A Kinist Response to Brian Schwertley’s Accusations of Heresy, Part the Second
January 9, 2011 
39 Comments
Brian Schwertley has returned after five months on the tangent to again pronounce anathemas on the faithful. The first two sermons were titled “The Kinist Heresy.” Part 3 is given the name “Kinism Refuted” in big, friendly letters. So you’re saying there’s a chance? No, part 4 is again “The Kinist Heresy.”
It feels like déjà vu all over again. There is no proof that Kinism is unnatural, ahistorical, or heretical, and no repentance for slander. The theme, as usual, is that Kinists have imposed “a racist…southern white cracker paradigm” on Scripture, and we “contradict virtually every orthodox scholar or commentator since the Reformation began.” (No examples are provided.) The bottom line, says Schwertley, is that we have “contempt” for those who do not look like us.
The Kinist apologist is advocating a position that is diametrically opposed to the explicit teaching of Paul… The Kinist racist paradigm places a “no admittance” sign to all races except white… “You’re not welcome here! This is a white church!” And Paul condemns that as schism, division. It’s a white cracker, southern addition to Scripture.
A healthy degree of separation must exist between all tribes, just as families must have a healthy degree of separation from neighbors. ”Equality without distinction ultimately outlaws the family itself,” as our friend Ehud says.
The need to rescue our endangered people from perishing is all the more urgent because our government has robbed us of the right to determine our own future, free of foreign interference, in the country that we inherited from our own fathers. They have outlawed the biblical command that we are to be ruled by our own kinsmen. They have even outlawed our freedom of association. Churches have encouraged miscegenation and interracial adoption, and white men and women are being told that humanity is interchangeable, and it is their Christian duty to be supplanted by strangers. The guilt of contempt and schism lies with those who rob us of our birthright.
We deny that we bar non-whites from Christian fellowship. Suppose the tables were turned and we were like Israel in Egypt. We would hope to receive aid in our need. And if, by God’s grace, we were to win our independence, we would be bound by Deut. 23:7: “Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country.” We can help aliens in many ways, most especially by teaching them the gospel, but this does not mean that the boundary between alien and kinsman has been erased. Israel and Egypt did not merge into one. Nor did Israel amalgamate with surrounding nations, even when strangers were converted to the faith and circumcised. For instance, Lev. 18:26 clearly distinguishes between “your own nation” and “any stranger who dwells among you,” including faithful, law-abiding strangers. This contradicts two of Schwertley’s statements from previous sermons: 1) that “throughout the whole vast earth, the Lord recognized only one nation as his own, the nation of believers”; and 2) that “citizenship should be by faith.” In short, it is hatred to reduce our own kind to equality with all men, and it is a sin against God for failing to be faithful stewards of our inheritance. It is like announcing to your own children that your estate will go to Michael Jackson’s kids, because people are just people.
This was my father’s belief, and this is also mine: Let the corn be all one sheaf and the grapes be all one vine, ‘ere our children’s teeth are set on edge by bitter bread and wine. Our Christian ancestors considered the principles of Kinism to be wise and reasonable, but Schwertley will hear none of it. He maintains that Kinists are guilty of “disruption” and “disunion.”
The Kinist has so perverted Christian theology that he lives in an Orwellian world where love is hate and hate is love, where God saves people of different nationalities in order to segregate them, far from each other, as though different cultures carry a contagious disease.
We obviously have radically different definitions of love and hate. But is segregation or separation necessarily hateful? As a representative Alienist, Schwertley plays fast and loose with the word “nationality.” He believes that a nation is merely a snapshot of those who happen to stand within arbitrary borders at any given time and submit to taxation from the central authority that no one has yet worked up the will to overthrow. But this is not how the Bible defines the term. In Scripture, “nation” is ethnos, ethnicity, tribe. (As our friend Nathanael says, one can scarcely imagine anything more pitiful than a theonomist who proposes to apply biblical law at the national level when he can’t even define the word “nation.”) At 13:30 in this sermon, Schwertley’s redefinition of the word “nation” and “ethnos” is a wonder to behold.
At 15:50, he denies that God wants races and ethnicities to separate into distinct nations, “because the Church is to be one.” It’s true that the body of the Church is drawn from every body of people, and this is what Christians have always believed. But Schwertley is arguing for something very different. He is saying that since the worldwide Church is to be spiritually unified, the races and ethnicities and nations from which the Church is comprised must be dissolved in time, or at the very least considered accidents of history, not worthy of preservation. Having convinced himself that race is a Darwinist concept which is always opposed to the gospel, he allows only ethnic food and clothing to continue because these things are morally indifferent (adiaphora). We’ll leave for another day the question of how ethnic customs are ever to originate in his fictitious world.
This is a rejection of “natural affections” (Rom. 1:31) and it contradicts the pattern that God Himself gave to us. Even the gospel itself was selectively propagated, first in Judea, then Samaria, and then to the uttermost parts of the earth. When Jesus met the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7, she begged for a miracle. Jesus told her, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.” This is every bit as “racist” as what Kinists have taught, which is to say, not at all. The pattern presented to us is to care for our own families first, and then our people, and finally those who are not related. The time was too early for miracles to be worked among the Gentiles, but this did not deter the woman. Her response was brilliant: “Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” This showed that she acknowledged Jesus as Lord, agreed with him, humbly recognized her place, and yet was persistent, like the widow of Luke 18. Jesus admired her faith, and her daughter was healed in that moment. Natural affections did not have to be sacrificed in order to show compassion.
Israel was one nation with multiple tribes, and this configuration was designed to show spiritual unity at the national level and physical unity at the tribal level. Spiritual unity did not dictate that the tribes were to be dissolved into one. Marriage was outlawed across tribal boundaries unless it accompanied a loss of inheritance (Num. 36). Since the tribe of Levi had no inheritance of land, they were forbidden from taking wives from any tribe but their own (Lev. 21:14).
“For our forefathers…made provision that the stock of the priests should continue unmixed and pure; for he who is partaker of the priesthood must propagate of a wife of the same nation…and take his wife’s genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it. And this is our practice not only in Judea, but wheresoever any body of men of our nation do live…” ~ Josephus, Contra Apion 1:7
How would Levites know who they could marry if the tribes of Israel had no discernible identity? Of what use are the detailed biblical genealogies if tribal purity is sinful? Did Ezra and Nehemiah sin when, following the Babylonian exile, they reestablished the tribes of Judea (Neh. 11) according to blood rather than confession?
The Alienist is unable to answer these questions because he suppresses the truth of “the one and the many” that resonates throughout Scripture. The Church is described to us as one body with many members. The bodily members tend to be taken as a metaphor for individuals, as Schwertley himself understands it, but at no time have men lived as solitary, autonomous individuals, free to draft a “Social Contract” at will. As Rushdoony knew, the family, not the Church, is the basic unit of society, and from extended families stem all higher governing bodies.
“Dr. Warfield thought that whether the family as a unit of society was a relic of barbarism or not, it was certainly the New Testament basis of the church. God organized his people, he said, into families first, and then, into churches, recognizing in their very warp and woof the family constitution.” ~ L.B. Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, p. 141
How very peculiar then is the Alienist who recognizes no blood covenant higher than the level of grandparents. Beyond this level, we are merely indistinguishable Adamites, he says. Kinism is in full accord with trinitarian Christianity, whereas Alienism always falls to the extremes of monism or atomism, which are incompatible with human nature and human relations.
A good example of this is when Schwertley quotes Eph. 2:11-22:
They were strangers from the covenant made with Israel, but through the sacrifical death of Christ, Gentiles have been made co-citizens… In any part of the Christian Church, all national distinctions are swept away, and we are no more foreigners and strangers but fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God…making us heirs of Abraham.
We are heirs of Abraham through faith in Christ (Gal. 3:29), not through the blood of Abraham. Therefore, the promise given to Abraham is our spiritual inheritance. And if this spiritual inheritance makes us co-citizens of the household of God, what kind of twisted logic would lead a man to state that “all national distinctions are swept away”? The answer is that failure to understand the most-raped verse in the Bible, Gal. 3:28, leads to the same misunderstanding of the following verse, Gal. 3:29.
The same balloon tricks are performed with 1 Peter 2. Look at verse 19:
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…
Alienists completely ignore the qualification of the last five words, just as they love to quote the first part of Acts 17:26 but not the second part. They leap to the conclusion that if we are all Christians, we must therefore intermarry and combine into one nation, government, and people. It cannot be stated enough that this is completely at odds with what Christians have believed until recent times. It is not Christianity at all; it is unitarianism.
