More anti-standard insanity from TOQ. The writer claims that morality is not universal and ethics must be viewed “through a biological lens.” How can this not lead to wars of annihilation? If they’re going to be consistent enough to say that morality is defined by blood, and the faith of the white man must, by definition, be limited to the white man, they should be honest enough to admit that this precludes any possibility of any sense of unity and common understanding among human beings. There is no logical endpoint for this philosophy but the total destruction of those who are not us.
In this post, the humanists make their intentions plain:
White men should no longer require any exogenous gods, whether new or old; we instead should strive toward godhood for our race. It is time for the white man to grow up and put away the fantasies of childhood, fantasies of gods and external intelligent forces controlling a destiny that should be ours, and ours alone, to mold.
“Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” ~ Matthew 4:10
The writer disingenuously claims that “in the short to medium-term, we must defend…traditional Christianity… Note that this doesn’t mean promoting Christian beliefs…” In other words, he affects a lie, pretending to accept that which he rejects. Why should anyone trust anything he says about race or anything else? What exactly are these people selling, and what does it have to do with the West that actually exists? The funniest part of the article is when he says that this ambitious program of animal existence is “a long-term, multi-generational project.” We’re still waiting for these losers to prove that they can successfully produce well-rounded children from stable marriages who share the same commitments as their parents. Instead, with each passing generation, Christians reveal these people for the fools they are and have always been.
Hey, TOQ editors! Now would be a good time for another article on Revilo Oliver or Friedrich Nietzsche! Time’s a-wastin’. Gotta save the West.
“Hostility to Radicalism, incessant, implacable hostility, is the essential definition of Conservatism.” ~ Lord Salisbury
Contrast the nihilistic stupidity of humanists with this Easter letter from the BNP. Nick Griffin apparently realizes that the British Isles, long since having lost faith in their phony churches and lying preachers, still realize that they have been ransomed:
Dear Fellow Patriot,
A special event that happened recently has changed my outlook on our struggle and the situation facing our sacred country. That event was the peaceful, sensible, mature debate with the Christian Party leader George Hargreaves and a large number of Christian Party members. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire debate which was noticeably absent of the usual hysterical fanaticism of the liberal-left.
It made me think long and hard about a new dimension of our struggle: our Christian religion, culture and traditions. In the past too much emphasis has been placed on the ethnic aspect of our present national dilemma, whilst the longest running feature of our identity has been overlooked: the fact that our country has been held together and guided for millennia by our common, ancient religion: Christianity.
And before you misunderstand me, I do not mean the gut-wrenching politically correct quasi-Marxist nonsense spewing forth from the treacherous leaders of the modern Anglican Church. I mean the traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers.
There is nothing in traditional Christianity about world government, abolishing the nations, enslaving the world to finance capitalism and big business, eradicating traditional unique cultures and national identities, the promotion of sexual perversion, the glorification of treason, letting criminals run rampant and political correctness.
No, the Christianity of our forefathers was about honesty, family, patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, king and country. For over 1,000 years Christianity held our people together and guided us through the centuries. If Christianity had not existed Europe would have been conquered by Islam centuries ago.
I made the irrefutable point during the debate with the Christian Party that the British National Party is the only political organisation in Britain that wants to keep this country fundamentally Christian, with Christian values, traditions and culture. Every other political party would happily allow Islam to engulf our Christian homeland.
After the General Election, all BNP leaflets will carry a Christian Cross to demonstrate our commitment to maintaining and preserving our Christian heritage as a nation. Politically correct scoundrels like Rowen Williams will cry foul but we have nothing to be ashamed of as we are the defenders of Britain’s Christian heritage, just like our Crusader ancestors in the Middle Ages.
So this weekend enjoy the Christian festival of Easter with pride and remember the War Heroes that fell in the many wars to defend our homeland. Be proud of your British, Christian identity and reject the false guilt and self-loathing of the liberal-left political class.
The darkest hour is just before the dawn, but be of good cheer for Christ Our Lord is risen!
Yours sincerely,
Nick Griffin
There has been of late a hopeful resurgence of Calvinism. “By most logic, the stern system of Calvinism shouldn’t be popular today. Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help.”
In 1907, William Montgomery Brown, the Episcopal bishop of Arkansas (previously the Archdeacon of Ohio) wrotethese six propositions that were affirmed by an almost unanimous vote and are every bit as true today:
(1) No race can amount to anything without self-government; (2) The only realm in which the Negro in these United States can hope to govern himself is that of religion; (3) Under present conditions, the American Negro, speaking generally, is degenerating instead of advancing; (4) The Afro-American can be saved from utter ruin and extinction only by the bridging of the ever-widening and deepening gulf which now exists between him and the Anglo-American; (5) This necessary bridging cannot be done without the complete drawing of the Color-Line around the Social, Political and Religious Realms; and (6) The necessity for self-government and for the bridging of the gulf between Anglo-Americans and Afro-Americans by the drawing of the Color-Line makes it necessary that American Negroes should have a wholly independent, autonomous Church…
The essence of religion is obedience to God’s will. Now it manifestly is God’s will to have different races of mankind, otherwise he would have made all alike. He drew the Color-Line, and the failure to recognize it is irreligious, because it is disobedience. To argue that it should be recognized in the social realm, but that the contrary is true in the religious realm, is to take an irreligious position, because the unity of God and nature would be denied… The hypothesis that the Christian religion does away with human distinctions in the religious realm will not stand, because it denies the unity of nature, and such denial involves the rejection of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Divinity of Christ, for God is the author of nature; and if Christ was Divine, He could not have disregarded its unity…
“Righteousness exalteth a nation”… The whole family of facts here assembled, especially those that establish the greater and faster growing criminality of the Northern Negro, show clearly that education is not the cure for his ills. Generation after generation of coddling and sympathy in the North has not effaced a single racial trait nor raised by a single notch the average character, moral or mental or physical, of hundreds of thousands of the pick of their race. Nearly forty years of devoted and enthusiastic effort to elevate and educate the Southern Negro lie stretched out behind us in a dead level of failure. We grant freely and gladly that there are exceptions, rare and remarkable enough. But that the average of the Negro, both moral and physical, has fallen and is falling measurably under all endeavors to lift him up, is a fact that shines out clear in the light of the foregoing statistics…
There may be a good deal of spiritual unity between sheep and deer, but, as they do not naturally herd together, there cannot be said to be any schism between them when, in the pasture or corral, they gravitate each kind to themselves. Even among the same species of animals different varieties or breeds manifest a strong tendency to consort together. Owing to this natural disposition there is very little of social comity between St. Bernard dogs and rat-terriers. If dogs had any organizations corresponding to State or Church, how absurd it would be for some Republican or Catholic-minded dog to set up a howl against the sin and danger of schism because the rat-terriers and the Newfoundlands manifested a preference for Kings and Bishops of their own breed. Bees and ants are said to have queens. Think of a swarm of honey-bees choosing a bumble-bee for its queen, or a hill of black ants elevating a white or red ant to their throne. But to expect honey-bees to be satisfied with bumble-bee or black ants with white ant queens would be about as reasonable as to expect Afro-American Churchmen to be satisfied with Anglo-American Bishops…
One race cannot admit another race to political and ecclesiastical equality because, to do so is to open the way to social equality. If, for the purpose of illustrating our meaning we say that social equality represents the marriage relationship, we may claim that political and ecclesiastical equality represent the courtships which lead to that relationship. And in view of the main purpose of this essay, it is important to note that of the two courtships, the one which is promoted by ecclesiastical equality is more dangerous than that which grows out of political equality…
The Anglo-Saxon branch of the Aryan Race is happily exceedingly jealous of its blood. The Southern part of the American branch of our race is especially guarded against the introduction of Negro blood into its veins. It is, indeed, true that many Mulatto children throughout the South bear witness to the shameful mixture of Anglo-Saxon with African blood, but they are all born of Negro women by impure white men who are degenerates. The white women of the South are pure. They are a high-minded, proud, spotless race. If they were not this, the Anglo-Saxon people in America would rapidly degenerate into a lowgrade, mongrel breed, and that would be the end of American civilization, and the beginning of barbarism…
Judeochristians today, like Gary North, continue to accuse Southern Christians of having legalized rape on their plantations. But this is a lie, and lies are to be expected of liars. As the bishop notes, miscegenation was very rare in in the South. When trust was broken, it was far more likely to be broken by a transient farmhand than an owner. See the 1860 Census:
Bishop Brown prefaces his book with this brief speech by John Temple Graves:
On this great question I stand now, where Webster stood and Henry Clay; where Thomas stood, and Abraham Lincoln, and Henry Grady, and Councill and Turner and the rest—where in time all men will stand who see the light and dare to face it.
SEPARATION is the logical, the inevitable, the only way. No other proposed solution will stand the test of logic and experiment.
For no statute will permanently solve this problem. No anodyne of law, no counter-irritant of legislation will quiet it longer than the hour of its application. The evil is in the blood of races, the disease is in the bones and the marrow and the skin of antagonistic people.
Religion does not solve the problem, for the Christ Spirit will not be all-pervasive until the millenial dawn.
Education complicates the problem. Every year of enlightenment increases the negro’s apprehension of his position, of his merit and attainment and of the inconsistency between his real and his constitutional status in the Republic. Education brings perception, and ambition follows, with the aggressive assertion against the iron walls of a prejudice that has never yielded and will never yield. The conflict is irrepressible and inevitable.
Time complicates the problem by giving increasing numbers and additional provocation to the Negro, and increasing danger to the struggle which logic and destiny render certain.
Politics complicates the problem by bringing times of fierce conflict when the passions and prejudices of faction may be moved to partisan alignment with the deep and lurking dangers of the Race Question.
We have come in God’s providence to the parting of the ways. In the name of history and of humanity; in the interest of both races, and in the fear of God, I call for a division. We can make it peaceably now. We may be forced to accomplish it in blood hereafter.
Compare this article that calls Afrikaners “white supremacists” who ran their country “according to their belief in white superiority” (they hatefully gave blacks their own residential areas, post offices, and courts!) to this article in which the present-day rulers of South Africa defend a popular song that promotes white genocide called “Kill the Boer.” Whites are called evil and racist for giving blacks their own institutions when they were obliged to do nothing more than run them off as trespassers. These free gifts under apartheid were the very reason given for why whites should be stripped of their own inheritance, government, and future. Now the erstwhile black recipients of white kindness and wealth have taken control and are complaining that they are still not being given enough, and the only way to settle the account is through murder. “These songs cannot be regarded as hate speech or unconstitutional,” ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe told reporters. “Any judgment that describes them as such is impractical and unimplementable.” We do not exaggerate when we call Negroes savages. This is what the vast majority of them are, and perhaps it is all they ever will be. We don’t really know the answer to that question, but we know for certain that we are not obliged to give another drop of blood or another tear or another cent to them in the hope that they will change. Those days are over, and our only concern now is to give our children a future.
More than 3,000 white South African farmers have been murdered by savages since 1994. As you saw on TV, 3,000 deaths at the World Trade Center meant something.
Add to the list Eugene Terre’blanche, whose death has been repeatedly announced by Matt Drudge with the epithet “white supremacist.” Anyone who reads such headlines will conclude that Terra’blanche had it coming. Here are some representative comments. The media shares the guilt of murder.
What greater privilege is there than to stand in front of your own people and to be able to say, after all the years, you were faithful. And that you are still faithful and thankful to be able to stand and know that you have never been a traitor to the path, the truth, or will of the Volk.
Terra’blanche wanted to create three white republics that would allow blacks to be admitted only as guest workers. He was bludgeoned to death by two of these Negro workers, which only goes to show that the charity he extended to blacks was imprudent. The same could be said of our own Southerners, who should have picked their own cotton.
White South Africans (whose descendants here are not called African-Americans) are living under siege, and no one on earth, except for us “racists,” cares at all. “A woman is raped every 26 seconds in South Africa, the most violent ‘non-war zone’ in the world; 40% of those are children, 65% are gang rapes. It is commonplace for children and babies to be raped in the new and improved South Africa. Blacks even molest animals to avoid catching HIV. Under black rule, South Africa is also an innovator and world leader in murder, assault, robbery, and hijackings.” Those who think this is a desirable state of affairs are not called black supremacists; those who steal white-owned land are not called black supremacists; those who sing songs about killing white farmers are not called black supremacists; those who shoot and bludgeon white farmers to death are not called black supremacists. Whites, on the other hand, who comprise only about 5% of the population of South Africa; who are four times more likely to be killed than were American troops in Vietnam; who nevertheless want all people to have a free, representative government and patria; these are called supremacists. Historically, whites are the only people in the world who have respected the rights of minorities. But in the case of the minority of whites in Africa, not even most whites care what happens to them.
The independent white homeland that Terra’blanche advocated was a fallback position, like segregation here after the War. Paradoxically, it was this very desire on the part of whites that blacks should rule themselves that ended apartheid. It was an experiment in ending paternalism, and it has resulted in terror for white people on that continent. Notice that Jews in Israel are doggedly holding on to their apartheid state because, despite the lies they tell to gullible whites, they know that they would not survive on equal political footing with Palestinians. Whites must relinquish control of their countries in order to prove they are not “racist,” but Jews will never relent, because they invented the word “racist” and control its application in the media.
The fact that the US was so hostile to White Christian South Africa, yet is now engaged in two Middle Eastern wars for the convenience of the closely parallel phenomenon of Israel is really the definitive word on the state of ethnic politics in America.
Rev. Manning says God has shown him a thing or two, and I can’t dispute the truth of it. Wisdom is vindicated by her children (Luke 7:35).
“The proposition that individuals can differ by innate mental ability and that races can differ by the average of such abilities:
1) conflicts with no major Western religious tradition;
2) conflicts with no major Western philosophical tradition;
3) is consistent with everyday experience;
4) is probably believed by the majority of ordinary people of all races;
5) is consistent with the weight of evidence from the most exhaustive and sophisticated empirical studies;
6) is consistent with, indeed is an almost inevitable implication of, the most basic version of evolutionary theory, which theory all educated people are supposed to accept.
And yet the operative assumption of government policy and the protocols of almost all public journals are that this proposition cannot be true.”
Ehud makes an excellent point here. How could the Supreme Court conclude that “separate is inherently unequal” in schools when the founding fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, justified the establishment of the republic on the principle that peoples are entitled by God and nature to “separate and equal” stations? Roll that one around in your head for a while, unless you’re a preacher, in which case hairspray takes precedence. We can have liberty or we can have equality, but we can’t have both.
As an important corollary, read these wonderful excerpts from the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico. You will immediately notice that the very same document could be written today and mailed to Rome-on-the-Potomac. “[T]he whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism.” What is “the first law of nature”? The “right of self-preservation.” What gives us the authority “to abolish such government, and create another in its stead”? Our “sacred obligation to [our] posterity.” Focus on that last word, “posterity.” It all comes back to race. The Tea Partiers don’t realize this yet. They still think their nation was founded on ideas rather than blood. “The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.”
