This is absolutely amazing. Peter Lightweight writes that his Alienist interpretation of Galatians 3:28, in which “the boundaries of the old world have been shattered in Christ,” forming “a single human race,” was also Alexander the Great’s vision of the world.
But the Bible says nothing about “Scythian, barbarian, Hellene, Roman, and Jew” being forged “into a single people” physically, as Alexander desired. Alexander wanted Greeks and Persians to intermarry because he thought the mixed offspring would form a ruling class that would broaden his kingdom and erase ancient blood bonds. According to Bosworth, “Two motives are given – to reduce his troops’ longing for domestic life in Macedonia and to create an army of mixed race whose only home was the camp.” He had the ultimate goal of merging Europe and Asia, but the 10,000 mixed marriages that Alexander authorized lasted scarcely a year.
Through force of arms, Alexander was the dictator of the world for a short time (he died at age 33). The book of Daniel foretells, 250 years before Alexander was born, that “there was no one who could rescue from his power; he did as he pleased and magnified himself.” Yet his kingdom was divided in four parts after his death, as Daniel prophesied. It was not even a divided kingdom at that point. It was no kingdom at all.
Now read Leithart’s approving quote of Plutarch:
[Alexander] brought together into one body all men everywhere, uniting and mixing in one great loving-cup, as it were, men’s lives, their characters, their marriages, their very habits of life. He bade them all consider as their fatherland the whole inhabited earth, as their stronghold and protection his camp, as akin to them all good men, and as foreigners only the wicked; they should not distinguish between Grecian and foreigner by Grecian cloak and targe, or scimitar and jacket; but the distinguishing mark of the Grecian should be seen in virtue, and that of the foreigner in iniquity; clothing and food, marriage and manner of life they should regard as common to all, being blended into one by ties of blood and children.
This is what Leithart thinks the gospel does as well! He believes that it mixes all peoples together, allowing them to intermarry, erasing their nationhood, so that the whole earth is considered their country and the whole human race their tribe. But compare what you’ve just read to what John Calvin taught us:
[Calvin] abominated “mixture,” one of the most pejorative terms in his vocabulary; mixture in any area of experience suggested to him disorder and unintelligibility. He had absorbed deeply not only the traditional concern for cosmic purity of a culture that had restricted mixture to the sublunary realm but also various Old Testament prohibitions. Mixture, for Calvin, connoted “adulteration” or “promiscuity,” but it also set off in him deep emotional and metaphysical reverberations. He repeatedly warned against “mixing together things totally different.” “When water is mixed with fire,” he observed, “both perish”…
The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should therefore remain within the space assigned to them, a painful thought for an exile. “Just as there are in a miltary camp separate lines for each platoon and section,” Calvin observed, “men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.” In this manner, he concluded, “God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.” He sometimes conceived of Scripture itself as a God-given system of boundaries imposed on human existence…
The only Christians who still agree with Calvin on this point are Kinists. It’s now common for race-mixing “Christians” to refer to believers as their kin, and to unbelievers as foreigners. Cultures, customs, and languages are likewise to be dissolved into an urban soup. Leithart writes:
When the earthquake of Alexander’s conquests ended and the rubble was cleared away, the peoples of the Mediterranean discovered, to their astonishment, that he had left behind a new, cosmopolitan type of human.
He believes this to be a precursor of the “single human race” effected by the gospel. The “new, cosmopolitan type of human” is what allowed Rome to be more powerful than Greece, and to accommodate a larger population, he writes. But again, turn to the book of Daniel, where Rome is described as brittle, like iron mixed with clay. It was strong in terms of conquering enemies but weak in terms of uniting the subjugated peoples.
That’s because they were still racists, writes Leithart.
Tribal consciousness of course remained strong among pagans. Blood and ancestry and tradition were still powerful social forces. In important ways, though, barriers started crumbling centuries before the cross, during the time when Israel, bearer of the Abrahamic promise, was forcibly sown among the nations.
He believes that the gospel sweeps away “tribal consciousness,” “blood,” “ancestry,” and “tradition.” He mistakes these for the covenantal barriers that Christ tears down in Galatians 3:28. He states plainly that “Paul’s declaration…[was a] cosmopolitan message [that] resonated with the best aims and aspirations of Greco-Roman civilization. When he addressed a Greco-Roman audience, he didn’t have to convince them that cosmopolitan civilization was a human good…” It really worked wonders for Rome, didn’t it? And here he plainly states that “Jews” were the last legitimate tribe on earth, and everyone else must be amalgamated: “Cosmopolitan Paul was struggling to graft Jews, the last tribe, into the tree of the Gentiles.”
Well, let’s see if Lightweight practices what he preaches. First we need to ask why he ran from the mission field in Birmingham, Alabama, and high-tailed it to Moscow, White-aho. Oh, right, it’s the “calling.” Funny how the “calling” is always to areas of less cosmopolitanism. Here are some pictures of one of his recent church events. You can play “Where’s Waldo?” with the black child. Someone should ask Leithart when he’s going to get serious about this cosmopolitan, new-human-race splat that he’s shoveling.
“The prophets consistently speak of people on the basis of their hereditary identity. God told the Israelites to beware of the Canaanites, not simply unbelievers. God commends the Rechabites who followed the precepts of their forefathers, not simply abstract pious believers. Paul stated unequivocal loyalty to his ethnic nation, even though they were unbelievers (Rom. 9:3). Paul goes on in the next two verses to describe the unique blessings that Israel has enjoyed. Is this because they earned it? No, but it is not independent of heredity either.” ~ David O
”A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.” ~ Karl Marx
Neo-Christians love to talk about “racial reconciliation,” but there are all sorts of double standards implied. For instance, the Presbyterian Church in America has rolled out a seven-part “diversity” series, but every article is written by a black man. Well, that sounds fair and balanced. In this article, a black pastor writes that faith “is more important than our racial, cultural, gender, or socioeconomic diversity.” Three sentences later, he refers to “the powerful story of black history in America.” We agree that faith is supremely important, but we’re rebuked if we even so much as hint at “the powerful story of white history in America.” (Try it sometime, and the immediate response from any white person within earshot will be: “What does being white have to do with it?”) He affirms that we ought to “remember and celebrate where we have come from. We cannot disconnect from our heritage.” But as everyone knows, whites are penalized if their heritage means anything more to them than nostalgia. They can talk about heritage as much as they like if it means nothing more than food and dress, but there is always the assumption that it is right and proper for the customs of their people to be blended into the urban soup and to take their appointed place among the merchants at the suburban strip mall.
Another thing you’ll notice is a complete change from the old “racist” and conservative belief that the Church is tasked with preaching the gospel, and is not obligated to take a stand on political matters. Now, as you can see in the article, whatever “Dr. King” believed must be elevated to the level of sacred Scripture. Anyone who disagrees is not on board with the book of Revelation, this guy says. He asks the following questions: “How can our church do a better job of embracing the new immigrants among us?… Will we reflect the diverse nation in which we live? Is that even a goal of the denomination?” The assumption is that the leftist gospel of open borders and one-worldism is an essential of the faith, and it darn well better be “a goal of the denomination.” Anyone who agrees with our Christian ancestors that a nation should not be a racial free-for-all will not be tolerated by the hyper-tolerant. And this is where they’ve made a fatal flaw. If they had simply maintained that the Church is not the place for political agitation, they could persuasively argue that we are out of bounds in breaking away to form Kinist churches. But they have made it clear that they are the ones who are ecclesiastical rebels, and the way is now clear for us to purge the faith of Cultural Marxism by founding our own Kinist churches.
In the same year that the PCA passed a hideous “racial reconciliation” measure, Merle Messer filed a resolution at the General Assembly that would have counseled churches not to allow their buildings to be used for League of the South activities. It was voted down because it would have involved the church in political matters, but now leftist politics are considered a Christian necessity.