Schwertley authoritatively states that churches of the first century were “fully integrated racially,” but the only example he offers of a different “race” among the Gentiles who were brought into the Church is north Africans, which he then calls simply “Africans.” (You know, like Cleopatra and Hannibal.) By doing so, he implies that these were of the same race as sub-Saharan Africans, which is ludicrous and betrays a stunning ignorance of history. Aside from the occasional Ethiopian, who never successfully planted the gospel in Africa, and a Mr. Black, of whom we know nothing, the Gentiles of the early Church were decidedly white: Greeks, Macedonians, Scythians, Galicians, Italians, etc. The Church of the first century was far from being “fully integrated racially.” It’s true that many differing and sometimes antagonistic tribes were baptized into the faith, and they undoubtedly worshipped together on occasion, especially when new churches were being founded. But there is no evidence that disparate peoples felt the need to integrate permanently for the sake of integration. This would be a very minor point, seeing as how whites are saved by grace too, but it shows how Alienists lie about even the most trivial matters.
As a matter of fact, the early Church was segregated. First of all, in New Testament times it was segregated between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. And there was a good reason for that. The Jewish believers were so far superior that to integrate the two would have meant more often confusion. And when you realize that in, say, the Corinthian church, they didn’t even know that fornication or adultery was a sin because in the Greek world there was nothing wrong with that. After all, the chambers of commerce in Greece and Corinth and elsewhere…maintained regularly around two thousand prostitutes for all visiting businessmen. It was a manufacturing town and so on…and no one thought there was anything immoral about that. Or about men having relations with prostitutes. This was all taken for granted. So in the Gentile churches the moral standard was pretty low. It was a lot of hard work for a couple of generations and more to bring them up to any kind of standard. Well, the Jewish congregations represented a far higher moral standard and Paul saw nothing wrong with that, nor did any other apostle. So the principle of segregation was present there from the beginning.
In contrast, Schwertley’s flabby arguments make flippy-floppy on the water bike and drown in their own irrelevance. He says: “You study any reputable New Testament scholar and they’ll tell you that most of the churches in the apostolic period had both Jews and Gentiles in them.” Most of them? The only example he offers is Antioch (Gal. 2), which “obviously contradicts Kinist doctrine,” he says, because both Judeans and Gentiles were present. The only cities larger than Antioch in the Roman Empire were Rome and Alexandria. Antioch sat at the crossroads of trade routes and was like any other large city that you can imagine – very mixed, very polluted, and very immoral. (See what Rushdoony says above about “manufacturing towns.”) A mission was established in the city that ministered to multiple ethnicities, and because of it, this is the city where followers of Christ were first called Christians. We know of no Kinists who would find anything objectionable about this, although it is certainly unusual. Christians do what must be done in order to evangelize, but cosmopolitan churches and cosmopolitan cities are inherently unstable. Even today, the vast majority of churches are homogeneous, and they are located in homogeneous towns that are best for raising families. Schwertley is trying to turn an exception into a rule and then pretend that it proves the end of homogenous governments (domestic, civil, and ecclesial). He says: “What happened at Antioch is proof that Kinist doctrine is unacceptable to God.” But we have no problem with what happened at Antioch, as Schwertley would have discovered if he had asked one of us. His confusion is evident in this statement: “I want to see the Kinist prove from Scripture that God demands that races and ethnic groups that are Christians be segregated.” There will be no such proof because we reject the flawed premise of the question. God does not demand segregation, but He also does not outlaw it. No matter how small, any tribe has the right and duty to maintain its health and preserve its own life. It would be hateful to tell Assyrians that they must blend into the sea of Arabs, Turks, and Kurds that surrounds them. Ditto for the few hundred Samaritans who persist on two hilltops in Israel. It is neither love nor Christian charity to tell these people that their heritage doesn’t matter, and Christianity requires amalgamation, as Schwertley has argued.
He knows very well that we have contended for liberty, not coercion, but he tries to change the subject by saying that what we seek to preserve does not even exist. He says that blood has mixed over time, and therefore no one is “pure,” and some peoples have adopted technologies from others, and some have borrowed from the cultures of others, with the end result being that no one is allowed to have a heritage worth defending.
See if you can follow this Schwertlian trail of confusion:
The Christian Church is not a melting pot that merges all cultures and nationalities into one.
We agree!
Instead, it takes all these unique and rich cultures and purges them of idolatry and anything that is contrary to God’s holy law…
We agree again! Hark, what light through yonder…
Thus, no one is to segregate oneself from other Christians as if their nationality is unique or superior… What is important is not one’s nationality, but are you clothed with Christ?
Hold it right there. This is a blatant non sequitur, if you know your Spanish. Surely we can agree that without some degree of segregation or distinction or exclusivity, there is no uniqueness. Therefore, uniqueness is a product of obedience to the Creation Mandate, to fill and subdue the earth. Christians, of all people, should believe this. Noah’s three sons repopulated the earth, no? Why then has superiority entered the salvation equation? Men and women are equal before God, but as mothers, women are clearly superior. We ought to be grateful to God for His gifts, including the gifts of race, tribe, and family. Which Kinist has ever denied that faith in Christ is the most important factor in any person’s life? If “separation…based on race…is a sin for Christians” because we are “all one in Christ Jesus,” is it not also true that separation based on sex is sinful? For the sake of consistency, someone should petition for unisex restrooms at Schwertley’s church. Well, you get the point. If not for clichés and logical fallacies, Schwertley’s sermons would be five minutes long.
Though he says “the Christian Church is not a melting pot,” he did falsely claim in the previous sermons that America has been “a melting pot of different races for 350 years,” which he considers to be a good thing. I wish he had expounded on why this is bad for the Church but good for the State, but you know how clichés have a life of their own.
He does his best to paint the average Kinist as a lunatic who refuses to eat or associate with non-whites, who refuses to enter their homes, who refuses to befriend them, who refuses to work with them, who refuses to pray for them and care for them, etc., but they are all lies, and this is why they are offered without a shred of proof. Marriage is the primary issue of contention between the two sides. If we knew that we could rely on support from church and state in keeping our sons and daughters chaste, many of the measures that are needed to ensure our survival might not be necessary. (For instance, biblical tribal property laws might largely obviate the need for border security.) But we insist that we will survive, and survival requires no legal justification.
Schwertley quotes 1 Cor. 7:39 and concludes that a Christian can marry any Christian, with no other restrictions. He then tries to present the Kinist argument that other restrictions exist, but it is a pitiful misrepresentation. He is correct that Kinists deny that this verse is a full exposition of the bounds of marriage, for if that were the case, a Christian man could marry his own Christian mother. He is wrong, however, in stating that Kinists have somehow forgotten about the lawful degrees of consanguinity in Lev. 18. We fully acknowledge these restrictions, and we fully agree that Christians should only marry Christians. The thrust of our argument is, once again, lost on Schwertley the Heresy-Hunter. Simply put, it is that not every legally binding restriction must be made explicit in Scripture. The proof that Lev. 18 is not an exhaustive list of enforceable marriage restrictions can be seen in the case of polygamy or of marriage between the very old and very young. These are not explicitly condemned in Scripture but are forbidden by inference. The very word “helpmeet” forbids them, which is why Rushdoony cited interracial marriage as an example of being unequally yoked. Even if these examples are not outlawed at the civil level, as they should be, the will of parents is legally binding on their children, according to the Fifth Commandment. This is the clincher. No matter what is allowed at other levels of government, it is sin to scorn the will of parents in this matter, and “every orthodox scholar or commentator since the Reformation began” (and before) agrees with us.
Schwertley denies it, saying that even in the Old Testament, “interracial marriages were fully acceptable as long as one married a believer.” He offers Neh. 13:27 as proof of the Kinist’s “perversion” because it shows that the women the Judean men married were “heathen.” This gave me a hearty laugh, because it appears that only the Amplified Bible, which is not actually a translation of the Bible, uses the word “heathen” in this verse, and for good reason: the word, in this context, is not intended to be an assessment of religious beliefs. As you can see, the Hebrew word is nokhri, and is translated as “foreign” and “strange,” meaning an alien who could not rule in any sense because he was not a “brother” to Israel. While the word “stranger” can certainly have connotations for religious belief, Nehemiah proposed no theological exams that would have allowed some women to remain with their husbands and some children to remain with their fathers. They were all sent away, regardless of confession or circumcision. This too indicates that they were primarily strangers of blood. All of this has been covered many times before, just as we have agreed until we’re blue in the face that the Church is multi-national and multi-ethnic, so we won’t linger on it. It’s just bizarre that B.S. felt the need to dig down to the Amplified Bible to make a point that is easily shown to be false.