“A century and a half ago, John C. Calhoun, one of the most prescient observers of the American regime, remarked that the South was the balance wheel of the Union which prevented the whole from flying apart under the stress of the manias that regularly seized hold of the mainstream.” It’s amazing that the South remains the most conservative region of the country in spite of the fact that this is where most of the blacks live. (Diversities have never been fans of limited government.)
Read Sam Dickson’s excellent paper on Lincoln.
Michael Hoffman has a good article on why consistent Christians cannot belong to the Republican Party. Of course, belonging to that other party is even more unthinkable.
“They’re pigs, Neil!” Ted Nugent, folks. That’s a man. He’s no ass-kisser.
Tocqueville knew that despotism in a constitutional republic “would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them.”
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate… [It seeks] to keep them in perpetual childhood… For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?…
The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd…
Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.
For a perfect example of what Tocqueville meant when he wrote this hundreds of years ago, see this clip of Chris “Thrill Going Up My Leg” Matthews and another liberal. They actually suggest that Tea Partiers have no reason to complain about the government because our government officials are elected. This is democracy as the antithesis of theocracy, and you don’t have to guess which of these we prefer.
“Future generations have a right to demand of us that they shall be born white in a white man’s land.” ~ Lothrop Stoddard
La Raza pretends that its name has nothing to do with race. Its founder wasn’t so coy. Jose Vasconcelos, who coined the term La Raza, explains that the true purpose of the organization is to be anti-white: “The struggle of Latinity against Saxonism has come to be, and continues being in our era, a struggle of institutions, of purposes and of ideals.” Whites are understandably singled out from the red, yellow, and black races. Vasconcelos hoped for a fifth raza to arise—la raza cósmica—the cosmic race, which would be a mestizo-mixture of all, “the union of all men in a fifth universal race, fruit of the previous [races] and an improvement [superación] over all the past [races].” Naturally, this would never be called racial supremacy. Though J.V. believed that of his fellow Mexicans, “90% of those contracting marriage…[are] ugly,” careful eugenics would bring about an “infinitely superior type to all that have existed.” (I wonder why this isn’t working for the weird-looking children Elin Nordegren carries around on her hip.)
The low types of the species will be absorbed by the superior type. In this way the Negro, for example, can be redeemed and, little by little, through voluntary extinction, the ugliest stocks will be less prolific, and the better specimens will yield to the more beautiful. The inferior races, when educated, will be less prolific, and the better specimens will ascend in a scale of ethnic improvement. Their type will not exactly be the white, but this new raza, to which the white himself will have to aspire with the object of conquering the synthesis. The Indian, by means of the injection of a similar race, will make the jump of myriad years…and in a few decades of aesthetic eugenics the Negro can disappear together with the types which the free instinct of beauty will designate as fundamentally recessive and unworthy…of perpetuation.
Though they would not put it in these terms, Judeochristian liar-preachers have the same goal in view for the diverse peoples of the world, since they all came from Adam. And oh heck, wouldn’t you know it? Vasconcelos was a Nazi sympathizer as well, and now his organization receives federal funds to wage war against white people who refuse to wage war against God.
The goal of “No Child Left Behind” is to close the racial achievement gap by raising off-white test scores. Absolutely nothing is being done to boost white, Jewish, and Asian scores, because then the gap would be even wider. Whites, Jews, and Asians are seeing their scores suppressed, even as they fund the system. Liberal do-gooders like Bill Gates are donating their fortunes to boost only the scores of off-whites. Gates knows what everyone else knows, which is that the gap is not going to close if all races are given equal resources. It’s intractable.
Higher taxes for white parents and violent schools for white children: such is the 56-year failed attempt to make black people white. Now California must rethink its math standards in order boost black scores while keeping white scores down.
Oh, I’d say we burn through a hundred or so ethnic-studies majors each year. They tend to last a little longer than women’s studies majors and art-therapy students, but Cuellen got mashed to a pulp pretty quickly. It usually takes ethnic-studies majors another year to realize that they’re wasting their precious youth on a Sisyphean endeavor… Every year, there’s a fresh crop to throw in the grinder… But the majority of them will march on like cattle to the slaughter, thinking that pure determination and hope can change young lives. I can hear their footsteps now, marching toward our offices like lemmings to a cliff.
We were just saying that of 3,000 students enrolled at Oxford in 2008, five were black. Of all Americans who claimed doctoral degrees in physics in 2008, only twelve were black.
Who says that Negro congressmen don’t understand science?
Now blacks are being bribed in the hope that it will train them to be civilized. White liberals love programs like this because they get to assuage their chronic white guilt and collect other people’s money too. (A huge chunk of the donations are absorbed by “administrative costs.”)
An Easter Sunday chimpout, in which we learn that it is disrespectful to blow whistles at Negroes because they’re no longer slaves.
Gonorrhea is now almost exclusively a black disease. Black illegitimacy is now at 72% and rising, and whites are now as promiscuous as blacks were 50 years ago. Perhaps soon we can replace “E Pluribus Unum” with “Anything With a Hole” on imperial currency. Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin could be replaced by Beyonce Knowles, Tyra Banks, and Mariah Carey.
“Cops can’t win when it comes to blacks. When the police step up patrols in high crime areas, they’re accused of racism, ‘hassling the black community,’ and violating civil rights. When they don’t step up patrols in high crime areas, they’re denounced for not caring about the black community, and, you guessed it, accused of racism.”
Here’s an uppity Negro who can get away with writing words that would get any white man fired if the roles were reversed. Here’s an article in which ownership of the country is placed squarely in racial terms, even though the word “race” is never used. Here’s another black “journalist” who equates lynching and bombing with protests against the empire spending money that it does not have. And here’s an article by Jew Frank Rich in which Tea Partiers are accused of “small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht,” and the slogan “Take our country back!” heard at “virtually all white” Tea Party rallies is correctly said to be aimed at Negroes and faggots. Don’t leave out Jews, Frank!
Speaking of Kristallnacht, Pat Buchanan writes that after “that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.” Since there could not have been many more than six million Jews in all of Europe, and far fewer in Germany, I wonder when Buchanan will publicly repent of his Holocaust Denial.
Bishop Williamson will go on trial next week. His own society refuses to offer public prayers for him. The pope threw Williamson under the bus, expressed his “unquestionable solidarity” with anti-Christs, and stated his hope that “the memory of the Shoah will induce humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of hate when it conquers the heart of man.” Now, as if by divine retribution, the pope must explain why he never defrocked a priest who abused 200 deaf boys.
The pope is comparing his present turmoil over pederasty to “the persecution of the Jews.” But when it comes to child abuse, Jews have a higher level of comfort. Remember this Jew who called for the public display of crucifixes in Italy to be outlawed?
See this article, in which merely viewing a debate is said to dishonor WWII veterans. But forcing kids to watch propaganda like Schindler’s List is considered perfectly appropriate. In fact, this Jew-film is considered so crucial to education that networks refuse to censor its full-frontal nudity even during primetime.
“Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel and the rest of humanity…as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.” ~ Yitzhak Attia of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Institute
“Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.”
Jews host a “Cracker Ball” to ridicule real Floridians.
I was just watching The Right Stuff, which is an excellent film, and it shows that the scientists who headed both the Soviet and American space programs were German. Isn’t it amazing that prior to WWII, Germans were winning all the Nobel prizes, and less than 15 years afterwards they were putting men in outer space? But for some reason, during the Great War for Zion, they thought up the most inept ways of killing millions of people that have ever been conceived. And we know this is true because Communists and Jews don’t lie.
There’s some good humor in that flick too. Alan Shepard has to relieve himself in his spacesuit, and he says, “Well, I’m a wetback now.”
Jews want blacks to live everywhere on the planet except in Israel.
Fight the Nazis by swallowing colon-cancer-inducing white bread! See the beautiful woman, nourished on a diet of fresh-baked crap, riding her motorcycle to war. This is what America is all about! You’re a great American, Sean Hannity, you’re a great American.
Imagine, if you will, an event called “The White Agenda is the American Agenda.” A speaker rises to exclaim, “The White agenda has always been the best thing for the nation.” Another says, “We have a Tea Party and a Coffee Party – we need a White Party.” Then a pastor says, “I love white people and I make no excuses for that.” How do you think the SPLC and ADL would react? How could such an event be held anywhere without the forces of Tolerance making death threats against the hotel staff, as is now customary?
This emasculated errand boy says whites are going to be in the minority by 2050, so now is not the time to get angry about it because this will be bad for business and our children’s future. Thanks, Nancy. I think I smell your cookies burning.
Although now considered fundamental, anti-racism is a recent growth. Many dictionaries did not include the word “racism” before the Second World War. The 1968 convention was the first the Democratic Party held without whites-only delegations. One of the first Roman Catholics to identify racial segregation as a sin died just last year. The dimension anti-racism adds to moral life is thus novel…
The anti-racist sees racism as pure pathology, like smallpox. It would be all gain if it and everything that might lead to it were utterly destroyed… Unparalleled evil though it is thought to be, racism is seen everywhere, whether there is evidence for it or not…
Life worth living depends on culture, and culture on ethnicity… Things that knit society together are therefore difficult to disentangle from implicit racial distinctions. Ethnic habits, loyalties and ideals order social life whether we like it or not. To forbid discrimination with respect to such things is to demand that things that are crucial to social life be ignored, a demand that cannot be satisfied… Anti-racism is thus at odds with basic principles of human life…
A world without transcendence lacks universal qualities that transcend particulars. Universals like redness or goodness refer as much to things that might exist as those that do exist. Since universals are not wholly contained in our experience in the way particular red or good things are, to deny whatever exceeds our experience is to deny them. It is nonetheless difficult to dispense with universals. Although not contained within experience, they order it and make it possible for us to comprehend and deal with it. We understand the world by calling things by names such as “red” and “good” that could also apply to other things, past, present and future. Without them, we are left with an inexplicable world of unbridgeable differences…
Moderns are nonetheless uncomfortable with universals. Denying transcendence and thus universals, as moderns do, makes classification arbitrary. If things do not have stable natures that precede our purposes, if the difference (for example) between the sexes is just a social construction that can as well be deconstructed, then classifying is simply an exercise of the will of the classifier, and to be defined is to be subjected to that will. Those who reject transcendence therefore insist on escaping definition as the necessary ground of their dignity, and part of escaping definition is throwing off ethnicity.
A black singer “felt her spirit wince” when her black friend married a white woman. I know the feeling; I can seldom get through an entire day without feeling my spirit wince. It always makes me laugh to see blacks do what this writer does. She claims immunity from racism by going back hundreds of years and blaming her feelings on plantation slavery. Millions of whites were also once enslaved, but their descendants never do this. And in order for blacks to do it, they must ignore all the slavery which is currently active, and which is far greater and far more brutal than occurred in the South. They’re not the brightest bulbs on the ceiling.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being stolen from your paychecks every year to send to Senegal, and $28 million of it has been used to erect a monument to the Negro race. According to the president of Senegal, “Africa has arrived in the 21st century standing tall and more ready than ever to take its destiny into its hands.” Except that they couldn’t pay for their ridiculous statue, which oversees mountains of garbage, and they aren’t building it either. North Koreans are building it. Apparently, there is at least one Negro in the government who is smart enough to realize that the men of his race have never built anything of their own accord.
It’s funny that Michael Steele says that he has a “slimmer margin” of error in his party leadership job because of his race, just as Obama has among white voters at large. The truth, of course, is just the opposite. In spite of being so corrupt and incompetent that there are now shadow fundraising organizations for Republicans, Steele can’t be fired, because to do so would be to “disrespect” the handful of black voters who support the Republican Party. (Blacks are racially cohesive, even when whites pretend that race doesn’t exist.) So Steele is given even more chances than would be allowed a white man, just as the Second Coming of Christ has been eclipsed by Obama’s presidency. Really, this is just another opportunity for Steele to accuse his critics of being racists, just as Clarence Thomas played his cards on the “high-tech lynching.” This is what happens when you send a token to do a man’s job.
Disneyland, 1956 – nothing but white people as far as the eye can see. One person leaves this “racist” comment: “Wonderful film – a great trip back in time to a time before the country was destroyed.” Whites are now a minority in California. One can only imagine the lawsuits that would result today from trolleying park-goers hither and yon in cars labeled “monkeys” and “wild animals.” Little boys could buy toy pistols in Frontierland back then. Now little boys are drugged with Ritalin in the hope that they will turn into queers or at least little girls. Do they still shoot at hippos on the jungle cruise? I doubt it, if guns are even being airbrushed out of movies like E.T. They probably call it the “rainforest” cruise now.
“Open immigration is essential for a libertarian country,” writes a prominent libertarian. Patrick Ford responds:
As much as many would like to believe the growing [Ron Paul] libertarian movement is based on an outpouring of intellectual curiosity about the Austrian business cycle, it has a lot more to do with buzzwords like “liberty” and an irrational worship of the individual. In this way, it has a lot more in common with the “hope” and “change” movement on the left than it does with anything written by Schmitt or de Maistre or Jünger or Chesterton or Kirk or Evola or Buchanan.
I’m very impressed by this analogy for culture:
A culture is comparable to the floor of a forest. The first layer is made up of clearly recognizable leaves from the most recent autumn. The next layer is less recognizable, the one after that formless, and finally there is a rich mass of unremembered mold from remote times. But the plant atop this composition grows out of it all, is nourished by all, and contributes to it all. The composite layer is the plant’s heritage.
A culture is accumulated in the same manner, an accretion deposited by each generation. Six or eight generations back, the deposits become formless, but the influences persist. We cannot escape the consequences of what those old dead generations did and left to us. Daily we confront in others, and ourselves act out, influences whose social beginnings were old in Europe when Caesar’s legions sailed for Britain.
Forgetting the art of husbandry.
Study Proves Dinner Serves a Purpose!
“It is now proposed to turn the control of the mothers of the land over to a few single ladies [lesbians] holding government jobs in Washington.” ~ Senator James A. Reed
“In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary and supported by upbringing and social expectation, feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance.” ~ James Kalb
It’s interesting that the sex organs bear the shape of the assertive and receptive roles of the sexes themselves. It’s as though they provide a picture for how men and women are to behave. “These two poles working together provide a unity of purpose in the physical world as humankind progresses on its spiritual journey.” Feminism denies this self-evident truth. But it’s not just self-evident, it’s God-ordained. When we deny the God who created us, we lose sight of what makes us masculine and feminine. Instead of monogamy and the traditional roles of men and women, we have hypergamy. Dr. Roger Devlin has a lot to say about this. We all know what happens to men when they are not civilized. For one, they treat women like meat. Women, having bought into the lies of feminism, seek not the kind of men who will provide for them and protect and cherish them; instead, they are attracted to the stereotypical alpha males (players). Whites mimic the behavior they see among Negroes, in other words.