In this article, we are told why only blacks can speak with authority on race and racial interests. “For hundreds of years, whites enforced segregation, and blacks adjusted to it. Unfortunately, this is basically where we are ecclesiastically.” Blame, once again, falls upon Whitey – this is what “reconciliation” is all about, in case you haven’t noticed – and the reason always goes back hundreds of years. Blacks are never to blame for oppression, and cetainly not for the pandemic crime and burdens they place upon our society today. It is implied that even if a black church and a white church “have a great relationship,” have “co-sponsored denominational conferences, community youth initiatives, participated in joint services, shared building resources, and the pastors [have] preached in each other’s pulpits,” it’s not good enough, because the goal must always be integration, and anything less is an offense to the blood of Christ.
In this article, race is said to be like a birth defect, and there is a reference to the “temporal and sinful wishes of our tribal groups.” The implication is that it is sinful to defend and support one’s tribe. There is this reluctant admission: “We recognize that not every PCA church will become a balanced multiethnic congregation…” But then the failure to strive for multiracialism is equated with the sins of “abortion and homosexuality.”
The first Moderator of the PCA General Assembly was Jack Williamson. At the 1969 GA of the PCUS, from which the PCA broke away, Williamson was one of several who filed a resolution that opposed MLK, and it was ordered expunged from the record. The PCA was designed by its founders to “follow the pattern of the Assembly of 1861” and be the continuing Southern Presbyterian Church. Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer, Smylie, Charles Colcott Jones, and John L. Girardeau were Old School Southern Presbyterians, and they would not recognize the PCA today. Neither do we.
As a friend of ours once wrote: “In Isaiah 61, God promised those who mourn that He would take away their ashes and give them beauty. But our modern preachers tell us that…God wants us to turn our beauty into ashes. And we should celebrate the demise of our people, and call it ‘reconciliation.’ The PCa equals death for White people.”
This 1974 paper on race from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is somewhat interesting to read because of what it admits.
It could be due to the time in which it was written (the country was far gone but not as far gone as it is now), but notice the admission that Acts 17:27 “witnesses clearly that racial and cultural divisions are not sinful in themselves. God orders these divisions so that each nation may seek God and find Him.” We’ve never heard an Alienist admit this. But the OPC also writes that the New Testament “does not justify seeking to preserve or destroy the existing cultural, racial and political boundaries between men.” This is where we emphatically disagree, for it would mean the end of nations as well as races.
Another admission is that “Through Christ different people become one in the Holy Spirit, and sons of God… Together these new people form one spiritual body…” Whenever this is said in our time, it is quickly followed by the statement that unity in Christ destroys all other distinctions, so that even secondary and tertiary boundaries are erased; and since we are to be spiritually unified, we must also be physically unified. By advocating interracial marriage, the paper moves in the same direction, but it’s almost as though the Marxist script was not well-reheared at the time.
For example, the paper admits that “there are marked distinctions and even divisions among men, including those of race,” and these “distinctions and divisions are indeed significant and may not simply be pushed aside…” It then goes on to say that faith transcends the distinctions and divisions, and of course we agree, but this is not at all the same as saying that faith makes distinctions and divisions obsolete. Yet this is precisely what the race-mixers hope to achieve. The OPC admits as much in this very paper:
There is often fear that introducing other racial-cultural groups into the church would undercut the cultural heritage of the church. Such fears have only apparent validity. The music, the manner of worship and the manner of preaching would change. Yet what is more important to the Christian, his culture or the gospel?
First, they presume that “cultural heritage” has nothing to do with genetics, and to do away with it would affect the church in ways that are no more significant than the tempo of the songs and the lung capacity of the preacher.
Second, a false dilemma is presented to the Christian, to choose between culture and gospel. It’s one or the other! they insist. The implication is that the OPC is duty-bound to roll with the Marxist winds of change, despite its efforts to “oppose drifting along with the culture.” This becomes clear in some of the paper’s socialistic rhetoric about securing political and economic “justice” for minorities, providing free legal aid to the poor (who now include illegal aliens), and butting into private housing contracts.
Oh, but they’re just getting started. Don’t forget that the title of the paper refers to the “problems” of race. This is an interesting word, considering that the races were created by God. What else did God create that is such a problem? There is a heading announcing that “all language groups will become one people,” and that “divisions caused by language will be overcome at the return of Christ.” So now language is a problem too? What about divisions of wealth? All of these things can be transcended by faith in Christ, but spiritual unity is not good enough for race-mixers. Once you bow to the god of Equality, there is no end of supplications.
The false dilemma between culture and gospel does not follow from the truth of these two juxtaposed sentences:
A Christian culture is based not only on the continuation of an older culture but must always be based on the gospel itself. The heritage we received from our parents will die if separated from fresh obedience to the gospel.
How can these statements be used to justify the theme of the paper? For their purposes, they should have removed the word “only” from the first sentence and done more to emphasize the word “fresh” in the second. But we Kinists believe that our Christian forefathers were correct in their understanding of both the gospel and what constitutes a healthy culture.
This line is of interest: “The racial and cultural considerations relevant to an individual’s choice of a particular congregation are matters of Christian liberty.” But this is illogical if the same individuals acting together are supposedly sinning if they use their Christian liberty to establish a congregation where their own racial interests will be protected.
Nor could we agree to this: “When a multiracial couple seeks fellowship within the congregation, there can be no barrier to full communion if credible professions of faith are made.”
We’ve addressed the points raised in the paper numerous times, but there is one thing worthy of comment: Ephesians 3:15 is interpreted as “I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named…” The writers conclude that pasa patria means “the whole Christian family,” even though they admit that it can also be interpreted as “every family,” which denotes that God has named and ordained every people group in history. But there is no reason for trinitarians to take this as either/or. The combined meaning is obviously Kinist and fits well with Acts 17:27.
The most important thing you need to realize about the paper is that it is a modern attempt to contradict the most deeply-held convictions of our Christian forefathers on the subject of race. We Kinists stand opposed to those who would subvert the faith and dispossess us. As our friend Dan says, churches like the OPC “busy themselves knocking down their strawmen but little do they realize we’ve lit the edges of the baling field on fire and there’s no way out for them.”
“[A key concept among Central and South Americans] is that of mestizaje, ‘mixed-ness,’ that status of being mestizo or mixed blood. In contemporary theology, mestizaje is so critical because it transcends traditional racial hierarchies. It thus comes closer to the New Testament goal of a society without racial privilege or domination, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, Latino nor Anglo. And while mixed-race people were traditionally marginalized and despised, newer theologians see this status as uniquely privileged… [In The Future is Mestizo, Virgilio Elizondo] presents Jesus as a mestizo son of Galilee’s mixed and marginalized society, who enters the great city of Jerusalem in order to challenge its wealth, to confront the racial arrogance of the pure-blooded elite.” ~ Philip Jenkins, explaining the new, non-white “Christendom,” which he admits is based on “immediate workings of the supernatural, through prophecy, visions, ecstatic utterances, and healing”
[E]very state in the South was anti-slavery except South Carolina. Only one man out of eighteen in the South was a slave-owner. Virginia came within one vote in its legislature of abolishing slavery. They were ready to abolish it if they knew the answer to the question, “What shall we do with the negro after slavery is abolished?”…
The treatment of the slaves, on the whole, was good and indulgent. They were valued private property. Most of the slaves were unwilling to see slavery end. They followed their masters around and expected continued care… Moreover, the slaves were not enslaved by Americans. The Negroes who were brought to the United States were slaves in Africa. They were owned by their tribes or by other tribes – by their chief or people of another area or areas. They moved from one slavery to another – from a very ugly form of slavery to their fellow Africans, usually, to a very indulgent one with the white man.