The funny thing about Schwertley is that some of his comments seem as extrinsic to the theme of his sermons as a trumpet in the library. Like this one:
When you’re talking about unbelievers, do I want to take my family and move them into a big black ghetto in Philadelphia or New York City? Of course not.
In the first two sermons, he said, “There’s not going to be crime with the blacks and Mexicans that are Christians, because it’s all faith and ethics; it has nothing to do with race.” But if crime has nothing to do with race, why is “a big black ghetto” in a predominantly black city used as a rhetorical device? If all races are equal, why do the most violent cities in the world have large black populations? If all races are equal, how does Schwertley know that he is not as likely to be victimized in his rural, lily-white enclave in Wisconsin, where he thunders against Southern “crackers,” as he would be in Philly? Actually, this is his response to our previous criticism of his hypocrisy in choosing to live in an area that is overwhelmingly homogeneous. Those who don’t know the backstory will surely do a double-take. Blacks in America are the most professedly Christian people on earth, and this is not a recent development. It is precisely because Schwertley believes they are lying that he refers to blacks elsewhere as not “solid” Christians or lacking a Christian “worldview,” and this is why he refuses to live among them.
Here’s another one:
If you don’t want to serve blacks or Mexicans in your restaurant, you shouldn’t have to… The state shouldn’t be able to force you to do that.
I thought this was a sermon against racism!
So let’s recap. Kinism is racism, and Kinists are “white versions of Malcolm X.” But racism is not about excluding races from restaurants, because food is adiaphora. And though Kinists are like Islamic terrorists, black people as a whole are far, far worse. “Blacks are the most racist people I’ve ever met in my life,” says Schwertley, “far more racist than whites.” After all, he says, they voted for Obama.
This sounds pretty bad:
The Kinist Movement cannot be accepted in the Church. These people either have to repent or they have to be excommunicated. It’s that evil.
Now, here’s a curiosity. If Kinists, who are like Malcolm X, are heretics who must be excommunicated, but blacks are far more racist than whites because they voted for Obama, doesn’t this mean that blacks must be excommunicated? We’ll be discussing this at the next Heresy Club meeting.
As we’ve shown, Schwertley has anathematized Kinists without actually understanding Kinism. We could be charitable and chalk it up to a misunderstanding, but even after we correct the record, Schwertley persists in his campaign of misinformation. What else can he be called but a liar?
Here’s an example:
The Kinist teaching is an implicit denial of our adoption in Christ. It teaches that what God has brought together in Christ must be kept separate by race and culture. And it teaches that blood ties and heredity are more significant than baptism in the Holy Spirit… It regards the fact that we are all sons of God through faith and joint heirs with Christ as less significant than some stupid pagan traditions…
Kinism cannot lead to a Christian culture because it absolutizes race at the expense of God’s law and the Church’s vital unity. It ultimately leads to a humanistic culture by divinizing the white race.
Anyone who has read our writings for more than a few minutes knows that we loudly affirm that we are saved by grace, not race. We have said repeatedly that there is no hope for our race outside of Christ. Schwertley’s grand slander is in teaching that we cherish our ancestors and their “pagan traditions” above Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. What do we have to lose by denying it? We certainly do deny it, and we always have.
As the quote above reveals, Schwertley is blinded by paganism, and he believes that anyone who reveres ancestors and customs and heritage and race must be a pagan in disguise. At 25:10 in this sermon, he says, “In the grand scheme of things, God has absolutely no regard for culture, heritage, blood, or genetic background when faith in Christ is not there.” Yes, faith in Christ is paramount! No, God does have regard for how He created us and arranged our social relations. Alas, everything about our past must be tossed into the incinerator if it happened to coincide with unbelief, says the Heresy-Hunter.
Look at the Celts. Take a guy over to a bog, take an axe, and smash the back of his skull open, push him down into the muck. Boy, what a wonderful culture that is.
This is astonishing. He is saying that everything about the Celts and all the ways in which God blessed them genetically and culturally is wasted, because they were once pagans. The only things worth saving are food and dress, as he repeats again and again. He even mocks the Dutch for believing that they will get special points at the Judgment Day for wearing wooden shoes, as if the Dutch actually believe this. This is ingratitude to God, not piety. He then tries to tar Kinists with the same brush, saying that we revere pagan holy days (even Christmas as a cultural celebration is “garbage”), and this shows that Kinists “have not yet separated themselves from this evil world.”
The lies reach a crescendo:
They ignorantly embrace Celtic and Aryan barbarism as an antidote to one-worldism, socialism, and Third World life, when the gospel…is the only true answer to multiculturalism and a One World Order… They’re teaching syncretism… The Kinist unwittingly places culture before faith, and thus doctrinally offers a pagan cart with no horse…
Explain to me, Mr. Kinist, how something that comes out of rank paganism…tell me how God appreciates that…how that pleases God… God said to obliterate it, get rid of it forever.
You’ve seen how one confused thought leads to another until it ends, effectively, with the sin of refusing to honor a non-Christian parent. We Kinists are Christians, and we have no desire to continue pagan religious beliefs. The difference is that while Schwertley abstracts culture until it is nothing more meaningful than burritos and lederhosen, we revere our ancestors and thank God for giving us an exceptional people and an exceptional land. This is what “came out of rank paganism”: our people. We pray that God will not “obliterate” them or “get rid of them forever.” We pray for a future for our sons and daughters. This is the difference.
Now it’s time to bury the hatchet. Since believing in race is like believing in unicorns, according to Tim Challies, we’ve just sent a case of this luncheon meat to Wisconsin. There’s magic in every bite!
On pages 88 and 89 of R.J. Rushdoony’s The Biblical Philosophy of History can be found an extraordinary quote that is devastating for the Alienist, and especially the theonomic Alienist. It begins with a quote by historian Kenneth Stammp from his book, The Peculiar Institution:
Today we are learning much from the natural and social sciences about the Negro’s potentialities and about the basic irrelevance of race, and we are slowly discovering the roots and meaning of human behavior. All this is of immense value to the historian when, for example, he tries to grasp the significance of the Old South’s “peculiar institution.” I have assumed that the slaves were merely human beings, that innately Negroes are, after all, only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less. This gives quite a new and different meaning to the bondage of black men; it gives their story a relevance to men of all races which it never seemed to have before.
Notice that the liberal historian declares race to be “irrelevant” on the basis of his assumptions and because of what “we are learning” from science.
Liberals are not learning a thing about black men from actually living among black men. No, they are in the process of “discovering,” and in their sterile laboratory of philosophy, “the roots and meaning of human behavior” are being mapped like the genome. The microbiologists who have mapped the human genome provide us with an interesting case study. After all the years spent collecting genetic data on the viruses and cancers that attack the body, we still have no idea how a tumor develops or how many mutations are needed to cause one, or how to vanquish diseases if we did know. Which is another way of saying that we aren’t God. It turns out that abstracting biology can be useful in some ways, but it is a very trivial grasp on the complexities of the human body. Likewise, universalist abstractions about race tell us little to nothing about what gives human beings their identity. As Rushdoony brilliantly observes, abstractions eliminate the very possibility of history. Abstract the man, and the man ceases to exist.
Rush refutes Stammp:
If Negroes are only “white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less,” then, conversely, white men are only Negroes with white skins, nothing more, nothing less. This means that all cultural differences, hereditary predispositions, and historical traditions are irrelevant and meaningless. It means, in other words, that history is meaningless. And how can one be an historian if it is his purpose to deny history?
The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different considerations. Elizabeth E. Hoyt has cited Dr. Simon Biesheuvel’s comparisons, a deliberately extreme contrast, to pinpoint certain cultural ideas, African and Western. From Tennyson’s Ulysses is cited “a typically Western [i.e., White] expression of man’s purpose”:
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bounds of human thought…
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the Western stars, until I die…
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.By contrast, illustrating what Africans call Negritude, is “the following cry from Aimee Cesaire of Martinique”:
Hurray for those who have never invented anything.
Hurray for those who have never explored anything.
Hurray for those who have never conquered anything.
But who in awe give themselves up to the essence of things.
Not intent on conquest, but playing the play of the world.This contrast is an oversimplification, and one designed to be flattering to both races, but it does indicate the reality of racial differences. Men like Stampp would, of course, seek to negate every historical citation of differences as merely “cultural differences.” The men behind the respective cultures are the same men. It is therefore held to be wrong to cite histories against any race.
A more absurd position can scarcely be imagined. If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.
