger number than those who may even KNOW what ‘kinism’ is) who yet are terrified that some might call them ‘racists,’ because they have not yet thought out their presuppositions to a simply logical end.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/what-more-can-be-said/
Admin,
There’s no question Ham is a royal bonehead. However, I’ve come full-circle, from “literal day” YEC, to OEC “yom doesn’t HAVE to mean a 24-hr. period”, to being shot off the water slide at high speed, right up, over and completely out of Christianity, which puts me in the rather strange position of having to defend Ham to a degree.
You’re right, of course, about it being a hermeneutical matter, and in your observance that some Scripture is poetic. But can Genesis really be characterized as “poetic”? Doesn’t Ham have a point that, approached without bias, the clear and “natural” reading would lead anyone to take the “days” as, well…days? The only kind anyone has ever had any experience with? That is, UNLESS they were to do so with
A. the knowledge, in the back of their mind, that scientific investigation has proven conclusively and absolutely that the Earth is billions of years old AND
B. an unalterable commitment to the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, so that regardless of the problems raised, or contortions required, no matter what, we can NEVER admit even the POSSIBILITY of scriptural error as being one of the options?
In a world without science, no one would ever come away with the OEC view, because there would simply be no need for it, and prior to the dawn of the modern scientific era, which showed otherwise, the YEC position was held universally, as far as I’m aware. Ham, at least, is consistent in that he doesn’t jump through hoops and loopholes to reconcile the “natural” reading with “secular” scientific findings, which he rejects wholesale; because they contradict Scripture! OECs would like to believe their interpretations are just as “natural” as opposed to being a convoluted effort to rescue the biblical account by means of slipping through a technical loophole by the skin of their teeth, but close scrutiny wouldn’t seem to bear this out. So, score one for Ham, even if he is a froot-loop.
As to Matthew 24:34, I take it, then, that you are saying the verse and preceding passage should be taken at face value? If yes, then aren’t we left with the conclusion that it is a failed prophecy and therefore falsifies inspiration and infallibility?
Great blog entry. I link to it in my blog entry on the same topic. If you get a chance give it a read and let me know what you think:
http://theforemostproblem.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-existence-and-nature-of-god.html
“who names a splinter-church after an ecumenical council…”
Oh that is too good! Your witticism captures in a few words what it would take a pedant two hours to unpack. Bravo!
Thanks, Vittgen. I’m glad you liked it. Joe will not, I’m sure.
Julian, yes, Genesis is most certainly, at least partially, poetic in the first two chapters, which are about ancient history. Keep in mind that it can be both true and poetic. But my point is not even to argue for this. Rather, it is to show that Ken Ham thinks that you have set yourself upon the road to perdition if you fail to agree with him. He actually thinks young people are leaving the Church because they doubt that the universe is 6,000 years old. Gary DeMar and many others who are on his side think this is ridiculous, because contrary to what Ham might believe, a “proper” understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 is not the root and bud of the faith. Likewise, dispies like Tommy Ice believe that Matthew 24:34 is the key to eschatology. In other words, if you fail to understand that verse (i.e., disagree with the Rapture cult), you get everything else wrong. Both of these examples are very similar, because they brook no tolerance for those who disagree on scriptural grounds, and yet the proponents clearly contradict themselves in contending for the “plain” meaning of words. I think the bottom line is that tolerance for opposing views is required, because none of us should be so arrogant as to believe that he can bind consciences on secondary and tertiary matters.
“In a world without science, no one would ever come away with the OEC view, because there would simply be no need for it, and prior to the dawn of the modern scientific era, which showed otherwise, the YEC position was held universally, as far as I’m aware.” Wrong on both counts. Just think of it – without revelation of any kind, space would be considered infinite and history eternal.