Scott Roeder was barred from describing abortion procedures during his trial for killing Kansas murderer George Tiller.
Abortion is legal in Kansas, and prosecutors were careful not turn the trial into a referendum on abortion.
Because, after all, what place does motive have in a capital trial?
On Thursday, Roeder told the court that Tiller “dismembered living children with the nod of approval from the state”…
Thompson described Tiller as a devoted husband, father and grandfather and a strong believer in women’s rights… As he spoke, Tiller’s widow Jeanne cried. Roeder at times looked away, yawned and took a drink of water…
“The impact of his death on women throughout the world is like an earthquake,” Thompson said. “They ask, where can I go? What will I do?’ I have to say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t tell you.’ That’s the impact of this crime.”
Here’s the best part. Wait for it…wait for it…
Thompson said Roeder targeted Tiller in a “hate crime” because Tiller provided abortion services.
The Wreck of the Titan, by Morgan Robertson, is the most astounding literary coincidence of all time. It’s about an “unskinkable” ocean liner, British-owned and made of steel, “the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men,” “equal to that of a first class hotel.” It doesn’t seem like the author is even trying to be original, right? Just like the Titanic, the Titan is 800 feet long and sinks after hitting an iceberg in the starboard bow, in the North Atlantic, in April, “around midnight.” While the Titanic crashed into an iceberg 400 miles from Newfoundland while moving at a speed of 25 knots, the Titan crashes into an iceberg “400 miles from Newfoundland” at a speed of 22.5 knots. The Titan has too few lifeboats, “as few as the law allowed,” though the author gives it four more than the Titanic had. Here’s the catch: The book was published in 1898, 14 years before the Titanic’s fateful voyage. Robertson predicted the whole thing.
Isaac Newton had possibly the most visionary mind in history. Consider that at age 22, when Cambridge University closed down for two years to escape the bubonic plague, Newton went home and invented calculus. He had to invent calculus in order to discover the law of universal gravitation. And just like that, mankind was able to understand planetary motion, even though we still don’t know what causes gravity. He also proved that white light is composed of all colors. Then he turned 24. But as the article shows, he was much more captivated by theology than any of the physical sciences. How did he evaluate his herculean accomplishments as he approached the end of his life?
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Unlike our vapid atheists and neo-pagans, Dr. Newton placed his soul in the loving care of his Creator and Redeemer. At no time did he ever believe that faith and science are at odds. He is now plumbing the depths of that vast ocean.
“There is no logical endpoint for this philosophy but the total destruction of those who are not us.”
OK, I’ll bite. What is wrong with that? Did not Europe act that way to the pagans, when they lived among themselves, and by themselves? And, then when they DID go beyond the Bosporus and the Pillars of Hercules, did they not presume a ‘Chosen People’ conquer and rule mentality, based on their apprisal as being both White and Christian?
Now, that ‘sounds’ highly supremacist, but what ARE the deicides and the Christophobes NOW doing to US, but the very same thing? Reading Blow’s commentary the other week, they ALREADY think they have ‘won the war’ against the White Man.
I read somewhere else that, becuase Adam IS the pinnacle of Creation, and the Laws and Covenants were made only FOR Adam’s seed and David’s line, the non-Adamites do NOT have the ‘law of God written on their heart.’ Which is, I admit, not far from saying that Blacks don’t have souls- which is something the Deicides say of ALL the ‘goyim’, so it’s not like it isn’t an operating philosophy in the 21st Century…. But what DO we say, if we presume that Whites ARE the ‘summum bonum’ of Creation? How is a ‘halfway house’ covenant of the kind I ‘think’ you are iterating, any different than the slippery slope of liberalism, that started all this crap off, seventy or more years ago, by saying ‘the Negro is my brother.’??? I really would like you to elucidate.
As soon as you use the word “non-Adamite,” you’ve lost me. Even if such a thing is possible (and maybe it is), we have no proof for it. In a case such as this, where what you have written is highly speculative, I encourage all Kinists to always defer to the wisdom of our Christian ancestors. I don’t know of a single one of them who entertained the notion of “non-Adamites.” In other words, you might be very convinced of these novel stories, but you haven’t even begun to gainsay the weight of the history of Christian doctrine.
But getting to your question, it has a lot to do with what Kalb has written about the balance between universals and particulars. We know that the laws of science are universal, and when we talk about science, we can understand each other, regardless of who we are. The same is true for musical theory, logic, up and down, right and wrong, etc. As soon as you begin to think that morality is genetic rather than universal, you have essentially turned into a Jew. Then the only question that has any importance is, “Is it good for our people?” But without being rooted in God’s law, there is no standard by which the question may be answered.
As soon as the common currency we have with all mankind is destroyed, the only solution to conflict is total annihilation. Christianity, by contrast, is trinitarian. As Kinists, we seek the survival of our particular peoples but at the same time unity with all peoples. Ancient Israel set the example for us: multiple tribes, one God.
I believe you change the subject when you point to infractions against the Volk. Those must be dealt with, just as any criminal must answer for his crimes. But the only way we know how to deal with crime is because morality is universal, not particular to white genes.
Perhaps after our ancestors left their continental boundaries, they did espouse a “conquer and rule” mentality, but that is a long way from saying that they supported the annihilation of “all those who were not them.” In fact, though they maintained political and genetic separation from other races, they were very concerned with their spiritual conversion – none of them entertained the idea that Negroes were not descendants of Adam, for example (at least not until the late nineteenth century, when such ideas first received substantial attention.)
In fact, a considerable amount of the “conquering and ruling” was done ostensibly in the interests of aiding the conquered, bringing to the savages not only Christianity, but also technology, high culture, etc. (Unfortunately, we have long since realized the negative repercussions of the “white man’s burden” approach to saving the world.)
And the “conquer and rule” mentality was not solely a product of Christianity. The British Empire owed far more to modernity – and to John Dee’s astrological voodoo, if Michael Hoffman is to be believed – than to the Great Commission.
It is ludicrous, also, to describe Kinism as a “halfway house” approach, as though Kinists say that whites are the crown of creation and the only full-fledged Christians, but allow nonwhites to come along for the ride and enjoy some of kingdom benefits. No Kinist that I have ever encountered has claimed that whites are the “summum bonum” of creation – only that they constitute a race which has historically aligned itself with Christ and which should continue to fight for its survival and maintain its spiritual vigor. Few Kinists even give much thought to the theory that Jesus and his co-Israelites were white; most are agnostic with regards to British Israelism, since the precise ethnic identity of ancient Israel has no bearing on the central tenets of Kinism.
The White Nation movement is attempting to make of the White race its own messias in exactly the same way as stated in the famous letter of Baruch Levy to Karl Marx: “the Jewish people wil be their own messias”.
Judaism is a racially supremacist idolatry that suffers no rivals or slave flatteries.
For the white Christopherian race, the Summum Bonum of creation is our Lord Jesus Christ
“who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body the church, who is the beginning , the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold to the primacy.” 1 Col 1:15-18. DRV
The white race in its nations communed in the Corpus Christi for millenia. We were new creation in Christ and regenerate as an entire race. Even in apostasy and ruin we still bear the features of that regeneration as a people and in our nations.
It is for this reason alone that the white race appears as the kings of men.
The tragedy of other races in their nations is that having been offered the Evangel, they rejected the Covenant and what could have been their redemption and regeneration.
Our tragedy is that as a entire race, having been baptised into the Covenant, having been engrafted into the Lord from heaven as the Last Adam, Second Man and indeed becoming a new race of nations in Christ – the God Man race – we rejected the Covenant.
For the White Nation movement to attempt to replace the New Covenant with a form of racial idolatry in some slave flattery of Judaism, is to sink even lower than the pagans and indeed the Jews.
One of England’s greatest Bards, J.R.R. Tolkien, a Catholic scholar and Oxford philologist imagined The Lord of the Rings as a reforging of the ancient matter of N.W. Europe – that good soil or culture which received the Evangelium and bore fruit a hundred fold.
Middle Earth is not an allegory. It is the matter of N.W. Europe and the pre-Christian peoples of those lands were recast by wordcraft from ancient matter like the Eddas to serve as templates for post Christian nations that would again pass under the Shadow.
Like this.
“So it was that Gandalf took command of the last defence of the City of Gondor. Wherever he came, men’s hearts would lift again, and the winged shadows pass from memory. Tirelessly he strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south about the wall; and with him Dol Amroth. For the Prince and his knights still held themselves like lords in whom the race of Numenor ran true. Men that saw them whispered saying: ‘Belike the tales speak well; there is Elvish blood in the veins of that folk, for the people of Nimrodel dwelt in that land once long ago.’ And then one would sing amid the gloom some staves of the Lay of Nimrodel, or other songs of the Vale of Anduin out of the vanished years.”
J.R.R. Tolkien. “The Siege of Gondor”. The Return of the King” Book V The Lord of the Rings.
I’m with Fr. John on the Adamic issue. Either Adam was a real individual, or he was a figurative representation of “mankind.” Since the Bible tells us that God created Adam and breathed the “breath of life” into his nostrils, then Adam’s role as a figurative interpretation of mankind is heretical.
And if Adam is figurative, then his geneaology is also figurative. How much flesh can then be put on Noah’s bones, or, for that matter, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David? Aren’t they all descendants of Adam? Jesus is also a “type” of Adam. Meaning what?
What the Bible does NOT include is a Adamic geneaology for the Chinese, the Congolese, the Incas, or the Samoans. True, the Bible says that Adam’s descendants would cover the face of the earth. Haven’t white people done this, and no other race? Is it a mere coincidence that the oldest “human” remains found in both North and South America are the bones of Europeans? And where did the Ainu come from that they arrived in Japan before the Jomon paddled over from China?
I do not applaud this neo-pagan race worship that is all in vogue among some white people right now, because that kind of conceit is what built the Tower of Babel. White priest-gods, looking down from their mud and pitch edifices on the lower order of creation. Adam’s fate was to toil for his bread, and I don’t think the neo-pagans have the hands for that kind of work…
Anyway, God blessed us by making us white, and we should praise and worship him for that blessing. We should also be humbled to remember that it was us Adamics who messed up the whole Paradise arrangement…
Very, very well stated, Siegfried. You’ve nailed it. Lynda also makes an extremely important point that is too often missed. You think having the wrong blood will put you on the wrong side of the covenant? This is NOTHING compared to rejecting the covenant into which we have been born. It would be far better for such people to never have been baptized, and to never have been born.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with speculation, but we don’t base doctrine on it. The Bible leaves some things intentionally vague, which is our cue to tread lightly. But this is not what those who talk about “non-Adamic races” ever do. They insist upon sweeping changes to both ethics and doctrine, which I don’t believe we have the right to allow.
As for evangelism, which is immediately impacted by these differences: Some might disagree, but I think both sides could be satisfied by once again treating the example of faithfulness as a city on a hill to which the righteous repair. “The eyes of all people are upon us,” as John Winthrop said.
The trouble with using the old South as a positive example of evangelism is that we can’t enslave the world in order to introduce a captive audience to the truth. We must never place primary focus on positive side-effects to what was overwhelmingly a net negative for us. Instead, we should get our house in order, and just as Acts 17 says, others will grope for Christ and find Him, if they are called by Him. This way, we let Christ build His own Church, and we dispense with the unprofitable speculation about whose blood comes from Adam.
It’s a very good thing to teach God’s Word to strangers and help them to teach themselves. Missionaries have lost sight of what they’re supposed to be doing. Now, like that headcase Doug Phillips, they actually think they’re supposed to grow the kingdom of God through amalgamation.
It is interesting to see this particular problem discussed. I read a recent thread on it at Kinism.com, but have been unable to register for the forums there. I have been disturbed for some time by the things mentioned by Fr. John. Admin, you say, rightly, that there is no proof of Fr. John’s assertion. There is also no proof of the contrary. Old Earth or Young Earth, there has to be some reason why the racial types broke apart as they are today. Based on our understanding of genetics, (and true to the Bible record) type reproduces true to type. Everything brings forth after its kind. If one isolated a pair of Swedes, or a pair of Bantu for 1000 years, and checked up on their progeny afterward, they would be — barring the introduction of something else — true to the type. If what Fr. John says is not true, then what, other than a direct second Creative act of God, can account for the diversity of type? And we have no more Biblical evidence for that than for his understanding. The Young Earther has even more problems, because he has to have micro evolution on a scale that would make Dawkins blush, but that is another tale.
I am not able to consider myself “Identity.” But I am disturbed. I am disturbed by what Fr. John writes, I am disturbed by what the Methodist Adam Clark wrote about Nachash, I am disturbed by my ponderings of our ancestor Noah, and his sons, and I am disturbed by Adam – the ruddy one. Thank you for open and Christian discussion of things not often discussed elsewhere. I trust the Lord of understanding and wisdom will keep us from error and heresy.
Yes, there is definitely “some reason why the racial types broke apart as they are today.” And there it rests, in the mind and purpose of God. I’m not privy to it, and neither is anyone else. We need the humility to admit that there are some things we don’t know yet.
I’m not at all suggesting that whites came from blacks. In fact, just the opposite. As you say, Adam’s very name tells a lot about him.
Really, the point I want to make is rather simple. In these cases where we have more questions than answers, we should always do what our white Christian forefathers did, and believe what they believed. They didn’t always agree, but there’s more than enough agreement to make for a smooth journey through life. There are some potholes to be expected, but nothing the tires can’t handle.
If I may speculate upon one of our potholes.
I think that if one holds as I do that all races are descended from Adam, then the great diversity must be explained.
I think Darwinism is completely bankrupt.
To my mind it is possible that patriarchal clans descending from the Sons of Noah kept the patriarchal covenant of hope in the Redeemer and belief that the seed of the Woman would crush the Serpent’s head. These people did not miscegenate with Clans that had lost this hope went with the Nimrod project.
I think one could make a case for the nations which retained the likeness to Adam also retained the Adamic faith and hope in the promised Redeemer. And they did not marry into tribes or clans that had abandoned it.
Other nations abandoned the Adamic faith held by Noah and his sons. They worshiped gods who are devils.
We know from occult studies that one of the most important aspects of demon worship is possession and sex magick. I do not look any farther than these practices for an explanation of how nations declined and degraded from our first parents and orginals – after the likenesses of the gods they worshipped.
I think summoning demons and having sexual relations in demonic rites, miscegnating etc will deteriorate the Adamic genome.
As sobering and saddening as is this state of affairs for all nations, the Redeemer is offering regeneration to even the most degraded of nations, tribes and clans. But we would rather have the old power arrangements with the ancestral gods. Sad. Very sad.
One major issue with C.I. which I have pointed out before is that they oscillate between insisting that all Adamites are white, and that only Israel is a recipient of eternal salvation. Well, which is it? Even if only whites descend from Adam, they still constitute a racial group much larger than simply Israel. If Jesus’s statement that he was “sent only unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” is taken to mean that NONE outside Israel were ever meant to be beneficiaries of the gospel, then the non-Israelite white Adamites would be left out.