Behold the absurdity of the Alienist! Here we have a historian who renders history meaningless, and all to avoid being called a racist. We all understand the bargain. At the start of our careers, we are each offered thirty pieces of silver. All we have to do is agree to be intellectually dishonest, and the treasure of betrayal will be ours. Most men take the bargain.
Rushdoony’s awareness of “hereditary predispositions” is thoroughly racist, according to Alienists, who believe that race, if it exists at all, is nothing more than skin color. It’s wonderful to see Rushdoony mock the ubiquitous habit of substituting the word “culture” for race. This is an old Alienist trick meant to convey the idea that race doesn’t exist, and culture is solely informed by faith. “Culture is an act of faith,” Schwertley says. We agree that culture is, in part, religion externalized, but it is also informed by genetics, which is why only the blood descendants of those who develop a culture are able and willing to maintain it. Race is a genotype; culture is a phenotype. In the quote above, Rushdoony states plainly what should be obvious to all: that the men of a particular and unique kindred produce a particular and unique culture, and therefore cultural differences come about from racial and ethnic differences. “A more absurd position can scarcely be imagined” than writing the word “race” in quote marks, as though it does not exist, while treating “culture” as worthy of preservation. Such is the folly of the 21st century race-mixing Judeochristian. Rushdoony is correct; this is humanism, not the faith once delivered to the saints.
And then there’s his son:
“To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely… People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” ~ Edmund Burke
“MLK gave you miscegenation due to the hardness of your hearts, but it was not thus from the beginning.” ~ Godefroi
Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, explains what being an American is all about. “The way it works is we are a country guided by ideals of equity, generosity and engagement in our relations with other nations and those philosophical ideals create safe borders…and, God willing, one day the border will become an irrelevancy.” Ideals, not blood. Marxist Jew Michael Lerner spoke at the same meeting. Saddest of all, most “Christians” today would agree with the quote.
Leftist British politician Jack Straw has said publicly what no American politician would dare say, that Pakistani (and other non-white) men view white girls as “easy meat.” Then there was some backtracking by the Prime Minister about how the racial aspect of the lopsided rape cases must not be emphasized, but the point is that the West has said, effectively, we don’t love our own girls, and we have no desire to keep them safe. We’re going to open the borders and turn them into prey for the predators. Here in America, liberals call this “compassion” and the “American Dream,” but it’s pure hatred.
Anthony Bradley leads off this World article with the stupidest question we’ve ever read in print: “How can America have Christian churches and 115,000 orphans?” We are called racists if we don’t open the border and make citizens of everyone who crosses it, and now we are called racists if we don’t “adopt” the bastards produced by the subsidized alien horde! How can we call ourselves Christians?
Then he calls normal, biological, single-race families “idolatrous”:
I wonder what would happen if Christians thought of family beyond its sometimes idolatrous, biological constraints? My guess is that adoption would become a part of normative church culture.
He concludes that “if church leaders would cast a practice-driven vision for orphan care, churchgoers likely would be challenged to participate in one of the most ancient practices of God’s covenant people (Exodus 22; Deuteronomy 14, 16, 24).” Please read these chapters and see if you find anything in them about interracial adoption. The postmodern nonsense megachurch lingo (“cast a practice-driven vision”) is a nice touch, Anthony. Is that anything like leveraging infrastructure or implementing synergies?
“He said since the snake became part of the household, the family’s living conditions had steadily improved and no misfortune had befallen them.”
Let’s play a game of Is It Racist?
In the comments here, there is some info on Indians and the first known occurrences of the word “racism.” In the 1940s, to thank Indians for their help in WWII, the Indian Claims Commission was established. It handed out more than $800 million over the course of 30 years. Alas, transfer payments never end. Obama has backed a U.N. declaration on the rights of “indigenous peoples” which includes a “right to redress” and “restitution” for perceived ills stretching back to when white men first set foot on this continent. “It’s a kind of feel-good document that has so many unclear phrases in it that nobody’s really sure what it means when you agree to it,” says John Bolton. Let the litigation commence! And notice what is granted to Indians, which would be considered “racist” for whites: They are granted the right “to sustain their own political and social systems,” and the “lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned” or used. How wonderful to be “indigenous”! Of course, whites have no privileges at all for being indigenous in Europe, or even for being the first known explorers of America. Better yet, “native peoples” have received official apologies for the “violence, maltreatment and neglect” inflicted on them by U.S. citizens. But whites, who formed this country and government for their own posterity, are to receive no apologies whatsoever from the violent and burdensome diversities who have been given the abundance of the land. Remember that verse about how an Israelite is commanded not to abhor an Egyptian, because of what Egypt did for Israel? We receive no such gratitude.
The funniest part of all is when a director of the Indian Law Resource Center, Armstrong Wiggins, says, “We’re still struggling to overcome our marginalization.” Read our comments on how the “Friends of the Indian” raged against “racism” and “classism” because they too wanted to end the Indian’s “marginalization,” i.e., the protection of Indian tribes and cultures. It was a colossal failure, and every bit of it had to be reversed. The truth is that Indians want to be “marginalized” as long as they can shake down an endless series of payoffs from the American taxpayers. It would not be at all surprising to find that Jews have taught them how to do this, just as they taught blacks. Wiggins reassures us: “We are not saying that native people are going to take back New York City.” Well, that’s a relief. It’s amazing that blood, however tenuous, works to the advantage of some people, but never whites.
Well, you knew it was bound to happen. The latest printing of Huckleberry Finn has been bowdlerized to remove all instances of the words “nigger” and “Injun.” But in this article, the word “nigger” is not printed, and the word “Injun” is. This proves that CNN is guilty of evil racist hatred against Native Americans. It’s the height of silliness to pretend that The Nigger Word is so toxic that the very sight of it is likely to melt a reader’s eyeballs, while blacks themselves are free to use the word liberally. Twain would have been outraged. He said the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. When a printer once took it upon himself to make punctuation changes to A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Twain wrote that he had “given orders for the typesetter to be shot without giving him time to pray.” Huckleberry Finn is one of the greatest triumphs of American literature. “All modern American literature,” Ernest Hemingway once wrote, “comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn.”
A man named Tom Burlington was fired from his job as a Fox TV anchor for using the word “nigger” in the workplace.
He merely questioned whether it would be appropriate to say the word in a story about the NAACP having a funeral for the word. I’m sure you remember when that happened a few years ago, and everyone acted like they were speaking to kindergarteners, because they kept saying “the n-word.” So his question was at least worthy of consideration. But a negress in the meeting acted as though he had proposed a lynching at the company barbecue, and whenever a black person has a fit about something on the job, a white man is soon unemployed.
But it turns out that two black employees use The Nigger Word frequently, and so Mr. Burlington is suing the company for a civil rights violation. The trial begins January 18, and then we’re all going out to the island to play ball.
Liberals love to play word games. Now wetbacks are “undocumented immigrants,” which is like calling shoplifters undocumented customers.
The kings of Ethiopia were called “negus.” Be sure to pronounce it as “niggaz” and not that other way. We’re trying to run a clean operation here.
Opposing African genocide is racist.
The latest Marvel comics venture is about an African Bantu tribe that has invented the world’s most advanced technology and cured cancer. Their king, the “Black Panther,” even gets to lecture Captain America on his moral inferiority. South African whites are the enemies of these Noble Savages, of course. The whites call the blacks “monkeys” and laugh when they die. As you can see, family and tribe and respecting tradition and elders and law is all quite admirable unless you’re white and Christian. When savages, surrounded by idols, say “It is written,” the music swells with moral resolution, but when we say “It is written” in our holy book, we are told that we must treat it as a “living document,” like the Constitution. The series is co-produced by Black Entertainment Television. Just imagine if something called White Entertainment Television existed, and it lampooned blacks in the same way.
Superniggers Jay-Z and Kanye West have a new porn video in which West holds the severed head of a white woman. Other white women are shown hanging from the ceiling or held captive. West is shown in bed with two dead white women. Here’s the cover of the album, which has been banned by Walmart. “Respectable” organizations don’t even flinch at this. Here are the lists of awards received by West and Jay-Z. The number of awards given to “racists” by “respectable” organizations: Zero.
Niggerball continues uninterrupted at Notre Dame. Another beautiful white girl is lost to the pursuit of entertainment at all costs. She could have been the mother of ten thousands, and now she is a footnote in the white race’s descent into madness. God help us.
Here’s another young boy lost, this time to a voter with a welding torch. But it’s not a hate crime, because sometimes “you just got to mug somebody because of your hurt and your pain,” according to Black Panther Quannel X.