You also asked why we should not consider Matthew 24:34 to be a failed prophecy. It was fulfilled in 70 AD, within the lifetime of the generation to whom Jesus spoke. Titus was God’s instrument of judgment, and the old order ended, just as Jesus said. The dispensationalist claim that the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled means that Christ was either lying or playing word games. Very specific durations are given in advance for captivity in Egypt and Babylon, but we are asked by nutlogs like Falwell and Robertson and Hagee to believe that the prophecy of Daniel’s 70 weeks has a VERY long gap after the 69th week. One can imagine Daniel in Babylon letting the captives know that the plan was to go home next year, but instead God has inserted a “gap” lasting thousands of years. It’s all completely ridiculous, but there is a lot of money to be made by telling rubes that biblical prophecy is unfolding before our very eyes. Just ask Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye how much money can be made.
Fr. John,
I thought Hoffman was a Protestant, not a Catholic. What is your source? I’ll gather mine and post it tomorrow. Good night.
JPC, In reading Hoffman, I have noticed he references and argues for both traditional Protestantism and Catholicism, but doesn’t come down on either side. I am a Traditionalist Catholic, and have quite tired of his insistence on non-racism. He recently posted a letter/essay by Jean Raspail on his blog, and afterwards his own “rebuttal”, basically saying that France should be given to the Muslims, who are “virile”. The idea of ANY Christian country being overrun and replaced by an alien culture SICKENS me, and it is even worse when it is a European country. But Hoffman just shrugs; where he could be screaming from the rooftops with encouragement to his White brethren, warning them that NOW is the 11th hour and they have to do something (which is what Raspail was basically doing) he is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Whites, by saying that France brought it on herself by falling away from Christ and failing to have children, and there is NO HOPE, so why not enjoy the “I told you sos”… It has been said many times that Jews agitate for multiculturalism to weaken “Gentile” civilizations. So wouldn’t allowing MORE of that multiculturalism (what Hoffman seems to be doing by never taking the White side when it comes up) be aiding the Talmudic/Zionist/Protocol agenda Hoffman so strenuously objects to?
(I doubt he is a committed Traditionalist, if he IS a Catholic, because he tends to defend Protestantism.)
Interesting point, Hespereia, and though I agree with what you’re saying, I also agree with Hoffman in at least one respect: If the West turns its back on Christ, it will not retain any territory anywhere, try as it might.
I have never read Hoffman on the race issues – only on his documentation of Judaism, that is Judaism’s knowledge of itself. In this area, I have read his ideas with great benefit. Invaluable I think is his understanding of rabbinic Judaism and the Judaic imperium, its nation and international organisation of a state within a state.
To take the example of France – the nation of the Bretton and Frankish people and their country, that nation was overthrown in the JudeoMasonic Revolution of 1789. What was installed is a republican political machine and a democracy. The Catholic aristocracy and much of the clergy went to the guillotine. Only the Jewish aristocracy was left – that is cryptos who had married into the French nobility. The French republic and its democracy is not a working government of the people, like all such modernist artifacts it is merely the curtain of politics generating issues and crises behind which the real work of brainwashing, taxing, penalizing with rulz, rulz, rulz, oppressing and looting the population continues via the unelected covert rulers who came to power through overthrow or infiltration and overthrow of the traditional regime.
Under Natural and Common Law recognized by all Western jurisprudence a people have a right to defend the integrity of their nation and its territory. Like America, France is not a terra nullius that is just open to the invasion of entire populations to migrate and settle. But of course, this is what the covert rulers of both populations machinate – invasion by immigration, no borders and destruction of the homogenous population and occupation of its territory.
In America, to JudeoMasonry – its liberals and political apparatus, the term racist is just a code word for white or an American of European ethnicity.
Everybody else can invade, form their own neighborhoods, communities, enclaves what have you. It is politically correct for any ethnic neighbourhood (other than white) to have or extend its boundaries, enjoy its culture and religion and insist upon tolerance and respect for that as well as legal protection and government assistance. This is multiculturalism.
A white neighborhood doing the same thing is, of course, racist and may invoke the federal jurisdiction of anti-discrimination laws against itself.