There is also the issue that no reputable geneticists accept the C.I. theory of European racial origins.
Regarding Adam and Eve and the origins of racial diversity, there are a number of possible solutions, none of which we can be dogmatic about.
A. Ken Ham and his ilk suggest that Adam and Eve were created with an abnormal amount of genetic diversity, and their descendants became specialized as they split into isolated groups. This is a scientifically questionable approach, and also fraught with teleological problems, as Tim Harris has pointed out in a series over at First Word.
B. Or, Adam and Eve were created with a normal amount of genetic potential (i.e., they would not be able to give birth to blacks, whites, and yellows at the same time.) The diversity of their offspring resulted from genetic mutations – perfectly in harmony with what we can observe in animal populations as they speciate. If humanity is only as old as the YECs claim, then this solution is not possible, since 6000 years is not long enough for such mutations to arise. But the genealogies of Genesis are almost assuredly condensed, meaning that humanity could be upwards of 100,000 years old.
C. The text of the biblical narrative, IMO, does not strictly demand that Adam and Eve were literally the first couple; only that they were the patriarch and matriarch of humanity, in the same way that Abraham can be considered the patriarch of Israel even though several of his contemporaries also contributed to the Israelite gene pool.
In any case, Admin is right that we cannot construct elaborate doctrines – doctrines that would anathemize a vast number of professing nonwhite Christians – on the basis of highly speculative genetic theories. We would do well, instead, to hearken back to the simple wisdom of the Scriptures and of our forefathers.
Admin- I am very pleased (first off) that you are even ‘willing’ to engage in some of these conjectures, as I have long felt that I have had to ‘think it alone’. that is the pleasure of reading your site- you ask the questions the rest of the ‘Judeo-Xtians’ (whatever that meme now means) WON’T!
Having said that, I would like to respond to what I feel are diversions from the main topic. Both you, Siegfried, and Lynda, are dancing around the fire, rather than going through it (to use a metaphor- or is that a simile?), I feel, for the ramifications of your observations, if thought through, would either be Baal-toppling, or madness-making, depending on one’s POV.
You stated in your reply to me: “As soon as you use the word “non-Adamite,” you’ve lost me. Even if such a thing is possible (and maybe it is), we have no proof for it.”
Let’s just use the ‘fiction’ that what I mean is that ‘Adam’s seed’ are those of the Caucasian race, and ‘non-Adamites’ are all those who are NOT, based on the Biblical definition of ‘Adam’ as he who is fair, ruddy, able to blush.” If we can’t agree on the meaning of the Biblical words, how can we even begin to talk amongst ourselves, vis a vis the ‘Other’? Whether or not this use of the word is TRUE, it is at the VERY LEAST, an OBSERVABLE delimiter. (I happen to feel that Jehovah wanted us to see things His way, and that means that ‘words mean things’ as they say….)
Moving on….. “I don’t know of a single one of them [prior Christians] who entertained the notion of “non-Adamites.” In other words, you might be very convinced of these novel stories, but you haven’t even begun to gainsay the weight of the history of Christian doctrine.”
How can you prove that? You can’t – unless you PRESUME that how we have viewed the races is the same TODAY, in a multicultural ‘paradise’ is the same way that Europeans have viewed non-Whites in the past.
What I have said in my own forum, is that never before in the history of Mankind, have we hominids (adamic AND ‘non-Adamic’) been in a) such close proximity, or b) entertained the thought (brought about either by a false filioquism or an Englightenment universalism) that ‘all men are created equal.’
That phrase alone only goes back to at best, 1776.
So, what I am saying in preamble, is that the writings of Europeans prior to, say, 1492, NEVER MENTION FAVORABLY those non-European (i.e., non-White) races, in teh same breath as stating that Man (i.e., Adamic/European Man) is gifted and graced by God at the same time, as he ‘hath left the heathen in darkness.’ IF we can just look at how the West/Europe/Adamic Man treated those who ‘call themselves Jews, but are not,’ [Rev. 2:8,9] during the ENTIRE 1500 years prior to Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of them from Spain, we can see quite clearly (TYVM) how the White Man treated the ‘other’ in respect to grace, race, and ‘inclusion.’ One merely needs to extrapolate on THAT BEHAVIOR (Christians to Jewz) to see the underlying philosophical presuppositions about ‘non-white’ interaction on the part of those whom you say left no record of their distaste of multiculturalism.
Next, I would like to address your use of comparisons, which do not hold water… and that is the problem with the stance I think you are iterating.
You stated: “We know that the laws of science are universal, and when we talk about science, we can understand each other, regardless of who we are. The same is true for musical theory, logic, up and down, right and wrong, etc.’
Until the West’s presumptuous superimposition of Adamic (read, Western) science was accomplished (which only occurred roughly about AD 1900) the statement that ‘the laws of science are universal,’ did not hold water. I even read a few years ago, that some Indian physicists were using Western science to ‘prove’ their non-Christian world and life view, ( I think it was as Hindus) as bizarre as that may seem to us.
What I am saying is that, unless you look at the world from the standpoint of CENTURIES, rather than just the last fifty years or so, you can see quite clearly that, prior to Western DOMINANCE (predestination because White?) in ALL the modern fields, there WERE no ‘universals’ in ANY field, other than procreation- but even here, sub-saharan African ‘science.’ Or, are you talking BIBLICAL ‘universals.’ Because if it is the latter, then the IMPLEMENTATION of that depends on the race of the Elect being the DISTRIBUTORS OF THAT Weltanschauung- which leads to all the accusations of White Paternalism, etc. and you are back where you started from….
Now, moving on to your next quote, I think I can prove that premise.”The same is true for musical theory, logic, up and down, right and wrong, etc. As soon as you begin to think that morality is genetic rather than universal, you have essentially turned into a Jew.”
But musical theory is NOT the same!!! Western and Eastern theoretical constructs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in the arena of musical theory. Western theory is derived from the Christian constructs of trinitarian consonance (the triad) and comprises a LONG organic growth of that belief, from chant, to monody, to harmony, to polyphony, to Bach, to Beethoven, to Brahms.
Non-Western harmony (Ravi Shankar comes to mind, I don[‘t know why….) believes in micro-tones, and cyclical patterns, that clearly iterate THEIR pagan, non-Adamic POV.
And finally, if we become the ‘jew’ or Judean, as the Bible really calls them, isn’t that what we are SUPPOSED to become, as Christ was a Judean? (I’m sort of teasing here…) Sorry, Admin, I don’t see that you are willing to go deeper than you do, which is below the center of the Earth, as far as most “Evan-jelly-goos’ are concerned. I’ll stop on this topic, and address Siegfried and Lynda next. if you will allow…
“What I am saying is that, unless you look at the world from the standpoint of CENTURIES, rather than just the last fifty years or so, you can see quite clearly that, prior to Western DOMINANCE (predestination because White?) in ALL the modern fields, there WERE no ‘universals’ in ANY field, other than procreation- but even here, sub-Saharan African ’science’ now thinks that raping children or virgins, or white women, will ‘cure them of AIDS.’ I even believe I read that on your forum…”
Sorry, I realized that paragraph earlier did not have the second clause….
That sounds like a very plausible theory, Lynda. Very good points from Siegfried too.
Siegfried is correct: The theory held by 144-hour creationists that Adam and Eve could have given birth to Whoopi Goldberg or Nanook of the North doesn’t pass the test of Occam’s Razor, or a great many other tests besides.
Admin, I may have taken your comment out of context, but could you explain what you meant when you said: “As soon as you begin to think that morality is genetic rather than universal, you have essentially turned into a Jew.”
Quite obviously, blacks are morally inferior to any other race. And it’s perfectly Biblical (Isaiah. 18:2, “A people terrible from their beginning onward”)
Yes, blacks are morally inferior, just as Cretans were. The apostle Paul lambasts the Cretans in the same way that Rev. Manning lambasts blacks. His words are true, but they are nothing less than “racist.” So Paul tells Titus to appoint elders for the Cretans.
“As soon as you begin to think that morality is genetic rather than universal, you have essentially turned into a Jew.”
By this, I mean that Judaism is worship not of God but of their own race. Michael Hoffman has written thousands of pages proving this. The only question that means anything to Jews is: Is it good for the Jews? This would be an idolatrous thing for us to say of our race. Instead, we believe our race deserves to perish if it fails to obey Christ. And it doesn’t even matter what we think about it, because a man reaps what he sows, and so does an entire race. The question we ask is: What must we do to be saved? (Acts 2:37; 16:30; 22:10).
The white-worshipers are telling us that morality is genetic. This is the same as asking: Is it good for whites? But the law of God is written in stone, and it’s for everyone. It’s every bit as sure as the law of gravitation that Newton discovered.
Lynda-
Your explanation is one of those that is certainly possible, but no more provable than Fr. John’s. There are a few problems, as I see it. IF-if it is true that the occultic practices of the Hamites, for example, led to their physical genetic conversion into negroes (with a corresponding astounding decline in intelligence and vigour- the Hamitic peoples in the Bible were intelligent, resourceful, powerful militarily and politically, and master builders. That is one of the observations which led me to question my assumptions vis a vis Ham being the progenitor of the Negro.) then will their national conversion change them back? If so, what about the separate nations of Revelation? Next, the White peoples, even Israel, have committed vile acts of paganism, enflaming ourselves under every green tree, and causing children to pass through the fire, even as we see today. Yet this type of genetic change has not observably occurred apart from miscegenation. Finally, why did some pagans turn into Negroes, and some into Orientals, and some pagans stayed white? It is a plausible theory, but I can’t see it.
Assuming your idea is true, it is of course God who is the ultimate cause of it. Now I assume as a traditional Catholic you are a Thomist. I am not a Thomist. If God has reprobated whole nations in the manner you describe, they are cut off. Jesus Christ made atonement for His elect. His elect since Abraham have (as a rule) borne the signs of their election, either circumcision or Baptism. Your postulation makes “Adamic” characteristics another, prior mark of election, at least in the national sense. How then can those who have lost their “Adamic” characteristics be numbered among the elect? I don’t see how you avoid the difficulty.
Siegfried Himmel-
That is also one of my objections to the CI material I have read; the confusion of Israel with all whites. It isn’t logical. I have an idea, but I am going to hold onto it for a bit until I see what others have to say.
The fact that “no reputable geneticist” accepts the theory is immaterial-how many reputable scientists of any discipline accept Creation ex nihilo?
You say you don’t think that the text demands that Adam and Eve are the first couple, only the patriarch and matriarch of humanity. Then by default any other couple(s) are NOT Adamic. Adam, according to Genesis and Luke the evangelist, was a son of God – created not procreated. We are still back at square one.
Your last paragraph speaks a great deal. I have known some of those of whom you write. I have heard their testimonies, and seen the marks where they were afflicted for the testimony of Christ. I don’t know what to think.
Third Millennium Ministries recently wrote:
“Reading an article that says: ‘The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Hispanics will be the majority population by the year 2027 in our own country. Many missions’ experts feel that the best hope to return America away from a post-Christian society rest on spreading the gospel to the American Latino population.’”
Talk about drawing the wrong conclusion and action!
So much for our children; we’re only concerned for America, which is defined by whichever souls happen to occupy its borders. Let’s save geographic America by evangelizing the invaders who dispossess the blood that founded it.
http://www.facebook.com/ThirdMillennium/posts/109822059048679
“I read a recent thread on it at Kinism.com, but have been unable to register for the forums there.”
I’ve had the same problem. The registration screen asks me to “Submit the word you see below”, but there simply isn’t any image there.
On CI: I can perhaps accept the idea that the original Hebrews were White, but why would God send Phillip to evangelize the Ethiopian official, and why would the Apostle Thomas travel to India if there were no hope of salvation for non-Whites?
“Until the West’s presumptuous superimposition of Adamic (read, Western) science was accomplished (which only occurred roughly about AD 1900) the statement that ‘the laws of science are universal,’ did not hold water. ”
The laws of the Universe are constant and universal even if people believe differently, is what I think admin meant.
“IF we can just look at how the West/Europe/Adamic Man treated those who ‘call themselves Jews, but are not,’ [Rev. 2:8,9] during the ENTIRE 1500 years prior to Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of them from Spain, we can see quite clearly (TYVM) how the White Man treated the ‘other’ in respect to grace, race, and ‘inclusion.’”
Europeans initially offered the Jews the chance to convert, which they rejected.
“The fact that “no reputable geneticist” accepts the theory is immaterial-how many reputable scientists of any discipline accept Creation ex nihilo?”
Yes, but creation ex nihilo is something that cannot be proved definitively. Northern Europeans=Lost Tribes is a claim which, if true, should be able to be proven through genetics, history, etc., but the proof isn’t there. In all of the British Israel/CI sites I’ve been to, the only evidence I’ve seen is some sketch folk etymology, vague legends and parallels (“The Spartans and Jews are descended from Abraham”, “Odin drinks wine just like Adon and their names sound alike”) and artwork that appears to show White Israelites. But archaeology, linguistics (How and why would Israelites drop Hebrew and magically develop their own branch of the Indo-European language within the time-frame given?), history, and genetics don’t support any of this and tell us that the Celts and Germanics existed and had developed societies, cultures and languages long before the 722 BC Assyrian conquest of Israel. Why CIs invoke the Anglo-Saxons so much is also beyond me, since the Angles and the Saxons were two separate peoples who weren’t united until their amalgamation in Great Britain (Hengest and Horsa, remember?).
Much of our current understanding of Scripture is limited by linguistic and etymological conventions. A simple one-on-one translation from Sanskrit,Hebrew, or Koine Greek to English isn’t possible. The Greeks, for instance, had many words for “man” and “mankind.” The Greeks used the word “troglodyte” to describe a semi-human order below Greeks. No English word really compares to troglodyte. “Savage” or “Barbarian” doesn’t really come close because troglodyte expresses a natural, intellectual, and spiritual difference between Greeks and lesser creatures. The English word “savage” describes behavior, not nature.
The difference between a Neanderthal and a modern human is how the Greeks regarded troglodytes versus themselves. We don’t consider Neanderthals human and never will because we will never know any. Yet we know Neanderthals existed and we know they shared certain behaviors and traits with us.
So were Neanderthals descendants of Adam, too? And if not, who do we count as the descendants of Adam?
Passerby wrote: “Northern Europeans=Lost Tribes is a claim which, if true, should be able to be proven through genetics, history, etc., but the proof isn’t there.” This is true, up to a point. The question that is in the back of my mind is this: how exactly can it be proven or disproven according to a “scientific” i.e. empirical, standard? Would there not have to be a control sample of genetic data from the pre-exilic Israelites? Such a thing does not exist. It is generally assumed that those who are today called Jews are the control sample, but according to their own history they are an admixture of Judah, Edom, and Khazaria. Besides that methodical problem, did not Clark demonstrate the fallacy of empiricism in proving truth?