Since the earthquake, the birthrate in Haiti has tripled because of rape. Clearly, we need to have more money taken from our paychecks to solve this disaster, but it won’t bring to Haiti the two things that white people had when they were all “racists”: the bonds of community and the rule of law.
“Men of both races may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.” ~ President Warren Harding
Down Australia way, whites are being taught that they are but “mutants” of black people. “Our original ancestral configuration as a species was dark pigmentation, that is our heritage,” says evolutionist and Penn State anthropologist Nina Jablonski.
Alice Roberts admires the “first European,” O.J. Simpson.
Our good friend Winston Smith has made the excellent point that it has been four years since Channon Christian and Chris Newsom were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered. There has not been a word of it in the news. But every July 7, we’re reminded that James Byrd was murdered.
And as you probably know by now, our friend Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance have been smeared by the Department of Homeland Security for being “possibly linked” to the Loughner murders in Arizona based on nothing more than the fact that Taylor wants white people to survive, and the allegation that Loughner linked to some Amren videos. Merely linking to something produced by Amren is enough to prove guilt by assocation, according to officials of the U.S. government. The leaked memo warns: “[Amren's] ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic.” Taylor writes: “This is so hopelessly wrong that it is hard to believe it is a genuine government document.” Just as laughable, the memo asserts that the murdered “Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government.” Yes, the name Giffords is misspelled too. Taylor called DHS this morning, demanding an explanation, and was told to call back on Monday! DHS appears to keep banker’s hours, but the spreading of lies goes around the clock.
It’s unfortunate that frivolous slander of this sort puts the one accused on the defensive, and the first thing he does is roll out all the evidence showing that “we cannot possibly be described as anti-Semitic.” There are the Jews who speak at Amren conferences, of course, although they are mercifully few in number. And, oh yeah: “Even Mark Potok of the SPLC was quoted today as saying, ‘Jared Taylor is not an anti-Semite.’” When falsely accused, a man feels the need to trot out the most vile specimens of humanity in order to prove his innocence, which only gives the evil scum credibility.
And the reason this defensiveness is deemed plausible is because no one really believes that justice survives in this polyglot pseudo-nation. Just as everyone knows that Burlington’s civil rights were violated, everyone knows that his chance of winning in court is slim. For Jared, trial is already underway in the Jew-media. They are writing that Loughner “may have been influenced by a pro-white racist organization,” which is another way of saying “that Jared Taylor wrote something on, say, genetic differences or mass immigration that inspired Loughner to take bloody action.” And of course, it conveys the Communist idea that being “pro-white” is the same as being “racist,” which wolves in sheep’s clothing like Brian Schwertley will gladly affirm. “DHS is, essentially, making a ‘hate speech’ accusation; Jared is accused of ‘inspiring racial hatred’ by publishing things that the government, media, and academia have deemed out of bounds. The factual accuracy and even specific nature of what Jared wrote is immaterial.” The reader immediately makes the connection that being pro-white is synonymous with murder. Meanwhile, leftist attacks on Giffords are not considered “hate.”
Every pro-white conservative out there knew that the DHS, which was formed in the aftermath of 9/11, would have nothing to do with protecting us from Islamic terrorists. The government’s perceived enemy is us. And all of this ties in with fools like Brian Schwertley and other slanderers. They have bought into the lies of the Left and have volunteered to be a sort of baptized stasi, persecuting the faithful and driving them into the coliseums for the sport of the depraved. They have tried to blot us and their own fathers out of the Lamb’s Book of Life just as Stalinists shopped their political rivals out of state photographs.
Christians who have their heads buried in their Bibles or are waiting for some new revelation from God need to wake up and smell the sulfur. The Church of Jesus Christ is being attacked today, not on this or that point of theology, but through the white race. The enemies of Christ are convinced that if our race can be destroyed, the Church on earth will likely be destroyed with it. It is severely disappointing to see Christians themselves participating in their own destruction.
Thank you! Excellent response to Schwertley… though the real shame is that so many in the pews accept his type of shallow BS as serious biblical thought.
Great job once again!
The murdering ministers have come and like all ‘gatherers and sharers’, levellers and liquidators of reactionary elements they seize upon some aspect of the holy faith (here, a perversion of the Christian mission to regenerate the natural order in Christ) and use this as a cloak for their crimes. In their bizarro world devoid of grace – they have taken the Great Commission as a mandate to destroy.
What these people all hate about God’s creation are the qualities and distinctions of reality. There is order, precedence, hierarchy, quality and peculiarity in the natural order created by God. It is this order (and not some human idolatry or ideal) that is to be regenerated, raised and sanctified in grace – not done away with.
Our Lord commenced his ministry with his own people by family (House and lineage of David), by tribe (Judah), by nation (Israelite). None of this was erased or subsumed. Rather it became the pattern and pre-figurement of the catholic Church as the order of new creation that can embrace all nations, tribes, kindreds and families. And in history we see a hierarchy and precedence among the regenerate – some by nation, some by tribe, some by clan, some by family, some as individuals – exactly as in our Lord’s parable of the Sower.
But it is the parable of the Syro-Phoenecian woman that illustrates this point with charm, pathos, wit and humour.
Our Lord was most emphatic that his mission was to the lost sheep of Israel. Yet he was importuned by the Syro-Phoenician who saw in him the Saviour of all people. And not content with a mere pious perception, she comes forward and requests a miracle of him. Well. You know, this is women – not as we might like them to be; but as they are.
And our Lord (who created women) does not let this opportunity pass. He refuses her in a way that gets in one of his best digs at The Tradition of the Elders. I can see him now pulling this v stern Pharisaical face as he tells her that it is not meet to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs – the goyim.
He is teasing her. And he knows very well that he is going to grant her request – because he is indeed, the Saviour who has come to the world that God so loved.
In this parable, he casts a gentile woman of extra-ordinary faith in a supporting role. One of the reasons he does this is to distinguish Himself as the Messiah awaited by faithful Israel, from the messiah awaited by the perversion of Israel – the Pharisaical sect to whom the goyim are dogs, cattle, whores, abominations, little abominations etc.
This hateful racism is what has been imposed upon the White race – which alone in its nations converted to the Christian faith. A rabbinic spell has been put upon us. (Probably all that kosher food).
No one except Whites seem to have this death wish. The Irish Savant says “I’ve ofter wondered why the West or the White race (to be more specific) is alone in seeking atonement for its various sins and omissions. (And trust me on this one, we are alone).
The short answer to this is the post Christian racial nihilism.
Don’t miss The Irish Savant’s file on “mad judge disease”.
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/search/label/mad%20judge%20disease.
You raise an interesting question in my mind. I wonder if the solely-white obsession with repenting of politically-incorrect “sins” is a perversion of the white race’s historic penitence, in the same way that tortured elves become orcs in Tolkien’s books.
It’s true, whites are alone in their leftist sophistry, and in a hideous way, this can remind us that we were once a race of covenant-keepers.
Now the lying preachers, who are supposed to lead the charge in baptizing the nations, “have taken the Great Commission as a mandate to destroy,” as you say. This is why it is observed above that we have very different definitions of good and evil. And when this happens, there is slim hope that one side will ever convince the other.
It reminds me of what our friend Bret has said about multiracialism and multiculturalism being a perverted sort of kinism. They have been trained to deny their own kin, but their habitual need for kinship forces them to substitute the Other. And since kinship is by nature exclusive, they tend to get belligerent when someone tries to lead them back to the true sheepfold.
“Blacks in America are the most professedly Christian people on earth, and this is not a recent development.”
I have read this stereotype often, and I frankly find it hard to be believe it of being literally true. Surely there are peoples more pious than American Blacks in both word as well as in deed (also in Africa).
Here is a telling statistic on how American Blacks are very under-represented in one vital area of Christian religion – missionary work:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=928270&postcount=52
“Estimates reveal African Americans represent less than one percent of all full-time missionaries from the U.S. Richard Coleman, a black evangelical leader and expert on missions, is challenging black churches to confront their longstanding lack of world missions’ outreach.
“It’s kind of sad to see that trend,” he admits. “Our organization has about 200 missionaries, and we probably have less than five African Americans — and believe it or not, that’s a very high percentage for the average traditional sending agency.”"
Blacks are about 13 % of US population, and the fact that they are more frequent church-goers than Whites only makes this disparity even more startling, for one would think that people who go to church more would be MORE eager to spread the Gospel and not less. One cannot avoid getting the impression that American Blacks in general are more interested in “what the church can do for them, rather than what they can do for the church”.