Slaves were the money of Africa. Instead of having gold and silver as the medium of exchange, Africa had men, women, and children, so that all their buying and selling in Africa was done with human beings as the money. This was the major medium of exchange… [When the Negro was brought to the United States, he] became the most privileged Negro in all the world. He is today the most privileged Negro in the world. And we need have no guilt feelings with respect to him.
But we are told, “They suffered so – the slave ships were frightful, and the heartbreaking agony of the journey, the brutal treatment, the number who died on the slave ships; this is a frightful incident in history.” Well, indeed, you can find instances of slave ships which gave very, very poor treatment to the slaves as they carried them across; instances where a sizable percentage of the human cargo died en route and were dumped overboard. This is true. But this is not the rule! The slaves were valuable property. They were therefore important as merchandise. They had to be kept alive. They were brought to the United States to be sold, and when they arrived here they were cared for to make sure their appearance was the best possible appearance in order to make their sale easier. So that we cannot take the unusual cases and overlook the reality that because they were valuable cargo they were well treated.
As a matter of fact, if we compare their treatment to that of the immigrants – notably the Irish – the road of the Negroes is not too bad by comparison. Certainly, it doesn’t compare to a modern luxury cruise to Europe. But the trip the immigrants made to this country was a very ugly one. And shortly before the war, a Canadian legislative commission investigating the treatment of Irish immigrants on shipboards said that their situation was equally as bad as that of the slaves. But no real study has been made of the major migration to the United States and which was the worst. These people were landed here with no one to care for them. They had paid all their funds to make the journey, and once they were on shipboard there was no concern whether they lived or died. No concern for their feeding or for their care. So they arrived here half-starved and with no place to go and with no funds, and their condition was beyond description. Nor do we have scholars taking time to deal with their condition in the ships as they came over. In his book, The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849, Cecil Woodham Smith writes on the famine of the 1840s, which killed a million Irish peasants and sent hundreds of thousands to America. In passing, he touches on the fact that indeed, in every port in Ireland it is extensively reported, but no scholar has bothered to go into this, that many rotten ships were loaded with Irish immigrants. And the ships didn’t clear the harbor. They were so overloaded and so rotten, they sank, sometimes within sight of the relatives as they were standing on the docks bidding them goodbye as they set sail for the New World.
Moreover, we are told that berths on one ship numbered only 36, of which 4 were taken by the crew. The remaining 32 were shared among 276 passengers who otherwise slept on the floor. No sanitary convenience of any kind was provided, and the state of the vessel was horrible and disgusting beyond the power of language to describe. The passage from Killala, largely due to the incompetence of the captain, took eight weeks. The passengers starved and were tortured by thirst, and 42 people died during the voyage…
Now, this was routine. Are we getting books telling us that we should do something to provide ten billion dollars a year for the descendants of these poor Irish who were so terribly mistreated? Not at all. The Irish came over here often in far worse conditions than the slaves, but they had a desire to be free men and today they are among the elite of the United States… They have certainly prospered in the United States, and they certainly are a credit to this country. But the Negro…is a slave still and is demanding a martial plan to aid him.
The Irish don’t demand reparations because they aren’t whiners. Regardless of their destitute past or their limitations in the present, they store up for the future. “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Proverbs 6:6). There is a vast gulf that separates the white man from the black man, and it is hatred to force the white man to carry the black man on his back (as he will forever), because the white man’s duty is to his own white children. This is Kinism. This is Christianity. Alienism is a false gospel and a counterfeit, and may God damn it to hell.
You can read more about the Irish “coffin ships” here. The nightmare conditions were endured because of the potato famine that struck Ireland. Imagine a 6 foot by 6 foot slatted bed used by four people, each with 18 inches of width. The boards were tiered, so that those with dysentery above would wash vomit and excrement on those below. And this continued for up to 10 weeks. Typhus spread like wildfire. Water on board was polluted, and food was scarce. Negroes were in luxury, by comparison, during their trans-atlantic journey. If a Negro died, it meant that someone would lose up to a thousand dollars. If the Irish died, no one cared.
The Rushdoony lecture above, A Return to Slavery, will shatter almost every lie you’ve ever been told about slavery. While blacks like to make a lot of noise about it, Rushdoony explains that Southern slavery was benevolent, and the slaveowners were “penalized as a result of owning slaves.” For ages, white men knew that Negroes were slaves by nature. They needed security from womb to tomb, and nothing has changed today except that whites have been enslaved along with them. And this has not been forced upon whites. As you can see from the collapse of the Soviet government in 1989 and the collapse of the Egyptian government in 2011, revolutions can succeed with nary a shot being fired. The American empire would screech to a halt if enough people marched on Washington. The empire continues because slaves enjoy being slaves. As Rushdoony said, the slave wants to be saved from freedom. “He fears it above all else. And so he goes in search of a master to deliver him from liberty.”
For, let any man look on the negro character calmly, and he will see that the introduction of any, the smallest, element of negro rule into our church, means moral and doctrinal relaxation, and ecclesiastical corruption, poisoning the life-blood of our churches, just in degree as it is extended… Sentimentalists may shout that “Christianity knows no castes”; that “all caste-distinctions are unchristian” – which I here denounce as scripturally and historically false – but whether we will or not, the negro is going to keep himself a caste, as to Southern Presbyterians. And in every issue where the rival and opponent of white Southern Presbyterianism is going to attack principles dear to us, the negro is going to side with that assailant… [Union with the Northern Presbyterian Church] means, of course, that we must imitate the church which absorbs us, in the ecclesiastical amalgamation with negroes; accepting negro presbyters to rule white churches and judge white ladies; a step which would seal the moral and doctrinal corruption of our church in the South, and be a direct step towards that final perdition of Southern society, domestic amalgamation. And the time would come in the South – yea, in the North also, as it found itself encumbered with this gangrened limb – a mulatto South, when all who had lent a hand, under the prompting of a puling sentimentalism, to this result, would incur the reprobation of all the wise and good, in terms as just, and as bitter, as those visited on Benedict Arnold.
In other words, you’re a traitor if you think that amalgamation is your duty as a Christian.
Dabney denied that it is the Christian duty of our people to give other races a deciding vote in any form of our government – domestic, civil, or ecclesiastical.
When I see them almost universally banded to make themselves the eager tools of the remorseless enemies of my country, to assail my vital rights, and to threaten the very existence of civil society and the church at once, I must beg leave to think the time rather mal apropos for demanding of me an expression of particular affection… Were you traveling in Mexico, assailed by bandits, wounded, dragged from your carriage, bound to a tree, and looking with a bleeding pate upon the rifling of your baggage, if you were called on to state, then and there, how exceedingly you desired the spiritual good of the yellow-skinned barbarians who were persecuting you, it is to be presumed that you would beg to be excused, under the circumstances. So I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages. If I can only practice the duty of forbearance successfully, and say, “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do,” I shall thank God for his assistance in the hour of cruel provocation.
You read about the horrors of “Reconstruction,” when this speech was delivered, in the previous post, but the outrages against our people are even greater today. Almost 40,000 white women are raped every year by black men, according to the government’s own statistics.
The Church is not egalitarian, said Dabney.
[W]hile the blessings of redemption are free to all, of every race or caste, the privileges of church office may be properly withheld from some, at the dictate of a sound discretion. This is scriptural truth.