You must separate British Israel/Adamic Identity into two entities. It is very possible to believe some variation of British Israel without believing the tenets of the Adamic Identity theory. I suppose the converse would also be true. BI in its simplest form should be seen as an anthropological/historical theory. Now, the man who popularised the theory, Joseph Allen, made a great many errors in his exegesis and weakened the case. But what we do know from the Bible is that the ten tribes went into exile, and did not return. We also know that the Birthright was given to Joseph (I Chronicles 5:1), and that Jacob had specially blessed Ephraim in Genesis 49:19 to be a multitude of nations. I do not see how “his seed” there can be spiritualised. Were it Judah from whence came Christ, maybe, but not Ephraim.
God had promised to bring again the people sent into exile. Historically, that has never happened in a visible manner. But he also warned that he would hedge their way with thorns and wall away their paths (Hosea 2:6). So as for the loss of language, that is not a problem, particularly if God took it from them.
The problem of cultures in Europe older than the exile always made me totally reject the possibility of Israel being in Europe. That, and the traditional Japhetic theory for European origins, which has a good deal of merit, and particularly the promise of Genesis 9:27. You are correct, CI folk overlook or convieniently ignore the verse. Traditionally, it has been understood to say that the Church, which is and always has been primarily European, is made up of Japhetites. Shem’s tent was understood as a spiritual reality, and Japheth dwelling there as his embrace of the gospel, and Japheth’s enlargement as either his spiritual salvation, or more recently his political dominance. I don’t think that is exactly right. Dwelling together in a tent is a very intimate arrangement. Let me say that I don’t think it is a coincidence that Japheth’s eldest son and Hosea’s wife are given the same name. Rather than take up any more of the admin’s bandwidth, I may put this into a blog entry.
Thanks, Passerby – that’s exactly what I have said regarding the evidence for British Israelism. Creation ex nihilo is something discussed in the Bible, so we have a testimony apart from the natural and historical record to go on. British-Israelism/CI relies heavily on the natural and historical record where the Bible is silent, so it needs to be engaged on those terms. (I should also add that I am not a six-day creationist, so I do not find myself terribly at odds with much mainstream science regarding creation anyway.)
A little more on Adam and Eve… I leave open the possibility that they were not in fact, specially created rather than procreated. Perhaps in describing the creation of man from dust, the writer was making a poetic statement about the development of man from the elements of the Earth. After all, the Scriptures say that fetuses are knitted together in the womb by the hands of God, and this is true, but it certainly doesn’t preclude our acknowledgment of the complex biological forces involved in gestation.
The genre of Genesis 1 is such that we cannot be dogmatic. Ancient peoples were concerned with getting at the basics of etiology without worrying about logistical particulars. Ken Ham and Co. engage in all manner of extrabiblical speculation to explain how vegetarian lions turned carnivorous and how Cain was allowed to marry his sister. I find it a perfectly natural reading of the text to assume that there were other humans – Imago Dei – from whom Cain took his wife, and not fret over the exegetical minutiae.
This may sound “liberal” in today’s theological climate, but when you take a look at Ancient Near East genres and at some of the Church Fathers’ interpretations of Genesis, you realize that such interpretations are neither historically unlikely nor heterodox.
In your final paragraph, I presume you are speaking about nonwhites you know who profess Christianity. I, too, know several of such people (mostly of Arab and Asian descent) and have no doubts about the genuineness of their conversions. But ultimately, the CI will not see anecdotal evidence as a reason to overturn his absurd and novel doctrine.
Siegfried H- This statement “I find it a perfectly natural reading of the text to assume that there were other humans – Imago Dei – from whom Cain took his wife, and not fret over the exegetical minutiae.” opens a larger can of worms than CI does. Without Adam as the first created Federal head of the race, you destroy Paul’s whole argument in Romans 5. Christ is from Adam, and according to Luke, Adam was “a son of God.” Other creatures not of Adam’s line (however one takes that) would not be fallen in the first Adam, so how could they be put In Christ, the last Adam? That totally defaces the Covenant of Grace. Redemption presupposes a fall. As to Cain’s wife, there are only two options-either she was his sister, OR she was another non-Adamic hominid creature.
Passerby asks the perennial question: “On CI: I can perhaps accept the idea that the original Hebrews were White, but why would God send Phillip to evangelize the Ethiopian official, and why would the Apostle Thomas travel to India if there were no hope of salvation for non-Whites?”
But the Ethiopian Eunuch is no problem, as far as either myself or a CI are concerned, even if one holds to the adage that Adamkind= all the white nations, peoples, and tongues of Christendom.
Why?
“…But what of the Holy Fathers? Are they ‘racists,’ too?
“For more orthodox white Christian hierarchical racial ideology, we can turn to St. Peter of Alexandria
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11771a.htm), who, in accordance with implicit tradition, taught that the degraded appearance of the negro symbolized the state of human fallenness and sinfulness (see Jean Marie Cortès, “The Theme of ‘Ethiopia’ and ‘Ethiopians’ in Patristic Literature”, in Jean Devisse (ed.), The Image of the Black in Western Art, vol. 2, Morrow, New York, 1979, pp. 9-32.)’
Drawing on Philo of Alexandria, St. Ambrose taught: ”The color of the Ethiopian signifies darkness of the soul and the squalor which is opposed to light, dispossessed of brightness, covered in darkness, and more similar to night than day” (Cortès, The Theme of ‘Ethiopia’ and ‘Ethiopians’ in Patristic Literature)
-http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/stopping-one’s-ears-to-hear/
And this statement which I made in the same arena a few weeks later:
“…Nowhere in the pages of Scripture, is a whole black man ever the recipient of YHWH’s covenantal inclusion. I say, ‘whole’, because the Scripture does talk of the Ethiopian eunuch, [Acts. 8:27ff.] but never in Scripture are Negroids, (capable of mixing their seed with the Chosen People) allowed or permitted. You just don’t see them, because they are/were not there!
That is why the Orthodox saint, “St.” Moses the Black (and we don’t know if he was merely a swarthy Arab, or a sub-Saharan Negroid, as no written [iconographic] contemporaneous record of him exists) is allowed – for he became ‘as a eunuch,’ (– i.e., became celibate and a monk) but never are non-Christendom races allowed to become an organic part of the ‘two houses of Israel,’ whom Christ came to save. [Matt. 1:21, Matt. 10:6]
It is only as the Orthodox began to imbibe Latin error, (and it is only as the Papacy gained ascendance in the West, and allowed her filioquist error to spread) that any talk of mixing the races within Christendom began.
-http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/hey-hey-hey-fat-albert-almost-speaks-sense/
And why would I make such statements? Because I read the same thing over at SWB to corroborate them, that’s why!
“Blacks are irked that history makes no mention of them, and so they have to make up stories about great black inventors and such. Not even the Bible mentions them, except perhaps in the form of the Ethiopian eunuch, and in another mention that the Ethiopian can no sooner change his skin than the leopard his spots. With no understanding of marriage, Blacks were never able to form a history of their own, and they’re only slightly closer to doing so now. The percentage of Black children born in wedlock and raised by their natural parents until adulthood is in the low single digits.” -
http://spiritwaterblood.com/2008/12/you-can-call-us-the-disloyal-opposition/
quoted in http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/the-utter-hypocrisy-of-evangelicals-under-obama/
““Until the West’s presumptuous superimposition of Adamic (read, Western) science was accomplished (which only occurred roughly about AD 1900) the statement that ‘the laws of science are universal,’ did not hold water. ”
The laws of the Universe are constant and universal even if people believe differently, is what I think admin meant.”
Passerby, don’t pretend that I didn’t understand him to mean that. As a Westerner, and a White Man, I believe in the ‘laws of science’ as well, because it was WHITE MEN WHO DISCOVERED THEM! But what he ALSO means, (or I was referring to, in my earlier post) is that ALL hominids are comprehending of that mindset… but that presumes that non-Whites think and act JUST LIKE WHITES, WHO (as I pointed out) MADE/CODIFIED THESE “LAWS” only around the 19th century. THAT is where I think I disagree with ADMIN. Clearly, from crime stats, IQ results, and Zimbabwe and NSA’s recent ‘all-black’ government (let alone Haiti) blacks DON’T think like Whites do!
“How and why would Israelites drop Hebrew and magically develop their own branch of the Indo-European language within the time-frame given?)”… Passerby
I just read a column that will help you understand their position better.
Here’s a quote: “It saddens me deeply that many good Christians are turning away from the Greek (which EVERYONE spoke at Jesus’ time in the entire Middle East because Alexander had forced it) to the Aramaic or pseudo-Hebrew/Jewish names for Jesus and for God. Aramaic is a language of the Afro-Asian language tree, not the Indo-European tree which our ancestors used from their time in the garden of Eden, on down through Sanskrit, Phoenician, Greek, and finally the Germanic languages and English. The so-called “Hebrew” is a mongrel language that developed during the captivities when the Israelites mixed their native Phoenician language with the Aramaic of their captors. The Hebrew language never even had an alphabet until the Herodian script was invented near the time of Christ, so the Old Testament could not have been written in it previously. The Aramaic languages were native to the Cain race which migrated into the Sumer region (Babylon) prior to Noah’s descendants. Without understanding better, many of our people are scorning the language of God’s race in the Bible, and they are choosing the language of Christ’s enemies, the race of Satan from Cain and from Edom. Our Bible NEVER promoted any such magic practices, nor is there any hint that God has some kind of sacred name which has a power in itself. All that nonsense is from the Jews, and they must be laughing to watch good Christians venerating their blasphemous “names.” We have followed the arch-deceivers into their pit again!
As for the name of God, our Indo-European language tradition has an impressive and consistent history. In Sanskrit, the name was dyus; in Phoenician & ancient Briton it was dias; in Greek it was theos and zeus; in Latin it was deus. The word YHWH never entered our Bible until nearly 1,000 AD when the Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew was completed and presented to the Roman Catholic church as the authentic original language and text of the Old Testament. The eastern half of Christendom at that time rejected the text as fraudulent and retained the Greek Septuagint of 285 BC, which they still use today.” – http://divinepageant.com/sacred_name.htm
And I suggest you realize that most CI folk believe that many ‘Israelites’ left the Levant, WELL BEFORE the Babylonian captivity. It does not rest alone on that late date of exodus.
“hanks, Passerby – that’s exactly what I have said regarding the evidence for British Israelism. Creation ex nihilo is something discussed in the Bible, so we have a testimony apart from the natural and historical record to go on. ”
Siegfried- again, you are indulging in a simplistic statement to cover a multitude of facts as I believe Passerby has done. I, too, believe in ‘creation ex nihilo,’ but I consider the 7/24 ICR ‘Scientific Creation’ model to be akin to the ‘flat-earthers’ of a prior century.
So, is the one ‘fact’ the ‘Biblical Truth,’ and the other ‘adiophora,’ or must we accept the one while we deny the other, or can we (must we? – and if we must, by whose authority? cf Rushdoony) accept both?
The same thing can be applied to the fact of Adam’s created existence, the Hebrew etymology of his name, the fact that Christ HAS to be of the same genotype and species as Adam to redeem ‘his people’ [Matt. 1:21] as Scripture says. And, if that is the case, then what can we see from history? Well, I’ve already addressed that point, to which very few of SWB’s readers I bet, have even read-
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/
So, which of the facts in that post are ‘adiophora’? I really want to know, for the Incarnation is THE point at which Satan seeks forever to deny Christ’s love for the Elect, and it is this that has motivated me to ask the same questions the CI’ers are still asking….
“http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/2010/04/congregants-all.html”
I would ask us all to read this, and think of how this pertains to each and every one of us.
I think Cain himself is more interesting than his wife. Adam and Eve undoubtedly had daughters.
But I do not follow that Cain was a son of Adam. Reading between the lines, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil appears to me as a metaphor for a progenitor, much in the way English would describe a ‘Jesse Tree’ or name any family tree for a patriarch.
Our Lord tells the Pharisees and scribes of Idumea that they are of their father the Devil.
I do not think he was speaking metaphorically. I do not think he referred only to the Babylonian virus they had introduced into the Israelite Covenant Tradition.
I think there is a good case for a non-Adamic race that has (through its warfare with Adamic humanity) captured Adamic genetics and cloaked itself in Adamic skin – but in its spiritual origin, it remains true to its paternity.
The mythology of both Semitic and Japethic nations does recognize a vampiric race.
And a long history of blood rites follows the Jewish migration. I think you could make a solid case – as does Prof Ariel Toaff in Blood Passovers that there does exist within the Jewish population as an inner ring – a specific group of blood drinkers and sacrificers. They cloak themselves in this populatation which reveres them as Elders and aristocracy.
And the Jewish population displays some of the biological markers of their dealings with them, as do other nations.
The rare autosomal recessive disease of Bloom Syndrome (extreme allergy to sunlight) exists within the Jewish population. As does the autosomal recessive Tay Sachs.
It might be very possible that Rh- factor comes from this hidden race – although Rh- has now spread into many populations, most notably the Basques who have the small, solid stature, the sloping forehead, heavy brow that is the stereotype of the Jew.
I think it became imperative for the Cainite race to capture and continue to capture Adamic genetics if it was to live and propogate.
I think the Nimrod project through brother / sister marriage (inline breeding) attempted to restore it after the Deluge.
I think it likely that Adamic humanity which had extensive dealings with the Babylonian / Cainite throwbacks (through idolatry of sex magick) deteriorated very far from our first parents and originals.
I would be very surprised if the WN ever ventured into that territory.
But for those who inquire into the dark side – read up on the Nosferatu.
I think in the movie 300 we had glimpse of their reality at the beginning of the film when Leonides scales their tower to inquire of their oracles.
Fr. John, Modern genetics seems to be supportive or at least pointing to the C.I.
creation model – blue eye switch 6 to 10k yrs. ago, and migrations – Scandinavians immigrants in last 4k yrs. with no decent from prior (lactos intolerant)hunter-gathers. See at eurekalert.org/
There’s quite a lot of conjecture here, and some of it is very interesting and possible, but let me attempt to rein it in and ask how it affects ethics. What do we do with these theories in how we live our lives as Christians? I reiterate that we could do no worse than follow our Christian forefathers in what they believed, almost to a man. Tradition is crucial here; we’re simply not going to recast doctrine based on what some have come to believe in the last hundred years or so (at best).
Specifically, the question is whether other races should be evangelized and be baptized into the covenant if they respond to the call of the gospel. On this point, our non-race-mixing forefathers were unanimously affirmative.
Dear Admin,
A very good point. Even though our Lord addressed the Pharisees in words that may be taken literally – the Great Commission is to make disciples of all nations.
The offer is to the Jew and to Gentile. It is also recognized that not all are of Israel who are Israel and the tares and wheat will grow up together.
What is certain to me is that the Evangel is for all nations (pan ethne) of humanity. The nations which convert as nations will form the Katolicum. There is no call to form Katolicum by miscegenation, rather by the process of nations becoming disciples. They do not lose their nationality, but their culture and social order is to become Christified.