Correct. The emphasis is on “professed.” When polled, blacks usually claim to be Christians at a higher rate than whites. Whites all say to themselves, “If they’re really Christians, why don’t they act like it?” It doesn’t take much digging to find that most blacks view Christianity as a cosmic pinata, which is how all pagans view their religions. Even when whites fall away from the faith, they remain “haunted” by it, as Flannery O’Connor said. Their guilt is bred in the bone, which leads to the mighty-white liberalism that was mentioned – a desire to cure the world’s ills with someone else’s money.
B.S. said,
“They ignorantly embrace Celtic and Aryan barbarism as an antidote to one-worldism, socialism, and Third World life, when the gospel…is the only true answer to multiculturalism and a One World Order…
Bret responds,
Say What?
Their version of the Gospel would likewise build a One world order. The only difference between the pagan multiculturalists and the Christian alienists is that the pagan one world order would be pagan and the one world order of the Christian would be “Christian.” However, they are both seeking to build a one world order that is reflective of the respective Unitarian gods they serve. It is only the Kinist who is seeking a Christian order that reflect both Unity and Diversity. Where is Diversity in the Alienist One world order?
Bret, a couple of things were left out of the sermon review, and they pertain to your question of how Schwertley comprehends diversity.
He acknowledges at one point that there will be multiple races in eternity, but they’ll all be in one city, the New Jerusalem. This is so literalistic that it made my eyes roll, but it seems that he views the NJ as a polyglot city like Antioch, where everyone is mishmashed together. And whereas we view life in Antioch or New York City to be abnormal, B.S. views it as the apex of holiness. I hesitate to even comment on this, because any attempt to describe what heaven will be like is bound to fall flat, but what the heck?
Revelation 21 tells us that “the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into” the city. People go in and out, and the gates are always open. “The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.” At the risk of oversimplifying, this sounds a lot like a heavenly tribalism, but with a unity that we can’t begin to grasp. It’s the perfection of earthly Kinism. If not, why are there multiple nations and kings? (I know this is one of the themes you hammer frequently.)
When B.S. says there will be multiple races in heaven, he means it will look like a scene from one of those Matrix movies, not that the races which God formed by His own providence will continue.
In another place, he praises those who leave their own people, because it demonstrates their faithfulness. He says: “Abraham was a bad Kinist because he didn’t stay with his country.” He says the same was true for Rahab and Ruth. “Their faith took precedence over their blood.” Amazing! We all know that faith is more important than blood, and obedience is better than sacrifice. We Kinists are simply saying that blood is important too, and if it’s not important, what is a family? B.S. is saying that blood is not important at all, and any fondness for it should be discarded like the relics of paganism. In other words, the way to make it into the Faith Hall of Fame in Hebrews 11 is to be a Gnostic, which the people listed there were not.
And again, with this “paganism” accusation being slung back and forth – it is worth pointing out that not ALL forms of paganism make an idol of race or blood and soil. Some pagans are so far from idolizing “flesh and blood” that they despise the very concept of material world. (Gnostics sought to smuggle this attitude within Christianity.)
In Oriental ascetic thought, what is usually seen as the peculiar glory of women – giving birth to new life – becomes their shame. Because bodily existence is EVIL (or a mere pointless illusion), the women are to be blamed for breeding more misery to this rotten material world!
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66845&highlight=yasodhara
“Why this unnatural birth? Because in Buddhism all the female qualities — menstrual blood, feminine sexuality, conception, pregnancy, the act of childbirth, indeed even a woman’s glance or smile — were from the outset considered not to be indicators of the joys of life; rather, in contrast, human life — in the words of Buddha — ultimately exhausts itself in sickness, age and death. It proves itself to be an existence without constancy, as an unenduring element.
Life as such, with its constant change and variety, stands opposed in unbearable contrast to eternity and the unity of the spirit. With the abundance of being it tries to soil the “pure emptiness” of consciousness, to scatter the unity of the spirit with its diversity, or — in the words of the best-known contemporary Buddhist cultural theorist, the American Ken Wilber — the “biosphere” (the sphere of life) drags the “noosphere” (the sphere of the spirit) down to a lower evolutionary level.
Human life in all its weakness is thus a lean period to be endured along the way to the infinite (“It were better I had never been born”), and woman, who brings forth this wretched existence, functions as the cause of suffering and death.”
…
“In early Buddhism, as in medieval Christian culture, the human body as such, but in particular the female body, was despised as a dirty and inferior thing, as something highly imperfect, that was only superficially beautiful and attractive. In order to meditate upon the transience of all being, the monks, in a widespread exercise, imagined a naked woman. This so-called “analytic meditation” began with a “perfect” and beautiful body, and transformed this step by step into an old, diseased, and dying one, to end the exercise by picturing a rotting and stinking corpse. The female body, as the absolute Other, was meditatively murdered and dismembered as a symbol of the despised world of the senses. Sexual fascination and the irritations of murderous violence are produced by such monastic practices. We return later to historical examples in which monks carried out the dismemberment of women’s bodies in reality.
There are startling examples in the literature which show how women self-destructively internalized this denigration of their own bodies. “The female novice should hate her impure body like a jail in which she is imprisoned, like a cesspool into which she has fallen”, demands an abbess of young nuns. (Faure, 1994, p. 29)”
That’s fascinating. But is it true that medieval Christians were very often Buddhist in their thinking about spirit and matter?
Our friend Dan wrote something recently that relates to what I was saying earlier about liberal pseudo-kinship. Japheth’s enlargement has been perverted into a “messiah complex.” The white liberal must crucify and mortify his flesh to redeem the diversities and allow them to be “born again” in the white man’s image. Under the old covenant, there was a scapegoat that bore the wrath of the law. Now the white man volunteers to be this scapegoat, and the diversities eagerly pour out their fury upon him. This becomes a perverted atonement for both sides.
Basically, pagans usually seem to have a manic-depressive attitude towards this world, swinging from one extreme to another – they lack the Christian golden mean of “being in this world but not of it”.
In their MANIC phase pagans are unconditional and uncritical in their worldliness, but when things start going wrong (either they get crushed politically or grow tired of empty fleeting pleasures), they enter their DEPRESSIVE phase where they become Buddhists or Gnostics or Schopenhauerians, and start enthusing for universal suicide (or murder-suicide). The old pagan goals of wine and women get replaced by euthanasia and nirvana, Eros is taken over by Thanatos (see Proverbs 8:36).
Always remember that paganism is represented not only by lusty warlike Wotan, but also by bored and indifferent Epicurus. In his poem “Modern Manichee”, G.K. Chesterton described a depressive-phase pagan as “still a heathen, but no longer merry.”
I would posit that much of modern Western suicidal mentality derives not from Christianity but from terminal Epicurean fatigue that produces people who no longer believe or feel that anything in this world is really worth fighting or suffering for, especially some long-term goal beyond one’s own personal earthly existence.
“But is it true that medieval Christians were very often Buddhist in their thinking about spirit and matter?”
Not exactly – I would say that even within Christian monasticism, such attitudes that were mainstream within Buddhism remained in the extreme fringes. Doctrines that were and are normal in Buddhism were only eccentric or heretical opinions among medieval Christians.
But Gnosticism that sought to depict Christ as a mere fleshless, unreal Avatar- or Bodhisattva-figure did attack the church from very early on:
http://www.theopedia.com/Docetism
“”While the apostles were still surviving, while Christ’s blood was still fresh in Judea, the Lord’s body was asserted to be but a phantasm.” – Jerome”
“So a mentally ill, left-wing Jew shoots a Congresswoman and the mainstream media tries to pin the blame on the Tea Party, on right-wing White Gentiles and on the pro-White movement. This should be a good reminder to everyone to be suspicious of the mainstream media.”
http://www.davidduke.com/general/arizona-shooter-jared-loughner-is-jewish_22234.html
‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’
Rabbi Dov Lior rules that Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from getting pregnant using non-Jewish man’s sperm, as it causes adverse traits. On subject of single mothers he says, ‘Child cannot be 100% normal’
Kobi Nahshoni
Published: 01.12.11, 08:30
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4006385,00.html
Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.
According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the “negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews.” Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.
Lior addressed the issue during a women’s health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.
“Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son,” he said in the lecture. “If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel.”
Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. “A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren’t raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it’s genetic,” he explained. “If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.
“I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it’s no surprise that he won’t have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel,” he added.
‘Kids born to single moms become criminals’
Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another – a major halachic violation.
On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.
“Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree,” he lamented. “The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree.” Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.
Moreover, the rabbi spoke against single women getting pregnant.
“We can understand the desire of every woman to have a child, but according to our Torah it is impossible to address the demand of a certain woman when it can cause someone else suffering,” he said.