Dabney knew what possessed post-war Southern Presbyterians to attempt to ordain Negroes who wanted nothing to do with them; it was “an overstrained and quixotic magnanimity” as well as the “moral and mental malaria which infects the age, that when people become interested about this unfortunate race they must take leave of their own good sense…”
I oppose the entrusting of the destinies of our church in any degree whatever to black rulers, because that race is not trustworthy for such position. There may be a few exceptions – I do not believe I have ever seen one, though I have known negroes whom I both respected and loved in their proper position – but I ask emphatically, Do legislatures frame general laws to meet the rare exceptions? or do they adjust them to the general average? Now, who that knows the negro does not know that his is a subservient race; that he is made to follow, and not to lead; that his temperament, idiosyncrasy and social relation make him untrustworthy as a depository of power?…
Sir, the wisest masters in Israel, a John Newton, an Alexander, a Whitefield, have told us that although grace may save a man’s soul, it does not destroy his natural idiosyncrasy this side of heaven. If you trust any portion of power over your church to black hands, you will rue it. Have they not done enough recently to teach us how thoroughly they are untrustworthy?…
I deprecate this action, because, so far as it is to have any success, it is to bring a mischievous element into our church at the expense of driving a multitude of valuable members and ministers out.
More than a hundred years later, it is impossible to prove Dabney wrong on this point. Everything the Negro touches turns to excrement. There are exceptions, but exceptions don’t disprove the rule. From the white perspective it entails dispossession, and the tragedy is that it has been brought upon us by our own race.
Thoughtful men see in this pit of tyranny and oppression, to the edge of which the negro and his allies now urge us, “below the lowest depth a lower deep still opening wide.” It is a result which, we well know, the astute architects of our ruin clearly foresee and intend, and for the procuring of which they provide, when they impose the political equality of the negro, with a cunning inspired by their own master, the devil. They know mankind in its weakness and baseness. They have measured accurately the degrading effects of subjugation, of poverty, of grinding oppression, of despair, upon a people once chivalrous. They know that where the ruling mob is there must be the demagogue, even as the vulture comes where the carcass is, and they know the bottomless subserviency of the demagogue. They understand the ever-increasing assumption of the negro’s character, growing by its indulgence. Hence the safe calculation that, when once political equality is confirmed to the blacks, every influence will tend towards that other consummation, social equality, which they will be so keen to demand, and their demagogues so ready to grant as the price of their votes… He must be “innocent” indeed who does not see whither all this tends, as it is designed by our oppressors to terminate. It is (shall I pronounce the abhorred word?) to amalgamation! Yes, sir, these tyrants know that if they can mix the race of Washington and Lee and Jackson with this base herd which they brought from the fens of Africa, if they can taint the blood which hallowed the plains of Manassas with this sordid stream, the adulterous current will never again swell a Virginian’s heart with a throb noble enough to make a despot tremble. But they will then have, for all time, a race supple and grovelling enough for all the purposes of oppression. We have before our eyes, in Mexico, the proof and illustration of the satanic wisdom of their plan. There we saw a splendid colonial empire first blighted by abolition, then a frantic spirit of levelling, declaring the equality of the colored races with the Spaniard, and last, the mixture of the Castilian blood – the grandest of all the Gothic – resulting in the mongrel rabble which is now the shame and plague of that wretched land. Such is the danger which is now before us…
In view of this, our Christian people looked fondly to their beloved church as a last bulwark against this tide of shame and misery. But now are they told that this too must be levelled; levelled by the hands of their own spiritual guides; that they must submit, at the dictation of a romantic sophism, to an ecclesiastical amalgamation of which social confusion must be the inevitable result; a result all the surer because the ill-starred precedent is given for it in the highest range of our social life – the sacred.
And now, when [the people of the South] indignantly recoil, shall this high and noble sentiment be stigmatized as “a wicked prejudice of an evil world?”… Sir, I protest against the slander. In the name of the enlightened and faithful people of God, who profoundly entertain this sentiment, I protest. By the indignant blush on the cheeks of our Christian wives and sisters, I protest. This is no blind, passionate prejudice of caste, but the righteous, rational instinct of pious minds. It is not the prejudice of a wicked world which I would have you respect; the world’s passions and blame are naught to me; but the conscientious conviction of Christ’s own people, who are as God-fearing and honest in this thing as you are. I wish to know by what patent the advocates of this novel and astounding doctrine have received a monopoly of all the consistency and conscientiousness, leaving our laity none?
You can see that it was much like today. When we say that we want our race to survive and refuse to mix with other races, impastors call us Darwinists.
When we prove them false, they say, in effect, “Trust us; we know the Bible better than you.” When we again prove them false by repeatedly presenting them with facts that they are unable to deny, as you can see in our exchanges, they fall silent. But to Dabney, they could only counter that the Church is spiritual.
When I beseech them not to pervert and over-strain ecclesiastical principles in a manner not only needless, but positively erroneous, so as to make Christ’s church virtually a tool for the propagation of the political heresies of negro suffrage and amalgamation, they reply with a grand dignity, that the church is a spiritual kingdom, and does not concern herself pro or con with secular results. To my common sense, the application thus given to a truth most valuable in its place, is virtually this: that if the church has an opportunity, without going an inch out of her spiritual sphere, and indeed, by the very fidelity with which she adheres to it, to give valuable support to earthly interests the most fundamental and precious, oh! then she has perverted her character; she is meddling with secular questions! But if she misunderstands and perverts her own spiritual character, to corrupt at once her own government and peace, and to give, under a spiritual pretext, most direct assistance to the vilest factionists in their assaults upon the dearest rights and interests of the community, it is all perfectly spiritual and legitimate!
Galatians 3:28 doesn’t help the race-mixers either.
St. Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Blessed doctrine! Yet the same apostle says, “I suffer not a woman to teach”; thus excluding from official privilege, on grounds of class, one-half of the whole Christian world, which he had just declared to be “all one in Christ Jesus.” So you see, gentlemen, that the apostle Paul evidently did not believe in your argument… Again, the apostle, in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, rules that no convert who was implicated, before his conversion, in polygamy, must be ordained a presbyter; for so the best expositors view 1 Timothy iii. 2, and Titus i. 6. Here is another exclusion on grounds of class. Surely no one will argue that these husbands of more than one wife were excluded because they had been sinners. Had not the apostle himself been a murderer? Or on the grounds that they were still living in sin; for this would also have excluded them from the church. It is an exclusion on grounds of class, and independent of the question of their faith and repentance. Thus…it is not true that all distinctions of class are abolished as to church office, because they are abolished as to church membership…
It is not true that the church has no right to place such limitations upon the common claim to church office in cases other than the three which God has made. For she has claimed, and has exercised, this very power on grounds of class, and has been justified in doing so by all the divines and ecclesiastics, certainly by you.
One instance of this was presented by the primitive church, which, from the very days of the apostles onward, always refused to ordain slaves although they freely admitted them to the church. Have you ever heard any one, Mr. Moderator, charge this usage as unscriptural?
Now the liberals wanted to ordain Negroes, following the apotheosis of Lincoln, but Dabney made them look like fools by reminding them that in all the time prior to the war, when there was a multitude of free Negroes in both the North and South, none called for them to be ordained as teachers or rulers.
Now, I ask emphatically, what change has taken place in the black race to make them more fit for ruling over white churches than they then were? Are they any wiser, any more religious, any purer, any more enlightened now? Nay; the only change is a violent revolution, made by the sword, by which, as every intelligent Virginian knows, they have been only injured in character as in destiny. Hence, I cannot see why an ecclesiastical policy towards them which was wise and right and scriptural then, is not at least as much so now. But it is said, “Then they were by law slaves; now they are by law free.” I reply, does Christ’s kingdom wait on the politicians and conquerors of the world, to be told by them how she must administer her sacred charge? Where now is that fastidiousness which a little while ago said so loftily that the church was a spiritual commonwealth, and had no concern, pro or con, with seculars?
Dabney concludes by addressing the question that is often asked of Kinists.