On an unrelated note, I had to vent about something. I logged onto my Google account and found that Google was promoting this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNiZhAUWcg&feature=player_embedded
Apparently it’s not enough for the fine folks at Google to suppress Michael Hoffman and Alex Jones for supposed hatred of Jews and government. Now, they must take an active hand in the dissemination of sodomite propaganda.
It’s a sad commentary on what was once Christendom when we can watch HD video propaganda involving ugly blue lesbian aliens apply for Social Security.
“Jews want blacks to live everywhere on the planet except in Israel.”
“This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country’s going to go down the drain.” – Rev. Billy Graham
I clicked on your link and saw the Google promotion, Siegfried.
Whoah.
Folks before you click that link make sure your onboard luggage is secure, your seat is in the upright position, your seatbelt is fastened, your tray table stowed and you have access to a barf bag.
Just when you thought that things could get worse. Lo! They did get worse.
The use of the term ‘natural family’ in the ninth circut is hate speech under federal jurisdiction.
We are being socially engineered to regard family in terms of twin unit living teams: Raul and Trey with 2.5 detachable sub-unit surrogate children and satyr. It helps to understand this if the family are smurfs or aliens.
Or as Archbishop Fulton Sheen communicated to Roman Catholic parents in the 1960′s: “Good Catholics, remove your children from the parochial schools now”.
“and ask how it affects ethics. What do we do with these theories in how we live our lives as Christians? I reiterate that we could do no worse than follow our Christian forefathers in what they believed, almost to a man. Tradition is crucial here; we’re simply not going to recast doctrine based on what some have come to believe in the last hundred years or so (at best).
Specifically, the question is whether other races should be evangelized and be baptized into the covenant if they respond to the call of the gospel. On this point, our non-race-mixing forefathers were unanimously affirmative”
OK, while I stop for a few minutes preparing my tax return (Yes, I am one of those who avoids it until the last minute- ugh) I would like to weigh in, once again.
Admin, yes, morality is paramount. But the reason why I led off with my initial comment, was to ask the simple question: But before I do, let’s put it into Gilbertian terms first: “If everybody’s somebody, then no one’s anybody!”
Does not Scripture posit a ‘Chosen Race’? [It does] Does not Scripture delineate that this chosen race came out of Egypt ? [it does] Does not Jehovah God then give TO THAT PEOPLE, His Law-Word? [ HE does] Does this nation then have a law that is for them, and their seed forever? {it does] Do the nations round about still have THEIR laws, which are (from the standpoint of Biblical Law, no laws, but we’ll leave that one lie for now…) [They Do]
The next question to ask, then, is this: “Does the God of the Hebrews [Eber/Iber's sons] require that the nations round about adopt this law? OR, Does the God of the Hebrews [Eber/Iber's sons] require that the CHOSEN PEOPLE RULE over the nations, in the name and in the stead of their God?
For the two are vastly different….
Next, Lynda almost gets it as well, when she says: “Even though our Lord addressed the Pharisees in words that may be taken literally – the Great Commission is to make disciples of all nations.
The offer is to the Jew and to Gentile. It is also recognized that not all are of Israel who are Israel and the tares and wheat will grow up together.
What is certain to me is that the Evangel is for all nations (pan ethne) of humanity. The nations which convert as nations will form the Katolicum. ”
But WHERE is the ECUMENE to be found? And here is where the Roman/Filioquist mentality has corrupted the ENTIRE construct of ‘the nations’ versus ‘the Ethne’ which is what the Greek REALLY says. A ‘proposition nation’ is whatever the statist bureaucrats decide it is to be. An ETHNE is a RACE tied to their culture, language, and land, that is as unique and as identifiable as the concept of a Chosen People in a Promised Land.
Next, if we define that idea- that Christ’s words were to go to the ETHNE, then WHICH ETHNE should the APostles have gone to? We can’t really answer that question directly, but can find (as Rushdoony said) applications of the Law Word in the legislation of ancient Israel. And that application was that Israel, comprised of the Sons of Adam/Noah/Abraham/David, and Jesus were to ‘keep themselves unspotted from the world,’ and to ‘touch not the unclean,’ and to ‘be ye separate.’
So, what did Christendom do, and to whom did the Evangel go, if not to the WHite, Caucasian nations of the Ecumene? It’s not rocket science, but is is mind-boggling.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-social-dimensions-of-kinism-among-adam’s-seed/
Lynda and I met over this issue, online, actually…..
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/strange-flesh-and-ecumenism/
The problem that my comments tend to engender (Besides my prickly personality, and for that, my apologies- I;m working no it!) is also that of not speaking the same language.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/tracing-the-line-of-apostasy/
But what I DO know, is that if one sees the Ecumene as encompassing as Belloc (an R.C.) said, “Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe” and recognizing that the impartation of the law of God is either in an a) covenantal or b)universalistic fashion, then we need to figure out which one of these God’s Law-Word Dissemination schemes is biblical.
YOu almost hit it on the head, Admin, when you said, “But that would make us “Jewish.” Not quite. We all know here on this and our other fora, that the “Jew” is NOT a “Judean” [Rev. 2:8,9]. But what we forget is that SOMEBODY – some BODY that is extant in the world to this very day (for I will NEVER leave you, nor forsake you- Jesus), IS that ‘Judea’ of God [ Gal. 6:16]
While CI folk tend to get all wrapped up in how do we ‘show’ that we are ‘Jewish’ (and that one phrase shows how confused they really are) the Calvinists historically have shown by their LAWS how ‘Judean’ or ‘Biblical’ they were – by enacting the Law of God among their own (in Europe, as well as OZ, Canada, and the US) and then sovereignly being the Paternalistic dispensers of ‘their law’ to the ‘nations round about.’
If slavery is an inescapable construct (and it is, look at sin) then what is so ‘wrong’ about the antebellum South, if we look at a) chosen people, and b) gospel dissemination by c)maintaining an ‘otherness’ from the nations round about, but d) giving them the benefits of God’s Law word, while e) never letting them presume that they ARE that ‘race’ that ETHNE?
Truly there are many more elements of Dabney’s “Vindication of the South’ that you Southerners have not even begun to think about, in that we have ALL become Abolitionists in our minds…..
Again, you assume too much, and the most alarming assumption of all seems to be that we Gentiles, who have been adopted as covenant heirs, deserve it in some sense because we look like the ancient Hebrews. This is ridiculous, and for all the words expended on the subject, it has not been proved from Scripture. Instead we see things like this, in Ephesians 1:
“In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”
By the very rule that you are using to exclude other races from the covenant, we ourselves should be excluded. Our forefathers obviously understood this.
A very good case can be made that God predestined many Europeans to life because He predestined Japheth to dwell in the tents of Shem, as Noah prophesied. But there is no case at all to be made that election is circumscribed by white blood or white land (the Ecumene).
I especially love these verses:
“He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, NOT OF BLOOD, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:11-13
Great responses there, Admin. I would also add that your quote of John 1:11-13 is difficult for those who want to posit that the Jews who killed Jesus were of a different race than him. It is quite clear that Jesus was rejected and killed by “his own,” and that “his own” were spiritually blinded as a result – for that is why Paul in Romans is so heartbroken about his brethren.
(Of course, this does not mean that those who call themselves Jews today are actually of Israelite ancestry.)
“Again, you assume too much, and the most alarming assumption of all seems to be that we Gentiles, who have been adopted as covenant heirs, deserve it in some sense because we look like the ancient Hebrews.”
Admin, I would think that I am assuming TOO LITTLE. IF we are saved by grace, and if we are also the ‘seed of God’ then should our lives, both by our ACTIONS as well as our DEPENDENCE on God, be mirrors of the Divine, precisely because we are ‘partakers of the divine nature’?
You see, while I believe in predestination, I also fully believe that God both ENABLES us to be saved, and works in SYNERGY with the Saved to ‘make their calling and election SURE.’ That POV (I believe) does not deny the Reformed doctrines of grace, but it does give full rein to both the ‘Pharaoh’ scenarios of the OT, as well as the ‘deification theology’ of the Orthodox.
What I find fascinating is that you waffle (and have waffled, unlike littlegeneva did in his incarnation before you – at least, it appears to me to be the case) between wanting to acknowledge that God sovereignly chooses some, and that we cannot choose God ourselves, ESPECIALLY if he has made ‘certain vessels unto destruction.’ Yet-
You like that idea as long as it allows the ‘dusky savage’ a place in the kingdom, but don’t like it when I posit that the definition of Adam as ‘fair, ruddy, able to blush,’ as well as the descriptions of Joseph as having red hair (as well as Esau, which WOULD explain why Celts and some Jews are fiery redheads- the only TWO groups in the world that seem to have that recessive trait) as well as Sarah’s description (as Isaac’s mother) as fair and milky white, might mean that ONLY Caucasoids are the ‘Elect of God!’
What I am saying is not that I have made that decision, I believe the Scriptures and history have shown that GOD – Jehovah God, Made that decision, in the manner and according to the type of Christ’s incarnation, ‘before the foundation of the world!’ [Eph. 1:4]
When you respond to my statements, You then IGNORE the record of history, in dealing with the Ecumene, while saying you want to PRESERVE that very same geographical land mass. And I say, HUH? What GOOD IS THE CULTURE, without the RACE? How can you ‘disincarnate’ the culture- its’ music, inventions, art, philsophy, etc., without denying the RACE of the people who gave us those thing? Are not the achievements of Christian civilization (as Cambria keeps on telling us in one excellent post after another) precisely great, BECAUSE they are White AND Christian? OR does that POV just rankle you no end? If that is the case, prove to me that hip-hop is great music- I DARE you.
In short, the recent death of Terr’Blanche was noted on one site with the comment next to the picture of “Kill the Boer” – “three hundred years of African Christian Evangelism good for nothing” That about sums up the feeble wish that Whites can make Blacks white- even if only in their SOULS! Isn’t that ‘theological ‘Uncle Tomism’ on a pneumatic scale? I am coming to believe it is!
Finally, sir, you quote St. John. But, While I do not disagree with St. John, I DO disagree with your eisogesis. Could you not see that perhaps (since St. John is the same man who wrote/ penned I John 1:18 ff. and Rev. 2:8,9 – and Rev. 3:8,9) that MAYBE, whom he was addressing this verse to, were those that fit the characteristics of the verses above, who were the ONLY people in history who had NEITHER a legitimate SPIRITUAL NOR RACIAL right to claim lineage with Christ? (i.e., the Edomites/Idumeans) And it was to THEM that St. John said, “Even though you claimed blood relationship with Abraham via Blood, Our Lord said that they, as well as the hand in glove professionally appointed by the Herodians priesthood of Christ’s day, ‘ were of their father the Devil’? [John 8:44]
IOW, ‘his own’ were the Idumean priesthood, Pharisees, et al., – those who ‘said they were Jews/Judeans, but were NOT’ -who TRUSTED in ‘BLOOD ALONE’ – for that’s ALL they had! And it was THEY (precisely the people Christ denounced with the greatest vituperation in Scripture) who ‘received Him not..’
So the contrast of the other Caucasian Adamites who did NOT know, (the so-called ‘other Israelites’ – i.e.e, Caucasian ‘gentiles’ or as the Greek has it, ‘ethne’ who were the OTHER NATIONS (ethne) besides that of Israel ‘God’s Ethne’) who did not even think to TRUST in that blood tie (even though they had a better right to it, than the Pharisees and other mamzerim Idumeans- whom Josephus says were NOT of Hebrew Stock)
- COuld it not be that it was the ‘ethne’ of the ‘gentiles’ who were the very ones the Pharisees passed by (think of the Samaritan incident as exemplar) while GOD willed THEIR salvation!?
This is (I feel) a better translation/interpretation of the verse under question, that does not warp the other Johannine verses out of context- indeed, such a view ESTABLISHES them.
Having said, that I still am thankful that you are even willing to discuss them, and are not (I hope) the third stage of Gaslight people mentioned in the WVWN article, who cannot fight the desire to succumb to the ‘spirit of the age’ and therefore turn on those who are challenging their very capitulation to same. –
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=8786
At the risk of repeating myself, I’ll say again that you have not proved that “ONLY Caucasoids are the ‘Elect of God!’” The only thing you have proved is the wide gulf between what you believe and what almost all of our Christian forefathers believed. This is not even debatable, which is why you have not challenged it. All you can do is say that millions of Christians over the course of thousands of years have been wrong about the major controversy on which the New Testament turns: whether Gentiles could be admitted to the covenant.
We’ve devoted a lot of time and effort here to demonstrate that the wayward church of our time has nothing in common with what the Church of the Ages has believed and practiced on the subject of race. You’re not likely to find much sympathy here when you come along and suggest that giants of the faith down through the centuries were wrong in their understanding of election, but you and a few others are correct. The idea is so absurd that I can’t waste any more time thinking about it.
Hey everyone,
Sorry I’m late. I agree with essentially everyone that Fr. John has no real basis for believing as he seems to believe that non-whites essentially are outside the possibility of salvation and that whites have no ethical obligation to nonwhites. That’s why I don’t consider the questions surrounding who Adam and Eve were to be essential to the question of ethics.
I am however, interested in your perspective Siegfried. I think that the idea that Adam was not literally the first human is at least plausible as you do. I do think that it potentially begs a few questions though. As was mentioned this would seem to be difficult in light of what St. Paul seems to say about Adam being the federal head of all humanity in 1 Cor. 15 as well as his being referred to as the son of God in St. Luke’s genealogy in Luke 3. The title “son of God” seems to suggest creation by a special act of God. However I do find at least one aspect of this theory fascinating in that there are a couple of passages in the Old Testament which mention the “sons of Adam” and the “sons of man” in parallel as if they are somehow distinct. Examples of this are in Psalm 49:2 and Is. 2:9. These are usually translated in some odd way, suggesting more interpretation than genuine translation. I would be interested to hear what everyone thinks about this. I have my own opinions, but would love to hear what other people think. But again, this does not in any way negate the fact that Christian ethics applies to all races.
Admin- Way to go on your response and the article.
I’ve had occasion to have heated talks with many of the IM movement’s top speakers (I’m not IM in the slightest, but share mutual concerns about government and family) on the subject of non-white salvation. The question they fail to have an answer too is, “What amount of non-white blood in a white person determines whether they are saveable?” Once when I posed this question, the speaker laughingly said, “I’m an 1/8 Indian on my mom’s side. Therefore I’ll never push the issue.”
“At the risk of repeating myself, I’ll say again that you have not proved that “ONLY Caucasoids are the ‘Elect of God!’” The only thing you have proved is the wide gulf between what you believe and what almost all of our Christian forefathers believed.”