….I also agree with Hoffman in at least one respect: If the West turns its back on Christ, it will not retain any territory anywhere, try as it might.
…..
Admin, yes, you are completely right! But Hoffman says this by way of schadenfreude, you and I are trying to say it with apologetics, edification, (and probably anger and prayer)! We WANT the Whites around us to rally!! I am reading his latest (Judaism Discovered), and it is full of great information, like this particular passage that speaks to the current plight of immigration-inundated Europe:
“In 1449, Pedro Sarmiento fulminated against the deeds of Iberian Judaics. Chief among the charges was the idea the Judaics of Toledo, had opened the gates to the invading Moors. “when Toledo was first taken by the Moors it was filled with Hebrews… they, resenting the Gothic persecution, facilitated the progress of the Berbers…”.” -Judaism Discovered, pg. 334.
I just don’t “get” him (Hoffman), but he will never listen, and in the end all I can really do to help the West is to have some babies and bring them up in the way they should go (Christian and racially-realist).
JPC, before I go off to celebrate Mass this Sunday, I wanted to ask/remind you of your promise to determine Michael Hoffman’s ecclesial affiliation- you said you had ‘evidence’. As for me, I assumed RC, basically because no Protestant Church claims him, and I was going on basic assumptions of who quotes him, with whom he works on matters ecclesial {Maurice Pinay, for example- who IS an RC Trad.) and his style of theological approach.
Hesperia- “I doubt he is a committed Traditionalist, if he IS a Catholic, because he tends to defend Protestantism.”
I just read an article on a traditionalist RC Website that showed the Vatican honored the 500th anniversary of John Calvin! Now, they were upset over it, but when you read Calvin in light of the excesses of the time, you can understand that HE was more ‘catholic’ than his successors. Wallace’s ‘Calvin on the Eucharist’ is an interesting book, but where it shines is quoting Calvin’s own words on the ‘real presence.’ He’d make any Anglo-Catholic proud! LOL
I see our battle as one between Christendom (Adherents of traditional Trinitarian creedal Christianity) and the OTHER- be they liberal “Xians,” Deicides, Sodomites, or just merely non-White; they are all engaged in an ‘envyfest’ of White Culture, Religion, and Racial privilege not because of our skin tone, but because of our Elect status. After the war is over, THEN we can begin to engage one another in theological minutae…though on a forum such as this, the issues WILL come up…
Lynda, thanks, those are interesting points; I have read a little of the history of the Revolution in France, and how it was part of a Judeo-Masonic plot to overthrow a great Catholic country (the eldest Daughter of the Church), taking advantage of decadent excesses that were perhaps exacerbated and encouraged by the same conspirators.
Fr. John, where there are “excesses of the time” I believe true reformation is required, not revolution. I find elements of Calvin compelling, but ultimately false (Calvin wrote that Jesus suffered the torments of Hell, an error that has been imbibed by Evangelicals and Charismatics via modern televangelist Kenneth Copeland – “Jesus became Sin”). This has created the impression in some people’s minds that Jesus was not perfect… I have actually had arguments with Charismatic family members, because they believe, logically following from this error, that the Godhead is not perfect, and that Jesus was subject to concupiscence!!! Since combating this crazy talk is enough work anyway (trying to guide people back to the essential orthodox understandings of Christianity), I generally agree with you about your last paragraph.
Fr. John,
Forgive me, but I can’t locate my sources. I’ve heard he is Protestant by some trad catholics, and I just assumed it was in writing somewhere. He’s a mystery. I’ll do some more digging. Sorry for the broken promise.
One other thing to add about binding consciences with a particular system of scriptural interpretation. Imagine how silly it would be if postmillennialists claimed that amillennialists worship a different god, and their ideas are drawing young people away from the church, and they simply don’t believe divine revelation. Yet this is exactly what Ken Ham and Doug Phillips and quite a few others do on creation.