It may be well to attempt an answer to the natural question: What alternative do you propose? I reply, that I would first kindly invite and advise the black people to remain as they were, members of our churches and under our instruction and church government; for I am well assured that this would prove best for their true interests. But if they will not be wise enough to agree to this, while I deplore their mistake, I would still attempt to do them all the good possible which can be done without injustice to our church and by righteous means. Then, as the second alternative, I would assist and encourage them to build up a black
Presbyterian Church, ecclesiastically independent of, and separate from, ours, but in relations of friendship and charity. To this end I would extend to them ministerial and missionary labor liberally. I would aid them in church building, I would provide schools, separate from our own, for training black men to be pastors of black churches, and I would, if necessary, give ordination to enough men to form a separate presbytery, when enough can be found possessed of constitutional qualifications. But I would make no black man a member of a white session, or Presbytery, or Synod, or Assembly; nor would I give them any share in the government of our own church, nor any representation in it. It is confusion.
God bless that old man, the Prophet of the South.
Here’s a very good poem called Ode to Dabney, written by Dougbert Phillips of Purblind Forum. Phillips correctly praises Dabney for standing against “the rising tide of modernity,” even though Phillips is thoroughly modern himself. A friend tells us that this verse would make the poem much better, and we quite agree.
He warned against the blood mix with Africa’s vilest fens,
He wrote against the slave being ordained among Christ’s Kin,
He raised his voice to lecture that Mixing would be sin.
Hail Dabney of the South, the White Man’s final friend.
The difference between now and when General Forrest rode is that back then “we didn’t have any abomination like affirmative action, quotas, or racial preferences of any kind. Our schools still functioned. Gang bangers weren’t shooting little kids. Grandma and Grandpa could walk down the street without worrying about getting shot for the $5 in their wallet. We didn’t have tens of thousands of white women getting raped every year by black men, and we sure didn’t have any Knoxville massacres.” It comes down to this, folks: The only thing keeping your wives, sons, daughters, and grandchildren from being raped and murdered is what the patricides call “racism.”
The SCV allegedly had Olaf Childress arrested at their recent Confederate rally. If you want to know why, it’s because Olaf encourages “Putting the word out on heritage gatherings that the ‘mainstream’ media won’t promote, flyering politically incorrect themes such as survival of the White race and Western civilization, this is the spirit of N.B. Forrest reasserted in our own time and form.”
You don’t grow to appreciate being a member of your family prior to becoming a member of your family. “There is more of John Locke than Jesus Christ in credo-baptist understandings of ecclesiology and soteriology.”
At 4:35 and about a minute following in this White Horse Inn broadcast, the question is asked: Can a Christian nation exist today? Their answer: “No, because God’s kingdom is not of this world.” These amillennialists apparently believe that the Great Commission to baptize the nations really means to baptize individuals and hope that they will rub off on the pagans and atheists in charge. We could not disagree more emphatically. We believe that the common misunderstanding of the marriage of church and state, and therefore the misunderstanding of the nature of God’s kingdom, is what leads many Christians (not just amillennialists) to the heresy of Alienism.
Though they’ve done good work in showing that modern “Christianity” has been perverted into therapeutic moralistic deism, the White Horse Inn quartet are really more Lutheran than Reformed. Here’s an excellent quote from Herman Bavinck that explains why one can’t go through the Bible marking some verses as law and others as gospel. Again, if you believe that the law is only necessary because of sin, and Christ didn’t need it, and we won’t need it either in our glorified state, it’s easy to conclude that everything we are taught in the law about kinship and nationality is now obsolete. It’s similar to the way in which some Christians believe they will be inchoate spirits in heaven. No, we hope for the Resurrection and being reunited with our bodies. We hope for a new earth as well as a new heaven. We are not Gnostics.
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.
God bless this man for taking justice into his own hands when justice has been stolen from him along with his son.
Walter Williams on discrimination and liberty. They go together like a horse and carriage. I would rather listen to Williams any day than Rush Limbaugh.
Words of wisdom from Dr. David Yeagley.
To survive as an independent nation, America must discriminate. America must exclude, and no longer tolerate its enemies. America must be prejudiced. History presents no example of any nation with a constitutional invitation to all foreigners, all religions, all values, or all social institutions. So-called Americans who advocate plurality, diversity, and the multicultural “melting pot” approach to nationhood are not Americans, but the enemies of America.
Yeagley observes that though whites have forgotten the meaning of the word “nation,” Indians still know what it means.
I can freely say to all non-Comanches, here or abroad, “You will never be Comanche. You will never be a member of the Comanche Nation”… And no one will accuse me of racism, discrimination, or intolerance… Now, the question is, Why can I, as an Indian, say such a thing, and be fully understood and unquestioned, and yet, if a white American even hints at such a thought, he is anathematized beyond Satan himself? He may be sued or jailed – or both. He will surely lose his job.
James Edwards is correct that the word “minority” has become a title of nobility. Now policemen in Seattle are being told not to charge blacks who drive with suspended licenses!
Whites are too fearful to consider race in positive terms, but their dispossession is unmistakable. Now, as CNN reports, whites are more vocal about becoming a racial minority because they are being victimized. James is quoted in the article, but so are various Jews to explain why whites are all wrong.
At 28 feet, James has won first place in the venom-spewing contest.
Noemie Emery says it will do the Republicans well to lose in 2012 because the contenders are elderly white men. Instead, they should concentrate their efforts on 2016 when the field of contenders will be “brown-skinned, and female, Latino and Indian.” But that’s not venomous, you understand.
The Australian government spends more than twice as much on Aborigines as on whites.
This self-loather is very entertaining. He stands shoulder-to-shoulder on the front line of the Revolution with every self-loathing white Christian. There they are, arm in arm, demanding “the right to marry whoever I want.” Neo-Christians today are snuggled up in bed with these Communists. They’ve learned all the Communist buzzwords during pillow talk and footsie play.
John McCain and Ken Burns are whitewashing Jack Johnson, the boxing-rapist. Again, nothing venomous about that!
The EU has now banned sex differences in setting insurance premiums, as Galatians 3:28 decrees.
Ziona Chana is growing his own cult. He has 39 wives and 94 children and no clothes dryer. Don’t share this article with any Judeochristians or they might get fresh ideas for how to grow the kingdom of Christ. They’re already kidnapping Haitian children and marrying silverbacks in the name of the gospel.
“Adopting African babies is every bit as logical as investing in a dot-com with a sock puppet commercial during the Super Bowl.”
How does God reveal Himself? In His Word and in nature. Thus, interracial couples have a higher risk of stillbirth, almost no chance of finding a bone marrow donor, and a vast array of other problems.
Look (if you dare) upon tennis star Boris Becker’s frankenfamily:
“Vanilla ice cream is impossible because ice cream mixing is healthy and beneficial, without which vanilla ice cream is doomed. You can’t have vanilla unless it is mixed with chocolate. You must make it something else, in order to preserve what it is.” ~ Mark C
While the leaders of Europe are admitting that their dreams of multiculturalism have failed, the Prime Minister of Turkey is telling Turkish immigrants in Germany to not view themselves as immigrants but as conquering invaders, to “resist assimilation,” and “learn Turkish before German.” The rest of the world has no intention of being as stupid and self-defeating as white people.
The most typical face on the planet is a male, 28-year-old Han Chinese. At what point do white people conclude that they have a duty to survive?
Attorney General Eric Holder sure is cowardly when anyone tries to have a conversation about race with him. Now he’s deflecting his role in failing to prosecute Black Panthers guilty of voter intimidation by saying that it was nothing compared to what “my people” endured in the South in the 1960s. Do you think a white Attorney General could get away with positive references to his people?
Linda Chavez “conservatively” praises LBJ and the “civil rights” law.