“If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal.” He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as “criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena.”
I have found the poem I mentioned, G.K. Chesterton’s “THE MODERN MANICHEE”.
Among other things, this piece shows how matter-despising ideology that feels totally alienated from physical nature (and yet can be easily mixed with Darwinism, btw) finally becomes a perfect expression of the Anti-Fifth Commandment – our parents and ancestors are to be blamed rather than honored for having brought us to this pointless world of misery…
One nihilistic medieval Arab poet had the following inscribed to his tombstone: “My father committed a wrong against me (that is, by spawning me) – I have not committed wrong towards anyone (that is, I have not spawned any children).”
To heathen minds like this, the Old Testament prophetical lamentation “Cursed be the day I was born! May the day my mother bore me not be blessed!” was not just an occasional rhetorical expression but literally what they constantly felt.
Here’s the poem – and btw, some ancient Manichaean texts actually expressed the morbid detestation of material world even more grossly than Chesterton does in this piece:
“He sayeth there is no sin, and all his sin
Swells round him into a world made merciless;
The midnight of his universe of shame
Is the vast shadow of his shamelessness.
He blames all that begat him, gods or brutes,
And sires not sons he chides with as with a rod.
The sins of the children visited on the fathers
Through all generations, back to a jealous God.
The fields that heal the humble, the happy forests
That sing to men confessed and men consoled,
To him are jungles only, greedy and groping,
Heartlessly new, unvenerably old.
Beyond the pride of his own cold compassion
Is only cruelty and imputed pain:
Matched with that mood, a boy’s sport in the forest
Makes comrades of the slayer and the slain.
The innocent lust of the unfallen creatures
Moves him to hidden horror but no mirth;
Misplaced morality rots in the roots unconscious,
His stifled conscience stinks through the green earth.
The green things thrust like horrible huge snails,
Horns green and gross, each lifting a leering eye
He scarce can call a flower; it lolls obscene,
Its organs gaping to the sneering sky.
Dark with that dusk the old red god of gardens,
Still pagan but not merry any more,
Stirs up the dull adulteries of the dust,
Blind, frustrate, hopeless, hollow at the core;
The plants are brutes tied with green rope and roaring
Their terrible dark loves from tree to tree:
He shrinks as from a shaft, if by him singing,
A gilded pimp and pandar, goes the bee.
He sayeth: “I have no sin; I cast the stone,”
And throws his little pebble at the shrine,
Casts sin and stone away against the house
Whose health has turned earth’s waters into wine.
The venom of that repudiated guilt
Poisons the sea and every natural flood
As once a wavering tyrant washed his hands,
And touching, turned the water black with blood.”
That’s very good, especially the first two lines. On the flip side, I can’t shake the feeling that the merry pagans are more consistent than the Christians of today who are so theoretical, abstract, and Gnostic that they have lost what made the pagans merry. I think this is what C.S. Lewis was getting at when he wrote about Bacchus in the Chronicles of Narnia.
I actually would deny that Schwertley made a misrepresentation of the kinist objection to the alienist argument from 1 Cor. 7:39. It seemed that he constructed the argument correctly…and then futilely replied to it.
After Schwertley mentioned that being Christian is insufficient to deem someone a suitable marriage partner — because, for instance, a Christian son cannot marry his Christian mother — his counterargument against was, basically, “Yeah, well, that counterargument works because the Bible forbids incest, but it doesn’t forbid interracial marriage.”
…which is to say that he abandoned the argument from 1 Cor. 7:39, conceded that the kinist response to the argument is irrefutable, and now must try to locate an alienist argument on separate grounds.
Correct.
There’s a denomination and college headquartered in Georgia which officially denounced Kinism in general during a board meeting by saying simply that it contradicts 1 Cor. 7:39. The chairman ignored the dissenting voters who raised the obvious point that if this verse is THE proof text against Kinism then a great many things are allowable which the Bible elsewhere forbids, such as Christian incest.
Schwertley at least has the sense to know that anyone who wants to prove that Kinism is a heresy had better do his homework, even though he himself didn’t come close to pulling it off.
Below is Augustine’s description of how a Manichaean convinced a confused Christian that the material world was the work of the devil, “lord of the flies”.
(In the modern version of this story, it is claimed that the Nature-demiurge – many Darwinian writers blatantly personify nature – created all the creatures on its own, and nature is thus mere beastliness devoid of any divine spiritual imprint or purpose.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.ii.html
“14. Therefore, let no one deceive you, when perchance you suffer annoyance from flies. For some have been mocked by the devil, and taken with flies. As fowlers are accustomed to put flies in their traps to deceive hungry birds, so these have been deceived with flies by the devil.
Some one or other was suffering annoyance from flies; a Manichæan found him in his trouble, and when he said that he could not bear flies, and hated them exceedingly, immediately the Manichæan said, “Who made them?” And since he was suffering from annoyance, and hated them, he dared not say, “God made them,” though he was a Catholic. The other immediately added, “If God did not make them, who made them?” “Truly,” replied the Catholic, “I believe the devil made them.” And the other immediately said, “If the devil made the fly, as I see you allow, because you understand the matter well, who made the bee, which is a little larger than the fly?”
The Catholic dared not say that God made the bee and not the fly, for the case was much the same. From the bee he led him to the locust; from the locust to the
12lizard; from the lizard to the bird; from the bird to the sheep; from the sheep to the cow; from that to the elephant, and at last to man; and persuaded a man that man was not made by God.
Thus the miserable man, being troubled with the flies, became himself a fly, and the property of the devil. In fact, Beelzebub, they say, means “Prince of flies;” and of these it is written, “Dying flies deprive the ointment of its sweetness.”22″
Thank you for the excerpt, Petr.
I’ve not to this point considered how the present racial nihilism among whites is Manichaean. I have understood its nefarious Gnosticism, but the Manichaean implication pretty clearly follows.
This ties to the point in the article made by McAtee: the alienists cannot escape the formal principle of natural affections, and so they define the material content of their natural affections as the alien rather than their own kinsman. Similarly, the racial nihilist cannot just ignore his own race (Gnosticism); he must indeed treat it as evil (Manichaeism).
Interesting, Schwertley calls us racists (uncle Leon’s term) while using the racial insult “cracker” to describe Southern whites. Oh well, there’s nothing like bashing the Dixie subhumans to be trendy and oh so worldly wise.
The anti-kinists accuse us of idolatry, even as they bow down to their goddess Equality. They accuse us of heresy, as they claim in gnostic New-Age fashion that the spiritual totally negates the physical–a notion that effectively denies the Incarnation of Christ if carried to its logical conclusion.
No matter how many times we try to explain that distinctions and strong fences make good neighbors, they reply in Marxist fashion that men cannot love each other unless all are made the same in the bosom of Equality.
What is it that they don’t understand about Acts 17:26-27 where Paul says that God make the nations (peoples distinct in racial character and culture) and divided them so that they will seek after God?
On the issue of interracial marriage, they tell us that we cannot condemn any marriages where the parties are Christians–unless the Bible explicitly says so. No inferences are allowed. Really? Then we can’t condemn a Christian man and two Christian women who want to call themselves husband and wives?
The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-kinists don’t have an effective case. Let them call us what they like. We raise legitimate issues, and we’re not going away.
A major problem I have with the whole alienist position is not just the incorrectness of their arguments, but the desperation in which they are delivered.
See above where they guy says “they have to repent or be excommunicated. It’s that bad.”
Repent of what? Loving their own kind? What does that say about Moses and Paul? That they were proto-Nazi heretics?
Further, does this mean that a white’s faith in the Lord is only valid if a black person approves? No other result can logically follow from their arguments.
I guess the entire earth was in a state of horrible sin before 1960, and only now does anything close to the truth exist?
How does it feel to be an alienist, and to know that because black validation/supremacy is a requirement of their religion, it was not founded by God, but by Leon Trotsky?
KH, one of the most remarkable things is that the “heresy” consists entirely of something that is believed, not of something that has been done. I can’t imagine an example of another belief in our time that would be considered such a threat that preachers would make not just one sermon but many calling for the excommunication of the believers. This tells you all you need to know about our effectiveness. They’re quite scared, as they should be. From this point forward, it only gets worse for them.
“I can’t imagine an example of another belief in our time that would be considered such a threat that preachers would make not just one sermon but many calling for the excommunication of the believers.”