Admin, I don’t NEED to prove it. I stand by the Scripture, the Praxis of the Church, and the knowledge that NO Father, NO Apostle, NO Council can be found that clearly, unambiguously, verifiably SHOWS that what the modern world calls her ‘missiology paradigms’ (i.e., ‘The Negro is my brother,’ ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘the White race is the Cancer of Society’) EXISTS!…
“I would be interested to hear what everyone thinks about this. I have my own opinions, but would love to hear what other people think. But again, this does not in any way negate the fact that Christian ethics applies to all races.”
The problem here is one of language, and the nuances that existed in the ancient tongues that do not appear in English. Gen. 4:2, Eve declares that she has got a MAN from God. However, Adam’s line is through Able, and after his murder, Seth (Gen.4:25). Cain is not in Adam’s line of descent because he was sired by Satan. Thus there is enmity between Eve’s Seed and that of Satan. (Gen. 3:15)
The Sons of God are men descended from Adam, who later lust after “the daughters of men” (Gen. 6:2). God then says He will not strive with MAN forever, meaning that the destruction of those heirs of Cain and those corrupted through him was soon to come. One hundred and twenty years hence, the flood wipes out “men.”
Genesis is, in fact, a geneaological record of Adamic man and his relationship with God. The Gentiles are ONLY those descendants of Japheth who settle in Europe, particularly the Greek isles and along the shores of the Mediterrainean. The use of “Gentile” as a reference to all non-jews or non-Hebrews comes later, and has an odor of the Pharisee about it.
True, the Gentiles are “grafted” into the Covenant. However, the branch of one species of tree cannot be grafted into another. The branch of an apple tree will not graft into an oak tree. The ancients knew this well, and that may explain Adam’s role as vinedresser (Gen 2:15) He kept God’s Order in the Garden.
Every use of Gentile in the Bible (that I know of) refers to Greeks, Phillistines, or Romans.
Adam’s descendants, the white men, were given dominion over the earth and all creatures. Only white men have demonstrated the capacity for dominion. Whether or not negroes have souls is not an issue. What is important is that we are made in the image of God, and we should not forsake His image or bear it lightly.
Good point about the word “Gentile.” You could be correct. My only point is that I can’t find evidence in the writings of any of the church fathers that the word is limited to European Japhethites.
They did have a great deal to say about the sons of men vs. the sons of God in Genesis 6, but rather than viewing Cainites as the offspring of Satan (which I admit SEEMS credible), they interpreted “sons of men” as being the Cainite covenant-breakers and “sons of God” as being the Sethite covenant-keepers.
I have a hard time seeing the “Satan fathered Cain” thread in Genesis – particularly since it is nowhere in the text. At the very least, it as not nearly so obvious as the CI advocates make it sound.
Regarding the word “Gentile,” it is of course true that the word, in its basic denotative sense, does not simply mean those who are not Hebrews. It corresponds to the word “goy” in the OT, translated into “ethnos” in the LXX (I believe), and simply means “nation.” (I believe this has been discussed before on this site, but it bears repeating in this context.) It is certainly not used only to refer to Romans, Greeks, or Philistines, as a brief look through any biblical lexicon will prove.
Note that “goy” in Yiddish actually does refer specifically to non-Jews, but this is irrelevant to the biblical usage.
As for the “sons of God” vs. “the daughters of men” question, I am inclined to take that as a description of angels procreating with human females in the age leading up to Noah’s day. This story is recorded in detail in the Book of Enoch, a book that both Peter and Jude quote and allude to frequently. This reading of the text explains why the resultant offspring would be “giants and men of renown.”
I find “Father” John’s statement that missions to non-whites are based on an assumption that “the white race is the cancer of humanity” to be ludicrous, especially when directed at Kinists.
Scarborough Fayre, again, it’s wise not to be dogmatic about Genesis. But I think we can accept that Adam is the federal head of all humanity while leaving open the possibility that he is not the sole biological ancestor. After all, if the effects of his sin could be transferred to his offspring, why not also to other individuals predating or coexisting with him?
In fact, federal headship in Scripture almost never depends on being the sole biological ancestor of a people. Other men coexistent with Abraham contributed to the Israelite bloodline, at least until Israel was large enough to constitute its own nation and practice endogamy, but Abraham is still recognize as the patriarch of the Israelites (as well as of the Edomites.)
But again, this is speculation.
Fascinating! You raise a point that I’ve never considered before. I’ve always been inclined to think that a person must descend directly from Adam in order to be federally subordinate to him, but you’re right that this wasn’t the case with Abraham.
“…forcing kids to watch propaganda like Schindler’s List is considered appropriate”
During the week of this thread ‘Were the Whole Realm of Nature Mine’ there has occurred on the stage of the world political theatre a Black Psy-Op.
This event is on the order of 9-11 in the service of many objectives – not least Communist propaganda due.
I refer to what may have been briefly mentioned in the Jew MSM and what Joogle has blacked out in terms of background report, history and info: the crash of Polish Air Force flight TU-154 at Smolensk killing all aboard: the Polish president Lech Kacznski, first lady, the chiefs of the all branches of the military and the cabinet.
The entire political and military elite of Poland has perished. (Exactly as at Katyn Forest 1940).
The Boston Globe got it right. “The Flower of our Nation has Perished”. April 11, 2010.
These were the Roman Catholics who had not attended the joint Russian – Polish commemorations at the Katyn memorial observed by President Putin and Polish PM Donald Trusk a few days earlier.
The Polish nationalist government had attended the Roman Catholic mass for the commemoration of the Katyn anniversary and was due to join the observances at the Katyn memorial site in Russia on April 10, 2010 when their jet ‘happened’ to crash at Smolensk killing all aboard.
The reason why the essential history and background info to this event has been blacked out in the West by the Jew MSM is because Katyn is one of those events that is supposed to disappear down the memory hole.
The Canadian Jewish researcher, Dr Henry Makow, author of The Illuminati: the Cult that Hijacked the World, has picked up the Katyn story on his post of April 14, 2010. “Katyn II: How Satanists Say We’re Sorry” http://www.henrymakow.com.
Dr Makow, as many who read Spirit Water Blood may be aware, writes from the standpoint of ‘disorganized’ humanitarian Jews who reject JudeoMasonry (aka the Illuminati) and adhere to the ethical basis of the Ten Commandments as traditionally honoured in Western societies.
In his April 10, 2010 post he links back to a previous essay that he had written about the film “Katyn” directed by Poland’s greatest director, Andrej Wajda (2008).
This essay is entitled: “Katyn: The Story Hollywood Won’t Tell” by Dr Henry Makow.
http://www.savethemales.ca/the_greatest_story_hollywood_n.html.
“But one incredible Jewish story of genocide continues to elude Hollywood. This is the execution of 20,000 Polish officer POWs – devout Roman Catholics who represented much of the Polish elite by the Jewish NKVD in Katyn Forest 1940.” quoted from “Katyn: The Story Hollywood Won’t Tell”, by Henry Makow.
In this essay, Dr Makow introduces the general readership to the work of Maurice Shainberg, a Polish Jew, who assisted KGB Col Grigory Zaitzev, Commandant of the main Katyn labour camp. Shainberg copied sections of Zaitzev’s diary which he cites in his memoir: “Breaking Free of the KGB” 1986.
Dr Makow has culled some fascinating quotes from this book which illustrate that no amount of hard labour, indoctrination or torture could force the Polish elite interned at Katyn to betray their faith and their nation “(as the Western elite has done today”) and co-operate as a puppet government under a Soviet dominated Poland.” Katyn, by Henry Makow.
The defiant Poles resisted this to the end. Summarizing briefly from Dr Makow’s essay – After 12 hours of hard labour, the elite of the nation was still able to rise to its feet before the Soviet indocrinators and collaborators and chant their prayers with one voice: “We Polish soldiers and prisoners of the Soviets have been brought here to foreign lands to die. We beg of you, Mother of God, to take care of our nation…Save us from German Soviet imprisonment. We are offering ourselves as a sacrifice for the independence of our Fatherland.”
Faced with this indomitable spirit and triumphant faith, no wonder, Zaitzev had to confide to his diary “our task is impossible.” quoted from “Katyn: The Story Hollywood Won’t Tell” by Henry Makow.
Therefore, an NKVD Jewish Bolshevik, L. Beria, communicated to the USSR People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (all Bolshevik Jews including Stalin and Kaganovich) listing the Katyn POWs by category and seeking authority to to kill them all.
Which they did. And they did.
Please read this document of genocide (disputed, of course by the Russians) http://www.katyn.org.au/beria.html.
It was this indomiatable spirit and faith of the Polish nation that determined its elite be destroyed by the Communist Internationale as a class – at Katyn in 1940 and at Katyn 2010.
The world is now in the convergence between the state monopoly socialism of the former Soviet (Jewry as ‘The Party’ overtly controls the government of federated nations, its soviet and bank) vs the cartelized captialism of the Federal Reserve System (Jewry owns sovereign nations through a federal bank and covertly controls the government through the judiciary, by puppets, lobbies and all political parties).
The convergence of this dialectic is: Communism in the exact Marxist, Leninist terms of The Kapital vol III.
Poland has a long rap sheet with the Communists which the Jane Burgermeister website has archived. This is http://www.theflucase.com and the link may be found on http://www.henrymakow.com.
See also Global Analysis. “Poland’s Susicious Second Katyn Massacre Tragedy”
http://www.worldreports.org/news/283_polands_suspicious_second_katyn_massacre_tragedy_news.
Admin-”they interpreted “sons of men” as being the Cainite covenant-breakers and “sons of God” as being the Sethite covenant-keepers.”
Yes, they did. But, isn’t that the very “propositional membership” issue often denounced here and on the old Little Geneva site? The women and children in Ezra 10 were not questioned theologically about their covenant keeping.
Siegfried- “As for the “sons of God” vs. “the daughters of men” question, I am inclined to take that as a description of angels procreating with human females in the age leading up to Noah’s day. This story is recorded in detail in the Book of Enoch, a book that both Peter and Jude quote and allude to frequently. This reading of the text explains why the resultant offspring would be “giants and men of renown.”
That is the position taken by many old dispensationalists, usually in conjunction with the Gap Theory. G.H. Pember’s book Earth’s Earliest Ages lays that idea out in detail. On this line, Noah’s “perfect generations” would mean that he was not corrupted by the evil angels’ seed.
BUT, this is illogical and illegal.- “After all, if the effects of his sin could be transferred to his offspring, why not also to other individuals predating or coexisting with him?”
Because, covenants are passed down to the heirs and assigns; i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; David, Solomon, Rehoboam. . . Jesus Christ. Even our corrupted legal system recognises this in the Constitution: “for ourselves and our posterity.” (The exact intent is debatable, but not the meaning.) Where in the Law of God is the principle found for transferring one man’s sin to another man or group of men NOT his descendents, or not, as in Christ’s case, as the appointed substitute? If men not “in Adam” share his fall, do men not “in Christ” share his righteousness? This has worse logical problems than CI.
“Other men coexistent with Abraham contributed to the Israelite bloodline. . .” Who? “In Isaac shall thy seed be called”, rejecting Ishmael. The sons of Keturah were sent away. “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.” In fact, I recall (I believe it was on LG) reading an essay about the Judah/Tamar incident and how God had used it to prevent the Canaanite sons from being in Messiah’s lineage. Who, other than Abraham, was the father of Israel? (Until Ephraim and Manasseh were adopted as sons, but that is another issue)
I think we might be saying the same thing about the sons of men/God. It seems to me that the distinction was both covenantal and through the blood. Typically, you are faithful because you were raised in the faith, and you were raised in the faith because your parents were faithful. (As an aside, I mean no disrespect to converts, but I am always suspicious of any movement that has more converts than generational successors. I can think of several Christian movements that fit this bill, but it is so true of neo-pagans that I doubt there are any exceptions.)
But perhaps it is true that Genesis 6 refers to a blood distinction solely. Regardless, Noah could have been perfect in his generations whether Cain came from Satan or whether the giants came from demons. I think there are many poetic descriptions in Genesis of events that we just don’t fully understand.
As I’ve said, the parts that we don’t fully understand, and which cause such a diversity of viewpoints, call for extra caution in ethics and doctrine. Unfortunately, the very same vague passages are used by some to call for the most sweeping changes to ethics and doctrine from what they have been historically. In other words, I appreciate the speculation, but I’m reflexively conservative on these points.
“Other men coexistent with Abraham contributed to the Israelite bloodline.” I think the point being made here is that Abe’s immediate descendants did not resort to incest (as is alleged for Adam and Eve’s immediate descendants) in order to build Abe’s nation. There were surely many like Rebekah who were close kinsmen and married into the new tribe, meaning that there were many who were federally represented by Abe through the righteousness credited to him yet did not descend directly from Isaac. I’ll let Siegfried speak for himself though.
Yes, Admin is correct about what I was saying. Until Israel had grown into its own self-contained nation, other Semites/Abrahamites contributed to the bloodline.
Hopefully a tad more on this when I have time again.
The Biblical words: ‘gibborim’; ‘nephilim’; and ‘rephaim’ are mysterious.
I have always tied this in with “There were giants in those days…” Gen 6:4.
No matter how you try to puzzle it out, the giants are not Adamic. They were cruel and Godless. So, it is possible, to read into the Biblical record that the Adamic seed became polluted with other genetics. Hence, the flood, wiping out all but a patriarch who “was perfect in his generations.”
However, the problem in Genesis 6:4 was with matrilineal descent: sons of heaven / daughters of men. In modern terms the race of giants was bound up with mitochondrial DNA from the mother.
Then you have the strange passage about Nimrod becoming a mighty hunter. But “began to become a gibborim” might be nearer the mark. It does not say how, but the means of “becoming a gibborim” is clearly bound up with the Babylonian project to enthrone the fallen Archangel.
In the Book of Acts:
“[God] hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times and the limits of their habitation.” Acts 17:26 DRV
I think it possible to believe on the basis of the Bible that the Deluge restored this created order through a patriarch “perfect in his generations.”
But for those not inclined to this idea (like Nimrod) there was still the old mitochoncrial DNA to work with and inline breeding (royal or pharoahnic brother / sister marriage) so that something of the old nephelim lines could be restored.
I am not saying they could restore it completely or even to great extent – because that would pervert the sense of what God has ordained for the face of the earth. Also that would mean there would be nations to whom the Evangelium could not go – the very nations one would think most in need of regeneration.
At any rate the Church was estblished in Goa, India by the Apostle Thomas by the second century. The Church was sending evangelists to every nation and to the four corners of the face of the earth.
Every branch of Christianity – Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed has sent missionaries to foreign lands and races with the Evangel.
I see no evidence anywhere in scripture, patristics, doctors, bishops that any people were excluded from the outreach of the Church.
And if there had been such, I would have expected to find it in Europe because pre-Christian Europe has an extensive dragon lore.
Dragons in pre-Christian European thinking are self creations of the will. Fafnir, for example, was a man. But in the kinslaying — he became a dragon. Just as Nimrod began to become a gibborim.