Cal Thomas is another phony “conservative” who is applauding the heads of Europe for finally admitting that their experiment in “multiculturalism” is a failure, as we could have told them before they even got started. The difference between us and them is that they believe the solution is to advocate a “melting pot” in which no ethnic heritage is recognized, and no divisions are allowed to endure. But that hasn’t worked in America for the races, and it won’t work in Europe. They’ll jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Since “conservatives” get moist over the possibility of assimilation, Thomas writes that Britain should have heeded the warning of Enoch Powell. But the lesson to be learned is that of Japan: do not allow mass immigration. There was nothing Britain could have done to help dissimilar peoples “assimilate,” and there is nothing it can do now to avoid the “rivers of blood” that Powell predicted. God save us from the “conservatives.”
The Japanese are marvelous people. Even when they suffer a catastrophe of biblical proportions, they accept it with dignity. How this guy holds his camera steady is a mystery. Compare the tsunami to Hurricane Katrina. There has not even been looting in Japan. No crime. No anarchy. No whining for bailouts from the taxpayers. In short, no niggers. And whatever you do, don’t move in next door to an African nuclear power plant… oh, wait…
I’m sure we despise much of what Helen Thomas believes, but she’s really going out with a bang, and God bless her for that. I haven’t met a dozen white women in my life who are willing to so fearlessly defend their people. She deserves a lot of credit for standing up to bullies. I especially loved it when Joy Behar interviewed her with a list of questions that were certain to allow Joy Behar to keep Joy Behar’s job, including, “Are you an anti-Semite?” Thomas responds: “Hell no! I’m a Semite…of Arab background. [Jews are] not Semites. I mean, most of them are from Europe.” And as for Israel: “They don’t have the right to take other people’s land. Under international law occupied land should not be annexed.” Behar doesn’t even try to argue the point. She’s too busy reading from her list of Zionist-certified questions.
When men refuse to lead or are incapable of leading, women step in to fill the void. Can you imagine any politician of either sex in America being as pro-white as Marine Le Pen?
Our friend Winston told us the amazing story of what 27-year-old Robert Audry saw after he enlisted on August 13, 1862, at Lively Grove, IL, in Company B, 111th Illinois Infantry. Here is a letter he mailed home on June 3, 1864:
I take pen in hand to let you know that I am well. We are encamped near Dallas, Georgia where we found the enemy in force on the 26th inst. The 111th was in the front line of the breastworks, and we drew a hot fire from the rebs until about 4 o’clock when the enemy viciously charged our works. We poured hot fire into their ranks and several times their lines broke, but they rallied again and came on with guns blazing and flags waving. They fought like demons and we cut them down like dogs. Many dead and dying Secesh fell prisoner.
I saw 3 or 4 dead rebel women in the heap of bodies. All had been shot down during the final rebel charge upon our works. One Secesh woman charged to within several rods of our works waving the traitor flag and screaming vulgarities at us. She was shot three times but still she came. She was finally killed by two shots fired almost simultaneously by our boys. Another She-Devil shot her way to our breastworks with two large revolvers dealing death to all in her path. She was shot several times with no apparent effect. When she ran out of ammunition, she pulled out the largest pig-sticker I ever seen. It must have been 18 inches in the blade. When the Corporal tried to shoot her she kicked him in the face, smashing it quite severely. Then she stabbed three boys and was about to decapitate a fourth when the Lieutenant killed her. Without doubt this gal inflicted more damage to our line than any other reb. If Bobby Lee were to field a brigade of such fighters, I think that the Union prospects would be very gloomy indeed for it would be hard to equal their ferocity and pluck.
Our regimental losses were about 6 killed and 10 wounded including Lt. Col. Black who was slightly wounded I believe in the thigh. Please give my best regards to all inquiring friends and love to the family.
Your Devoted Son, Robert Audry, 111th Ill. Regt. Vols.
As a final desperate resort, these women charged into battle like Boadicea.
When food prices soon inflate beyond affordability, you might have second thoughts about so-called “free trade,” whereby agribusiness corporations can sell their corn to the global market for demand prices while American families starve.
This is big, folks. Arizona will likely get the jump on Idaho in nullifying imperial laws. Did I mention that this is big?
Utah is protecting itself from the collapse of the dollar by authorizing precious metals as legal tender, which Franklin Sanders was thrown in jail for doing. Expect other states to do the same. The dollar is dead, and with it the empire, we trust.
Ron Paul asks Ben Jew Bernanke to define the “dollar.” Bernanke dodges the question, and you can see that the Jewspaper tries to cover for him. Can the dollar really be defined now that the Jews have drained it of all value?
One is reminded of Matt Taibbi’s description of Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
If you don’t want to do everything possible to support Israel, the ethnic cleanser of the Middle East, including giving them billlions of dollars we don’t have, it means you’re a “vicious anti-Semite” and a “Jew-hating storm trooper,” according to “conservative” David Jew Horowitz. Rumor has it that Ron Paul is also building a barber shop and crematory in his back yard.
The voice of reason:
And now, pastor Brian Abshire’s idiot son:
In a New York Times ediorial on February 20, we learned that “Pakistan…could soon possess the world’s fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India.” There’s no mention of Israel because we can’t have people getting worked up about what doesn’t concern them.
In the Roman Catholic Church, “clerics who offer an opinion about a detail of official World War Two propaganda are deserving of excommunication, while criminals like Cardinals Bernard Law and Roger Mahony, who facilitated and protected child molesters, retire with the full pomp of their office (Mahony is still eligible to cast a vote for a new pope, should the current one die).”
“Films shot on 3D in pre-war Nazi Germany have been unearthed in Berlin’s Federal Archives.” Yes, these are the same Nazis who allegedly committed genocide in the most inept ways imaginable. The country was full of geniuses. More Nobel Prize winners came from Germany than anywhere else, and that was back when the Nobel Prize really meant something and wasn’t given to men like Barack Obama and Al Gore. But when it came to “exterminating” the Jews, they allegedly used the most expensive and inefficient means possible, if the Jews themselves are to be believed. This line from the article is a hoot: “The Nazis were obsessed with recording everything and every single image was controlled – it was all part of how they gained control of the country and its people.” Anne frankly, I could just as easily write, “The Jews are obsessed with recording everything of interest to them, and every single image is controlled. It’s all part of how they have gained control of our country and our people.”
Did you know that there were sub-Saharan Africans in medieval France? You can learn all kinds of things by watching Warner Jew-Brothers pervert the folk story of Little Red Riding Hood. I’ll bet there’s even a scene with pole dancers.
Charlie Sheen had a well-paying job, no matter how many drugs he took or whores he abused. But as soon as he called Charles Levine by his Jew name, Chaim Levine, he’s fired and his show is cancelled, despite the loss of untold millions of dollars, because “both CBS and Warner Brothers interpreted [the renaming] as a veiled anti-Semitic attack.” Jews profit from debauchery, but to point out their otherness is immoral.
The lesson of the Facebook movie, The Social Network: Avoid dealings with Jews.
The very same Jews who flood the American media, which they control, with images glorifying miscegenation make quite different rules for themselves. Civil marriage does not exist in Israel; all marriages must be approved by the rabbinate, which means that marriage is illegal for those who are not halachically Jewish. With few exceptions, this keeps marriage within the race. (Haim Cohen, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, lamented “the bitter irony of fate which has led the same biological and racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous Nuremberg laws, to serve as a basis for the definition of Judaism within the State of Israel.”) There is also a “deceit rape” law under which an Arab may be prosecuted for consensual sex with a Jew if he pretends to be a Jew. Guest workers are required to agree that they will not have sex with Jews. Now a new government policy is being discussed that will ban mixed intercourse. It’s not “racism,” they say, but merely a desire to preserve what is unique about the Jewish race.
A Communist Jew tells the West that “immigration is the future,” and it’s not possible to live and work in Europe, “the middle of the world,” without a “moving population.” Small, ethnic nations are unable to compete in the global economy, she says. Europe has “a long history of nationalism” that must be “confronted” via “education.” And the Jews volunteer to educate us! Everything will be fine as long as Israel is excluded from the rules that Jews are forcing upon the West.