Admin,
Genesis combines different genres, but the first few chapters present real difficulties. Reading them as a historical record of creation doesn’t make any sense unless one is already dogmatically committed to the idea that it is. Origen said, “No one would be so foolish as to take this allegory as a description of actual fact.” Sadly, many do.
You assert I’m doubly wrong, both in my statement that if not for incontrovertible modern scientific revelations of extreme antiquity there wouldn’t be any Old Earthers, and that until these facts became widely known, there were none, or very few, Christians (laity or clergy) that interpreted the Genesis “days” as anything other than 6 literal 24 hr. days. Well, I don’t think I am wrong! The former claim is not reasonably disputable, but if you can offer any names of OE Creationists prior to, say, the 17th-18th centuries, I’d be very interested to learn of them, and especially on what basis they held to their views.
Re: Matt. 24, I didn’t know you had adopted a preterist position. I take it, then, that if you see the (alleged) fulfillment of “Christ’s coming in judgement” in the 70 CE destruction that you do not hold to the idea of another, future 3rd coming. My own view is that even if Matthew could somehow be demonstrated to have been written before 70 CE, equating that, bad as it was, to the cataclysmic events described in chap. 24 is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, though, obviously, establishing a nexus between them is the Bible advocate’s only real hope.
However, since the gospels were almost certainly penned much later than 70, if that is what it’s referring to, what we have is a simple case of prophecy after the fact. If it’s not referring to the year 70, then it must have a different Second Coming in view which, as you pointed out, would also show the passage false and disprove inerrancy. Either way, it’s a bum steer.
Gospels almost certainly penned after A.D. 70? That’s nous to me . . . the belief that the gospels were almost certainly penned after A.D. 70 is 100% based on a mountain of unprovable assumptions.
Now here are a few assumptions of my own –
* The silence of the Book of Acts on Paul’s trial means it was penned no later than around A.D. 62. It would have been penned two years after Paul’s arrival in Rome in 59/60. Its positive view of the Roman authorities strongly suggests it was written before the Neronian persecution of 64.
* There are plenty of good reasons for thinking the gospels were all composed between the 30s and the 50s. James Jordan and Peter Leithart have argued persuasively that the conversion of Paul came in the year 30, shortly after the death, resurrection and ascension of the Messiah, and they have also argued persuasively that James was written in the 30s. But James is clearly referencing the Gospel of Matthew, which means that Matthew predates even this early letter.
* It makes sense that the composition of the gospels would have started early. The idea that the apostles would have waited more than a full generation before starting to compose the gospels is absurd on its face. Everything in the history and culture of Israel would have encouraged the early Jewish Christians to produce a written record of the crowning event of salvation history. It is difficult to imagine any compelling reason for delay — why would Matthew have waited a decade to compose a gospel?
Here is an interesting thought, quoting from Peter Leithart –
‘As James Jordan has pointed out, the four gospels correspond nicely to major stages of Old Testament history. The Matthean-Jacobin stage corresponds to the Mosaic covenant. James is the most “legal” epistle in the New Testament. Matthew too presents Jesus as a new Moses, who flees Egypt, is baptized in the river, resists temptation in the wilderness for 40 days, and then preaches about the law from a mountain (Mat. 1-7).
‘Mark corresponds to the Davidic covenant. Mark shows Jesus as a man of action, a man on the move, a conquering king (cf. “immediately” in Mark’s gospel). Davidic emphasis in Peter’s epistles is not immediately obvious. Perhaps, however, the following points are worthy of further study: Peter exhorts his readers to act the part of Christian soldiers by girding their minds for action (1 Pet. 1:13; 5:8-9); he calls Jesus the “cornerstone” laid in Zion, using a quotation from Isaiah 28 that may have reference to the house of David (1 Pet. 2:6); and he writes a great deal about suffering for righteousness, with which David was well acquainted (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:13-17).