There were terrible rites in pagan Europe involving the supernatural powers. It is clear that a lot of this was about the acquisition of what we would call today – ‘super powers.’
I expect that with the Satanists there are specific blood, sex, demon possession rites for this sort of thing. And there are people claiming to be descended from generational Satanists writing all over the NET who claim that only the blood of Christ has set them free.
It should be noted that the European Council of Princes has recognized a specific ‘dragon’ ethnicity. And these people do claim to be inbred for Nephilim recessive traits going back to Nimrod.
This will be interesting. Prince Michael Stewart of the House of Albany makes this claim.
I think one could make a case that the tribes of Canaan had successfully recovered enough of the old genetics to become ‘enhanced’. And they worshipped all the old devils with the sacrifices of innocent blood – a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance. If that was so – then it would be clear why God would again order their complete destruction, which incidentally, Israel failed to complete.
I think the Christians are going to have to form our minds on some of these issues because, there are an increasing number of people like Robert Connolly who go off exploring with some archeological knowledge and a camera. These people are not exactly emcumbered with the Darwinian model.
These tend to be new age types who think that humans were bio-engineered by gods from the stars. So they are looking for (and finding) the skeletons of giantes. They can’t publish because Darwinism rules the academy – but the number of people who are interested in their findings are legion.
These people don’t think man evolved from primates; they think man devolved from giants bioengineered by space gods.
So, predictably, Robert is interested in UFOs, aliens and ancient civilizations and published his pix on CD-ROM “The Search for Ancient Wisdom” 1995.
Have a look at some of the skulls Robert has photographed
http://www.ufodisclosure.com/skulls.shtml.
To the new agers this confirms the extra-terrestial origins of the engineering of humans by a space race.
But their findings could just as easily stand for concrete examples of words like ‘gibborim’, ‘nephilim’ and ‘rephaim’.
Another interesting facet of the discussion is found in Noah. If the flood was global and/or destroyed all human life, his grandchildren (first cousins to each other) must have intermarried. That’s not incest, but it is extreme endogamy.
If the flood was local, the patriarch Noah becomes a covenant head just as we’ve postulated for Adam and Abraham.
These are the very subjects discussed in Tim Martin’s book, Beyond Creation Science: Adam as the first covenant man, not the first man; and a local rather than global flood. But that book concludes in the heresy of hyper-preterism. So these are by no means easy questions.
Let’s say the flood was global, Admin, and Noah and later Abraham are covenant heads.
This being so, I don’t think this rules out that other families elsewhere in the world survived by Providence.
Indeed many nations trace their ancestors from a flood. True these ancestors did not become covenant heads in terms of the worship of the true God, but I do think that if you believe the Deluge was global, you don’t necessarily have to believe that Divine Providence did not spare any other families.
But it is with Noah and his family that the Covenant is concerned.
>Lynda wrote on April 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
>
>Have a look at some of the skulls Robert
>has photographed
>
>http://www.ufodisclosure.com/skulls.shtml
I can’t belive it, he has found proof of the existence of the ancient super race
of Aykroydian cone-heads!
Lynda- “Let’s say the flood was global, Admin, and Noah and later Abraham are covenant heads.
This being so, I don’t think this rules out that other families elsewhere in the world survived by Providence.”
But it does. Genesis 7:23- And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.AV The Geneva Bible renders “ground” as “earth.” The question isn’t “is Noah a covenant head?” (he is). In fact, he is the only one the Bible mentions in connection with the flood. The question is “what is the connotation of “earth” or “ground?” Is it the globe, or is it some part of the globe? If we could answer that, we could better understand Cain’s lament in Genesis 4:14. The only possible way for “something” not in the ark to have survived the flood is for it to have been regional, and directed at the rebellious descendents of Seth, rather than universal and directed at everyone indiscriminately. Every living substance was destroyed from off the face of the ground. So, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you believe the flood was global, the plain logical meaning of Scripture compels you to believe that only Noah and his family survived. “Every living thing” has no wiggle room. The question, at least in my mind, is in the connotation of “earth.”
I agree with with you Unreconstructed, and I also believe that the Flood was local. I base this at least in part on how “earth” is used in Genesis 4:14. While I tend toward the interpretation that Adam and Eve are the universal ancestors of all humans, I believe that the Flood was regional and that Noah represents the covenant head of the Caucasian race, the principal branch being the European branch descending from Japheth. It seems to me that it is impossible to try to fit all of humanity into the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.
The N.T. passage that interprets Gen 7 is II Peter 2:4,5 DRV – “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell unto torments, to be reserved unto judgement: and spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodlly.”
World here is cosmos – one of the senses of which is the order and by metonymy – the human order.
I can not make out the sense of the ‘whole earth’ in Genesis to mean the land mass of the entire globe as distinguished from a wicked order of rule by the fallen angels imposed over mankind upon the face of the earth locally?, over the entire land mass of the earth? over most of the earth? or to what extent these concepts overlap.
In my reading, it is this cosmos of the fallen of the b’nei h’elohim erected over the human race and in which the human race collaborated (the ungodly) that holds the key to this passage.
However the passage is interpreted it is the mythos that is the thing.
Before my mind is the understanding of the seal of Divine pleasure and satisifaction upon the creation of both angels and mankind in our parents and originals. There was a ‘falling away’ from that in rebellion and Divine judgement upon angelic and human will followed.
In that falling away, on the angelic side there was a loss of the first estate; on the human side, there was a degradation, deterioration, a separating out.
This concept could be applied speculatively to the genetics of covenant heads that nations proceeding from their generations could become corrupt or degraded depending upon whether or not they adhere to covenant faith and life. And corruption could set in genetically.
I would not want to state this as a pronouncement but this thought has occurred to me.
This mythos of these passages could establish several valid lines of inquiry into the relevant subject matter.
What it does stand in opposition to is the Modernist Myth of Evolutionism and Developmentalism. While the basis of the myth might be a scientific hypothesis, theorum of scientific orthodoxy, ideology (as stated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). It does not cease, however, to operate throughout modern and post modernist culture as a myth.
C.S. Lewis wrote an essay about this called “The Funeral of a Great Myth”.
“Having turned what was a theory of change into a theory of improvement, it then makes this a cosmic theory. Not merely terrestrial organisms but everything is moving ‘upwards and onwards’. Reason has ‘evolved’ out of instinct, virtue out of complexes, peotery out of erotic howls and and grunts, civilization out of savagery, the organic out of the inorganic, the solar system out of some sidereal soup or traffic block. And conversely reason, virtue, art and civilzation as we now know them are only the crude embryonic beginnings of far better things – perhaps Deity…”
There is a fatal contradiction that runs right through this Myth and its entire mythos, as Lewis has pointed out. The Myth can not even get going without accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences can not be accepted for a moment as sciences unless rational inferences are valid.
Unless you can make valid inferences, you can have no idea at all about astronomy, any biology, any paleontology.
But the Myth requires me to believe that reason – and with it the ability to make valid inference – is “simply the unforeseen and unintended byproduct” of a mere process or force at one stage of its becoming.
And under the spel of this myth, not only is it not possible to have valid inference (true sciences), morals also have no foundation.
What one can have is advanced technology and situational ethics.
There is a destroying angel that rides this whirlwind.
Precisely correct. You and C.S. Lewis have stated what is called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), and it has never been logically answered by atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
As soon as they insist that they will not believe anything until it has been proven by science, they amputate any possibility that their thoughts and ideas have actual meaning. They must borrow breath from God to curse God.
“At any rate the Church was estblished in Goa, India by the Apostle Thomas by the second century. The Church was sending evangelists to every nation and to the four corners of the face of the earth.
Every branch of Christianity – Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed has sent missionaries to foreign lands and races with the Evangel.
I see no evidence anywhere in scripture, patristics, doctors, bishops that any people were excluded from the outreach of the Church.” (end quote)
Lynda- you are re-iterating the unclear statistics of supposed ‘Conversions to Christianity,’ with which I challenged Admin in the first place, which he did not grasp then, and you are not grasping now.
First off, there is no extant RECORD of ‘St. Thomas’ mission to India’ – only pious legend. And the ‘traditions of men’ used to mean very little to ‘real’ Reformed, if memory serves.
Secondly, the ‘Thomas church’ did not remain true to the Apostolic gospel (if the Thomasian founding is valid) (monophysitism, nestorianism, etc.) and therefore, ‘were not of us’ as St. John states.
Thirdly, what was the RACIAL makeup of the ‘Thomas Christians’ over 2000 years ago? We cannot presume that it is the same as it is today, when notions of caste, color [Varna] and ‘Aryan’ models still exist in the minds of Indians (however odd it is to hear almost blue-black natives say, “But I am Aryan!” to European whites) to the present.
On your Second Point, I never denied that ‘A’ Church was sending missionaries to the ‘four corners of the earth.’ I merely denied that post-Schism Rome, or her protestant daughters were “THE” Church…. and therefore, are not valid examples of what the APOSTOLIC CHURCH demanded, required, or PERMITTED, in the way of evangelization.
And, if they are not ‘they’ Church, their ‘converts’ are not true converts… and you have yet to reply to that, any of you. Because you can’t. Blind guides, it would seem.
Lastly, the [conciliar] Orthodox did NOT go outside of the Ecumene, UNTIL after the incursion of Roman theology in Russia in the 17th and 18th Centuries, under Peter [who is not considered 'Great' by the Rus themselves!). I've mentioned this on my blog as an ABERRATION of the Orthodox POV, precisely because filioquist models and paradigms were engrafted as a 'different plant' [kind?] to the tree of Orthodoxy; and even the Orthodox say that it was. So, why not believe THEM, if you don’t want to believe me?
Again, all you are talking about, is the bitter fruit of the filioque, in attempting to make the ‘all and sundry’ model of missions, contradict the ‘I am come ONLY to the Lost Sheep of Israel’ message of the Christian’s savior, Jesus of Galilee. What you equate as Christian civilization, is merely papal propaganda, and what your preaching in your desire for a multiculti Xianity, is not Apostolic, Conciliar, Ecumen-ical Christianity, but a good, if idolatrous copy. You have proved nothing.
Now, Fr John, if you had read, marked and inwardly digested The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, you would know that from the time of the Enlightenment, a new basis of reasoning has been established by the atheists.
This is value based or dialectical reasoning which deals, by definition, with relative terms. The atheists crafted dialectical reasoning in opposition to classical reasoning which alone, as a rational process, can proceed on the basis of moral absolutes.
According to The Protocols, this shift to the basis of the reasoning process itself was contrived for a purpose and objective. The basis was shifted into dialectic precisely because these conflicts (on the basis of values, ideologies, etc) could be machinated into wars of annhiliation – by the Invisible Hand of Jewry controlling all fronts.
Natural and human sensibility revolts from ‘wars of annhilation’. White nations might become coerced into it by unregenerates who can not be restrained by any law, indeed whose racial antagonism and bloodlust is goaded and empowered by Jewry’s removal of the restraints of law – as in South Africa.
But cold blooded contemplation of such wars as a moral imperative – only rabbinical Judaism seriously argues for this on the basis of racial supremacy as a moral absolute.
And to the common sense of the Western mind which holds to the Credo of the holy faith as fundamental and reasons upon a classical basis, the idea of dialectical wars of annhilation as a moral imperative are a reductio ad absurdum.
In the intoduction to the essay “Were the Whole Realm of Nature Mine” the idea of wars of annhilatio was cast. This was a fly cast on the River Running. You are the one who snapped this up. And SWB Admin reeled you in.
You can not improve your argument by floundering around with Lynda the R.C. Trad, the Filioque, papal propaganda, etc.
My statements are based upon common knowledge of Church history for which the Calvinists speak.
If the Church in India, established by St Thomas the Apostle is just a pious legend – then the Orthodox subscribe to it. Why not read the entire section “The First Great Missionary Period” on http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org
This section deals with the Post Constintinian emperors who “concentrated on removing all vestiges of paganism from the empire.” It mentions the Christian witness sent outside the empire boundaries to the Arabian Penninsula and India. “Emperor Justinian (527-565) was instrumental in many ways in spreading Christianity outside the boundaries of the empire.” Special mention is made of the Non-Chalcedonian missionaries who extended the Christian witness to India and China.
Church history upon which Roman Catholic, novus ordo Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox all agree does not support your theories about White Election, pre-Adamic hominids and whatnot .
I agree, but I think there were bipedal primates prior to Adam. I know Darwinists would call these hominids, saying that they belong to the same family as humans but are of a different genus. Therefore, I don’t like the word hominid. But I don’t dispute the science that shows other creatures, like Neanderthals, who predated our kind. The young-earth creationist denies that these were of a different kind at all, and believes that they were alive 6,000 years ago with the dinosaurs. The “Whites are the Only Adamites” crowd makes use of these creatures as the basis for other (fallen) races. I happily admit that I know very little about earth’s origins, but I think both of these sides are wrong.
There are many organs and systems in our bodies and nature that cannot exist without instantaneous and simultaneous development, such as photosynthesis and blood coagulation system. So the evolutionism is a hoax that we Bible believing Christians must not take into consideration as a basic component of our thought. The Bible is like a standard meter measure. Nobody would be suspicious of whether it is really a meter. Anyone who doubts the Bible resenmbles a person claiming, “I climbed a mountain higher than the highest mountain in this world.”, i.e., a liar.
“There has been of late a hopeful resurgence of Calvinism. “By most logic, the stern system of Calvinism shouldn’t be popular today. Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help.””
I suspect the anti-christs are already figuring out a way to highjack this one. They will ensure any resurgence will not be of the same quality as the original Calvinism.
The article linked, is as much a redirect as it is informing the Christian community of this occurance. The anti-christs will do their utmost to establish the rules and limits of any new Calvinism.
The result may end up not being very Calvinistic. imho.
Then again, if one doesn’t automatically assume the literal historicity of Genesis and “the Flood” or the rest of the Bible for that matter, all indicators pointing to the contrary, the bevy of supposed conundrums –which theologians and apologists fret over and expend so much energy trying to puzzle out– immediately evaporate.
“The result may end up not being very Calvinistic. imho.”
Just look at John Piper’s Church, which many in the Twin Cities consider to be more, rather than less, ‘calvinistic’ in that he appears to be preaching the ‘doctrines of grace’ while holding to a miscegenationist incarnationalism.
“if one doesn’t automatically assume the literal historicity of Genesis and “the Flood” or the rest of the Bible for that matter, all indicators pointing to the contrary, the bevy of supposed conundrums….immediately evaporate.”
I would posit the obvious on that one…. if you don’t assume historicity, then why bother being a Christian? (Of course, what one MEANS by ‘literal historicity’ is up for debate, but historicity – i.e., that these things actually happened, in the order in which God said they did, and that the people mentioned were/are real persons, now alive in Christ (the line of salvation from Adam/Eve-Seth-Noah-Abraham-Moses-David, etc.) is not up for grabs. But the whole ICR/Hamite claptrap…. now, THAT is another matter!