Read about the tragedy of the lovely Sylvia Plath, who once told a friend, “Everybody today seems so rootless. I know I do. Only the Jews seem to be part of something, to belong to something definite and rooted. I’d like to have that feeling. Maybe I’ll marry one someday and give birth at a plow in Israel.” Guilt led her to write the patricidal poem “Daddy.”
Robert Conquest wrote this little ditty:
There was an old bastard named Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That’s a lot to have done in
But where he did one in
That old bastard Stalin did ten in.
But Jews don’t like to talk about that. They want you to focus on Hitler instead.
“Moscow is for Russians.” The very fine Russian people welcome all visitors, but try to take their land from them and you’re going to die.
As a friend of ours has informed us, Wilmot Robertson often said that the Russians were geniuses. They were able to get the Jewish refuseniks to leave Russia and even pay money to go. In contrast, he said, the Germans brought down upon themselves the wrath of the world when they tried to make the Jews leave and pay them to go.
“Accordingly, it ought not to seem absurd to us, that as in individual races there are monstrous births, so in the whole race there are monstrous races.” ~ Saint Augustine
For Christian tradition to endure, wrote T.S. Eliot, “The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.”
Are white people human beings or angels? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
The official demographer of the state of Texas predicts that whites will account for only 3% of population growth over the next 30 years. “It’s basically over for Anglos,” he says. But aging, childless white people will still be forced to pay the bills of the mestizos who are taking over Texas and the rest of the country. That’s what Equality is all about. In Texas, 30% of the labor force will not have even a high school diploma by 2040, if trends continue, and “average household income will be about $6,500 lower than it was in 2000. “That figure is not inflation adjusted so it will be worse than what it sounds.” As productivity decreases, your retirement plan will dry up. The question is whether whites will roll over and die or make a stand. If history is any guide, it would be much smarter to bet on what John Lofton calls “racism” than the stock market.
(John puts the “mental” in “fundamentalist.”)
You’ll be interested to know that after all the court decisions mandating equality and all the property taxes you’ve paid to bring it about, 82% of public schools are failing.
And now the Education Secretary says the grading system needs to be “fixed” so that no school receives a failing grade unless it can be “helped.” In other words, the numbers will be fudged so that nothing is done about the problem – because nothing can be done about the problem short of deportation. As James Edwards likes to say, you can’t have a First World country with a Third World population, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.
Still, Jesse Jackson Jr. has discovered a whole new list of “rights” to be amended to the Constitution, and someone needs to pay for them. I’m thinking he means you. And you thought forty acres and a mule was rough.
Trevor Phillips, the HNIC of Equality in Britain, blames “racist U.S. bankers” for causing the credit crisis. While we’re no friends of bankers, this is a lie. Ever since the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter, pressure has been applied to the mortgage industry to lend more money to diversities. Back in 2002, George W. Bush hosted the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership, and by 2005 pressure was being placed on the mortgage industry to no longer require down payments of blacks and mestizos! Not surprisingly, loan defaults skyrocketed. And now this is being blamed on “racism” by those who share the same race with those who defaulted most often. They keep using this word, “racism,” but it seems to mean the opposite of what they say it means. When banks refused to lend to those who were obviously poor credit risks, it was called racism. When they reversed this policy and offered subprime loans to the same people, it was called predatory lending, and once again, racism. How can a thing and its opposite both be racist? Doesn’t that break the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or something? Christians love to use Communist words that are nonsense.
“For decades, everybody who was anybody demanded more mortgage lending to minorities. Skeptics were marginalized and vilified. So, in this decade, we got what we’d been asking for, and we got it good and hard.” ~ Steve Sailer
Winston Smith reminds us that the hard, cold fact of the Shirley Sherrod case is that she did treat a white man unfairly, and she is being given a pass for it when no white person in her position ever would. “When European Americans are involved, the ‘one racist thought’ rule is the new ‘one Negro drop’ rule.”
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim who grew up in Uganda, fled Idi Amin, graduated from Oxford, and married a white man. She now spends her time writing on subjects of interest to Muslims and blacks. (Certainly not whites! Race betrayal is the job of her “husband” alone.) Now she has an article on why Beyonce Knowles is betraying all black and Asian women. Beyonce has bleached her skin and dyed her hair blond. And if she was already considered beautiful, what does this do to the self-esteem of other non-whites who will feel compelled to conform to an impossibly white standard of beauty?
And if you thought that was bad, Beyonce then ticked off a lot of people by dressing in blackface.
I can’t really understand the lyrics to this song, but I think it has something to do with n-words and crackers.
Things that strike fear into the heart of an n-word:
Remember when journalism used to be about giving people all the facts in a story? Now some facts are hatefacts and are not reported on purpose.
The bottomless windbag Bono defends ANC songs about murdering white people by equating them to Irish folk songs about self-defense.
The 11 most dangerous cities. To have as few blacks as possible in the population is a blessing from God. And when He blesses you, thank Him for it.
This is a wonderful little post on East St. Louis, which was ruined not by blacks but by apathetic whites. Likewise, if your garden becomes unmanageable, don’t blame the weeds. Blame yourself.
More from R.J. Rushdoony (Roots of Reconstruction) on being a slave by nature:
Recently a very fine man, who should know better, sent me a statement containing his answer to the rising tide of evil: “Let’s pray about it.” I believe that such statements are blasphemous. We are commanded in Scripture to pray, but prayer can never be a substitute for responsibility. If, for example, I refuse to work, and then we pray to God for food for our family, we are doubly guilty before God, guilty of improvidence and of blasphemy.
I was interested recently in re-reading a passage in a book I first read in 1957, and which was written a few years earlier. Felice Belliotti, in the study Fabulous Congo, wrote (on p. 189):
“Like all primitives, the negro only recognizes force, and the result of a policy of gradual concession of rights is easy to foresee: as soon as he realizes clearly that no one can hang him or kill him out of hand and that the white men are incapable of casting the evil eye on him there will be no holding him back. He has no conscience, no western code of ethics to guide him in his actions, and when his heart is really free of physical punishment he will become a hopelessly intractable rebel.”
The Congo is a shambles today, and the major victims are the Negroes, not because there are more evil men today but because good men have surrendered control.
“All the great liberals of the past – Rousseau, Voltaire, Turgenev, Flaubert, Freud, Darwin, and Marx – labored in the vineyards of liberalism so that European liberals could finally unveil the Negro as the alternative to Christ.” Cambria has a plausible theory in this article, which is that when we say we love our own but do not hate others, we are not believed, because we are judged by the standard of other races, who take pride in their own but do not love their own. While race is the occasion for the question, it is fundamentally religious in nature. Thus, mercy is interpreted as weakness, and it is devoured, as a wolf devours his prey.
Thou know’st the marksman – I, and I alone.
Now are our homesteads free, and innocence
From thee is safe: thou’lt be our curse no more.
“In the absence of faith in the Christian God, who does battle with Satan, the European is lost in the darkness. He can’t fight for pride of race as the colored tribes do. He must fight for the sacred things that heroes like William Tell fought for, but without faith there are no sacred things for the white man to fight for.”
We link to very few news stories of rape and murder because there are so many, but here’s one that shows why it’s not good enough to merely judge individuals on the content of their character. The “good” ones tend to cover for the bad ones, and law and order becomes a fleeting memory when dealing with a people who harbor such resentments against the white majority that they willfully defend criminals, and that includes the churchgoers among them who like to wear purple hats.
“Ever committed to preserving the dignity of Black men in a world which constantly stereotypes them as violent savages,” a white leftist woman in the mold of Obama’s whore-mother goes to Haiti “to fight ‘the man’ on behalf of my brothers.” Then one of them rapes her.