‘Luke shows us Jesus in a more cosmopolitan setting. He dates Jesus’ birth by reference to the reign of Augustus Caesar (2:1), records statements and quotes Old Testament passages about the conversion of the nations (2:32; 3:4-6), traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam (3:38), and tells that Jesus sent out 70 disciples (cf. the nations of the earth, Gen. 10). Similarly, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was a Nehemiah, building the walls of a new city in the face of persecution by the “people of the land.” The Lukan-Pauline stage of New Testament history corresponds to the restoration period. This was a period of Old Testament history during which the Jews were scattered among the Gentiles and called to bear witness, and during which many Gentiles were converted (cf. Esther; Daniel).
‘Irenaeus wrote that Jesus’ life was a recapitulation of the history of man and of Israel. Without committing ourselves to everything Irenaeus meant by that, we can agree his insight was sound. Jesus fulfilled all the Old Covenant types and shadows, renewing them and transforming them in the process. What I am suggesting here is that the first generation of the church, united to the Risen Christ as the Firstfruits of the New Creation, relived His reliving of the Old Covenant, passing through Mosaic, Davidic, and restoration stages. During the first generation, the Old Covenant was worked into the church and transformed into a New.
‘In this scheme, the Johannine stage of New Testament history was the climax of the New Testament and brought the church fully into the new covenant. John shows us Jesus as the Son of God. The four gospels and the four stages of New Testament history, as Jordan has pointed out, correspond to the four faces of the cherubim. James/Matthew is the priestly Mosaic ox; Peter/Mark is the kingly Davidic lion; Paul/Luke is the imperial restoration eagle; John is the apostle of the new covenant, the covenant with a human face, the covenant of the New Man.
‘This scheme highlights the decisive importance of the destruction of Jerusalem. The New Testament was finished by A.D. 70. The first generation had recapitulated the whole history of Israel. Throughout these decades, the old was fading and the new was coming into being. God offered the Jews a new Moses, a new David, a new Nehemiah, but the Jews did not receive Him. With the destruction of the temple and city, the old was finally destroyed and the new emerged in fullness. Writing shortly before the shaking of heaven and earth, John, in his gospel and Revelation, pointed ahead to the radical newness of the new covenant.’
Even John A. T. Robinson (of ‘Honest to God’ fame) in his ‘Redating the N.T.’ at the end of his career, totally abandoned the ‘late-date’ scenario, and stated (if memory serves) that ALL of the NT was complete by AD 96.
Now you’ve made me wanna search for that in my libarary..where is it?
Walsingham, please don’t quote Origen of all people! No bible-believing christian should ever quote Origen! I’m totally opposed to miscegnation, totally, but I’d rather marry a black woman than quote Origen! (Okay, on second thoughts, maybe not, but you see were I’m going.) On what grounds can one possibly interpret Genesis 1 as allegory?
The Reformed principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture, and nowhere in Scripture is there a hint of a reference to the creation-story as being allegorical. The only reasonable explanation could be that one wants to bring in infallible Word of God in harmony with the teachings of modern scientists, working EXCLUSIVELY for the desctruction of Christ’s kingdom, and for the expansion of Satan’s.
God was there when He created the universe, you and I weren’t. Luckily for us, in the modernist and postmodern eras, we’ve finally become smarter than God. We can now educate God on how exactly He created all things visible and invisible! His revelation to us of what He did was incorrect. God lied to us, or at least did not understand modern science as well as we do today. For Scripture says: in God there is only lies and darkness and there is no truth and light outside the United States geological survey. (I just couldn’t find the exact passage, so I hope I quoted correctly!)
So yes, God created the entire universe in six days through Christ (John 1) for his own pleasure. He is the surpreme Lord of all that exists and directs all things to the glory of his name! Yet, we fallible, sinful and weak humans have the arrogance to doubt Him and his Word…. For if we believe, accept and trust like a child in the gracious and loving acts of God described to us in his inerrant Word, we will inherit the Kingdom of heaven. And it is by this faith, generated in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, that we can confess that Christ has truly risen and lives!
As indeed He has…