I can’t either. One can deny key theological doctrines and half the confession and still be a member in good standing. That is precisely why I think the churches -all of them- are now, willingly or not, mouthpieces of Communism. Not to change the topic or throw a bomb, but as an example I have followed somewhat loosely the Federal Vision controversy in the PCA. FV goes right to the heart of the Reformation doctrines of the gospel. Kinism does not. The Joint Federal Vision Profession of Faith affirms falling from grace in denial of the perseverance of the saints and baptismal regeneration. Kinism does not, in my understanding. Whether or not any one here agrees with FV, it is contrary to the Westminster Standards, and is that not the legal definition of heresy? But one after another presbytery has affirmed it. How would a Kinist be prosecuted in a church court, if there is an honest one left? Upon what grounds would charges be brought? Yet this much energy is spent attacking what every Protestant believed until the past few decades. I want to know what agenda these pastors have? Why so hell-bent on amalgamation? Who do they work for?
If anyone harms any Kinist, it will be because of Schwertley’s heated, divisive, corrosive, toxic judeoxtian rhetoric. Didn’t he listen to Obama’s speech in Tucson?
Right, there are many theological disagreements, but I have searched in vain to find a similar example of a theological divide in which a minority of believers today are being persecuted for agreeing with the vast majority of Christians from ages past. I realize that the Alienists try to argue that our fathers didn’t really agree with us, but at best, the arguments skirt around the edges. It’s NOT arguable that the Kinists of today and the Christians of the past agreed on racial differences and the need to keep races separate to a healthy degree.
Winston, this is a very good point. This Loughner business and the fallout on Jared Taylor and “racists” proves that the Left (aided by their Judeochristian accomplices) are provoking violence and terror against conscientious objectors to the spirit of the age. It’s shameful.
This is hilarious.
http://theonomist.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10
Every jot and tittle. Except that one.
“Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing , that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: “In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Gal 8:7,8 DRV
Nations / ethne. Not geopolitical conglomerates. Theonomist.org thinks to nullify the blessing by expunging the subject of the Abrahamic blessing. And so cares not a jot for our Lord’s promise: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For amen, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” Gospel according to St Matt 5:17,18.
Nations built up of families, clans, tribes, kindreds are the subjects and intended recipients of the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.
It is the Tradition of the Elders in all its odious works, false piety and implacable opposition to the Covenants which seeks to nullify the law, the prophets and the Evangel.
I just now finished reading Cambria’s essay “The Tide Rises” (Jan 8, 2011)
http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com.
I dare say a lot of people read Cambria for those ‘white moments’ of which he speaks.
Such a one is most certainly that Old Welsh poem he quotes at the conclusion of “The Tide Rises”:
Christ of the prophesied cross, who knows me will guide me
Past hell, the painful isolated abode.
The Creator who created me will receive me
Among the pure people, the folk of Enli.
Now doesn’t that just call to the mind’s eye the crossroads of the bye-ways of Cymry marked with the stone crosses by the holy wells? And always a stand of elder by the flowing stream. Ys gawen y gors – the wayfaring tree. Nearby the quiet churchyards and ruined abbeys among the fields of daffodils and day lillies. If you walk through the cemeteries in the fields of the lillies, you come across so many gravestones which simply read:
‘Gus an breach an la’ – ‘until break of day’
From the Song of Songs: Deus, Dues meus – ad te de luce vigilo. God, my God – unto Thee do I watch until break of day’.
So many saints laid to rest in those fields. They will be in the Riding of the King. Apoc 19: 11- 16.
Hmmm. . .falling for lies that proclaim the truth a heresy. . .isn’t that called “apostasy”?
When will they get around to calling pedocommunion “Kidism” and proclaiming it a heresy?
Re: theonomist.com
Pardon the crude language, but I’d like to see just how big their theological nads are. I want to see them denounce Michael “Martin Luther” King, Jr. as a heretic. After all, King denied the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Christ’s Deity, and other Christian doctrines that are ironclad set-in-stone inarguable fundamentals of the Faith. They would probably take King’s writings in which he clearly rejects those doctrines, and they would go through some hideous rhetorical contortions and conclude that he didn’t REALLY “deny” those tenets, but that his thinking was “nuanced”.
Good points.
I have a theory that poetry doesn’t work unless it’s rooted in the physical. I don’t think it’s possible to write a good poem that speaks of God’s attributes directly, since they are mysterious to us. Instead, we write about ourselves and our kin and nature, and it gives us God’s reflection. It’s like in Exodus 33, when Moses asked to see God’s glory. God replied, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” God’s “back” was shown to Moses instead. So we use anthropomorphisms to describe God, as is done in perhaps the greatest poem in the English language, The Hound of Heaven.
The guy that runs theonomist.com has no theological nads: http://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman
It’s yet another site for PC alienists to discuss the non-offensive topics such as cuddly kittens or Michael Bolton songs all the while praising one another. The few Kinists that have joined will be run off soon.
“They accuse us of heresy, as they claim in gnostic New-Age fashion that the spiritual totally negates the physical–a notion that effectively denies the Incarnation of Christ if carried to its logical conclusion.”
It is indeed well to remember that this emphasis on the true humanity, true “coming in the flesh” of Jesus Christ is just what gloriously separated Christianity from the impotent ghostly mysticism of Greek philosophy and Hindu pantheism – and that the basic goal modern apostate “liberal Christianity” has been to make the faith more ecumenically compatible with both Greek rationalism and Oriental irrationalism:
http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/christianityacause.html
“41. Mainstream Christianity could never accept the fundamental unreality of matter or the material world because Jesus became a material, fleshy Being through the incarnation (John 1:1-2, 14).
Those who thought Jesus was just a spirit being who just appeared to be a man–the gnostics generally–were condemned in the strongest possible terms by orthodox Christians, including the apostle John. For example, II John 7 says: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Or, we have I John 1:1: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life . . .”
Further, unlike Hinduism and its myths, Christianity is a religion based upon the reality of certain historical facts, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t really matter, to the Hindu mind, whether Krishna really did anything as described in a Hindu holy book, but Christianity is a hopeless religion if Jesus didn’t really exist, didn’t really die, or didn’t really arise from the dead. As Paul said (I Cor. 15:13-15): “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ.”
This fundamental difference between Judeo-Christianity as based on historical fact that it is potentially falsifiable is very different from the metaphysical speculation of various pagan myths, whether Hindu or Greek.”
I also find it ominous or omenous that both flesh-denying pantheistic mysticism (“inner light”) and dogmatic anti-racism have been pioneered within Christendom by the sect of Quakers – I have studied this issue:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=876103&postcount=41
“Nay, I could shew wherein the Jews own more of Christ then the Quakers own; for the Quakers would make nothing of Christ but moral virtues. “What is Christ” (says W. Penn) “but Meekness, Justice, Mercy, Patience”, &c. Address to Protestants, pag. 119. where also he declares moral men to be Christians; and you see before, he calls it a deadly Poison to make any distinction between Christian and Moral. Thus the Quakers are forced upon this shift to allow moral heathens, Turks and Jews to be Christians, because they have no other way in the world to prove themselves Christians; there is only this difference, the Jews and Infidels are the better, as being more free from deceit, because they make no pretence to Christianity, and the Quakers do.”
See here an example of a Quaker “pious fraud” for the cause of anti-racism:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=933501&postcount=11
I have a friend who was brought up a Quaker. He tells me that most of them are radical lefties. All, of course, are “anti-racists,” except when the race in question is La Raza–which they adore.
On another topic. Something I keep thinking about is the claim of the Christian Babelists that faith is the only proper dividing line among human beings. Well if that is true, then shouldn’t they join with the secular left and work for world government? After all, how can you be patriotic when your allegiance and loyalty can only be to Christians, wherever they may be?
In time I’m sure they will draw this conclusion, and march in even closer step with the New World Order.
That’s an excellent point, Luther. They might as well be true to themselves and unite with others who are like them. The country where they happen to live is purely coincidental.
Re: theonomy.com
“Kinism is *a* heresy”
Watch out folks! They are sharp over there.
“Well if that is true, then shouldn’t they join with the secular left and work for world government? After all, how can you be patriotic when your allegiance and loyalty can only be to Christians, wherever they may be?”
To be fair, in that case they would have to give up even the semblance of orthodox Christianity. For one thing, orthodox Leftists will not tolerate the division of mankind to Christians and non-Christians (or saints and reprobates, sheeps and goats). Such “sectarianism” will not be allowed! Anti-kinists would have to give up their special Christian prejudices in that regard.
Another major point: they would have to co-operate with utilitarian hedonists whose moral calculus would allow for things like abortion and euthanasia. This again would be a stumbling-block for any person with genuine remaining Christian sentiments.