I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face. Overpowered, I gave up fighting halfway through the night.
Of course, there’s one thing she hates more than the pain of being raped, and that’s her own people. So once the pain subsides, she returns to harping on “white patriarchy” and “the many injustices inflicted upon Black men in this world. The pain, trauma and rage born of exploitation are terrors that I have grappled with every day of my life. They make one want to strike back, to fight rabidly for what is left of their personal dignity in the wake of such things.”
The feminist shares with the alien and the faggot an unnatural lust for equality. The feminist knows that without “white patriarchy” to protect her in the world of chaos she seeks to create, “the international community” must “provide women with the protection that they need.” The difference is that while this foolish woman believes that the black man wishes to stand alongside her to protest “oppression,” the black man is thinking of how he can get her to spread her legs “by any means necessary,” in the words of the bisexual terrorist Malcolm X. Thus, she believes that she became “a receptacle for a Black man’s rage at the white world.” This can be partly true in countries like ours where black resentment is a lucrative industry, but it’s doubtful that the man who raped her ever gave a thought to white oppression. Is white oppression also to blame when black men rape black women?
You can see that the feminist’s depravity leads her in the end to embrace evil.
While I take issue with my brother’s behavior, I’m grateful for the experience. It woke me up, made me understand on a deeper level the terror that my sisters deal with daily.
All who hate God love death, as it says in the book of Proverbs.
“It is vain for the rabid negrophilist, Dr. Horace Bushnell, to write a book at this date against Women’s Rights as the ‘Reform against Nature.’ He cannot consistently oppose it; he has himself naturalized the false principles from which that ‘reform’ will flow. The true principles from which its folly might have been evinced, the principles held by us ‘Rebels,’ he has trampled down with the armed heel, and drowned in blood and buried under mountains of obloquy and odium and slander. He cannot resort to those sound premises. To meet the argument of these aspiring Amazons fairly, one must teach, with Moses, the Apostle Paul, John Hampden, Washington, George Mason, John C. Calhoun, and all that contemptible rabble of ‘old fogies,’ that political society is composed of ‘superiors, inferiors, and equals’; that while all these bear an equitable moral relation to each other, they have very different natural rights and duties; that just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualification to use it for the good of the whole; that the integers out of which the State is constituted are not individuals, but families represented in their parental heads; that every human being is born under authority (parental and civic) instead of being born ‘free’ in the licentious sense, that liberty is each one’s privilege of doing what he chooses; that subordination, and not license, is the natural state of all men; and that without such equitable distribution of different duties and rights among the classes naturally differing in condition, and subordination of some to others, and of all to the law, society is as impossible as is the existence of a house without distinction between the foundation stone and the capstones.” ~ R.L. Dabney
What Dabney writes here is similar to what Pericles said in his famous funeral oration: “For never can a fair or just policy be expected of the citizen who does not, like his fellows, bring to the decision the interests and apprehensions of a father.”
This week in Jewsweek: “Women, women, women. The world over, women are doing amazing, earth-shattering, unprecedented things.” By which they mean masculine things. But like Jewish humor, black achievement, and Mexican family values, this is a lot of bravado about what does not really exist. Of 190 heads of state, only nine are women. Women are 13% of parliamentarians in the world, 15% of corporate board members, and 20% of the heads of non-profits. This shows very obvious inequality, but feminists blame it on oppression rather than nature. Amazing! Earth-shattering! Unprecedented!
Here’s an example of their mockery of femininity.
This shopkeeper has been abandoned by her hate-filled people. But don’t worry about what you see in the video. Your pastor says race means nothing to God, and national borders are arbitrary, and foreigners just need to be converted. It’ll all work itself out eventually, he says. And if a few eggs are cracked to make the omelet of the kingdom, well, that’s life. By the way, do you think Pat Robertson and his CBN crew have realized that “racists” warned them about this outcome long ago? No, I don’t either.
The primary activity of Kinism is just this: the posing of a simple existential question to those who claim to support the principle of popular government. And that question is whether a people, on the basis of mutual interest and voluntary association has the right of political and economic self-determination, and on that basis, the consequent right of nationhood. The aforementioned question having been answered in the affirmative, Kinism then proposes to ask whether a nation, once formed, has a right to promulgate such laws as will defend its national sovereignty and identity, on the basis of those originating mutual interests and bonds of voluntary association.
That is, whether it is permissible that nations themselves exist, and not only politico-ideological formalisms of pure power, whose refusal of national existence is claimed on the basis of prior considerations which, in practice, violate the principle of self-government. This, then, can only be the imposition of other-government, as against self-government, for reasons other than principle. The constitution of a nation being grounded in its identity, mutuality, and voluntary association, it requires no external assent to come into being. The White Nation already exists, by dint of this constitution, and awaits no recognition by the illegitimate government of the U.S., nor can its national charter ever be revoked, so long as there are those who will be voluntarily bound by that identity. It exists as a nation whose government has been forced into exile, and not as an association of chattel whose right to self-determination can be revoked by any external political potency.
Those who answer that no such right of self-determination exists must cease all claim to support self-government, political self-determination, defense of minority, and every other pretense of democracy, and declare themselves for what they are: disciples of pure power, whose government flows from nothing more noble than their tentative hold on superior force.
Truly, John Marshall is Kinism’s own Tom Jefferson. You need to print that out and frame it.
A new study by the National Institute of Mental Health shows that there is a relationship between racial identity and happiness. Those who identify more strongly with their racial identity are generally happier, according to psychologists at Michigan State University.
“Nation can be one aspect of identity that enhances our sense of self, adds to the enjoyment of difference, increases our possibility for participation in public life, and enriches the world community.” ~ Lynne Jones [who is obviously a Hater], States of Change: A Central European Diary
“A nation without borders is no nation at all,” says Rand Paul.
From The Valley of Vision – A collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions:
Thou art the creator – Father of all men, for thou hast made and dost
Thou art the special Father of those who know, love and honour thee,
who find thy yoke easy, and thy burden light,
thy work honourable,
thy commandments glorious.
But how little thy undeserved goodness has affected me!
how imperfectly have I improved my religious privileges!
how negligent have I been in doing good to others!
I am before thee in my trespasses and sins,
have mercy on me,
and may thy goodness bring me to repentance.
Help me to hate and forsake every false way,
to be attentive to my condition and character,
to bridle my tongue,
to keep my heart with all diligence,
to watch and pray against temptation,
to mortify sin,
to be concerned for the salvation of others.
O God, I cannot endure to see the destruction of my kindred.
Let those that are united to me in tender ties
be precious in thy sight and devoted to thy glory.
Sanctify and prosper my domestic devotion,
instruction, discipline, example,
that my house may be a nursery for heaven,
my church the garden of the Lord,
enriched with trees of righteousness of thy planting,
for thy glory;
Let not those of my family who are amiable, moral, attractive,
fall short of heaven at last;
Grant that the promising appearances of a tender conscience,
soft heart, the alarms and delights of thy Word,
be not finally blotted out,
but bring forth judgment unto victory in all whom I love.
Here’s a quote from one unnamed woman who has gone over to the dark side, and it is a quote that could come from any of today’s Judeochristians:
I don’t believe in a “nation” as anything other than structure of convenient size for civil administration (which, by the way, is much, much smaller than the United States). If everyone follows God’s laws all “borders” become meaningless.
What is important is the Christianity of a people, not the geographic borders they draw on maps.
Remember how we said that a Kinist church is in the works? Well, curb your enthusiasm, because it’s still in the planning stages. But here it comes. In Alienland there will be copious weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and wetting of pants. Consider this a memo to all Babelists: We’re taking the Church back.
As our friend Colby asks, will it be Kin, Kith, and Kirk, or Sin, Sith, and Spock? Make your choice.