Blond hair and blue eyes in Russian advertisements for the 2014 Winter Olympics are being denounced as “fascist,”"neo-Hitlerite,” and “like something from a Leni Riefenstahl film.”
Meanwhile, untold millions are spent on advertisements like this and this, and no one says a word about it looking like something from Kong Island.
Were advertisements like these also “fascist” for emphasizing white beauty?
Don’t forget about racist “flesh colored” Band-Aids.
This is unconscionable: Barack Obama wants to kill six million Jews! When Obama suggested that Israel should withdraw to the borders of the state that existed in 1967, Jews in unison cried “Auschwitz!” Jews can’t have Gazans and Lebanese and Jordanians and Syrians bearing down on them; they need to keep Gazans and Lebanese and Jordanians and Syrians at a safe firing distance.
Michael Hoffman writes:
The American right wing never tires of Auschwitz. Dresden February ’45, Nagasaki August ’45, Beirut August ’82, Gaza January ’09 and dozens of other cities holocausted by the noble Allies, or the holy “Jewish state,” don’t count or qualify as mantras of victimhood. The German, Japanese and Arab victims of those holocausts are expected to shut up, forever. They are not entitled to the same victim status.
Why? Because Germans, Japanese and Arabs don’t have souls equal to that of the “Jews” who, their holy books inform them, possess the highest soul, the “Neshama HaElyonah,” which gentiles do not possess. And now you know why the cry of “Auschwitz!” drowns out the invocation of every other holocaust.
Did you know that the imperial Congress mandates commemoration of the Holohoax? It’s called the National Days of Remembrance, and this year Supreme Court Injustice Stephen Jew Breyer announced “that the Holocaust story ended with a fair trial.” He is referring to the kangaroo court at Nuremberg, and he says that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court are based upon it. (Strangely, the anti-Christ state that Jews call “Israel” goes unpunished by international courts for its terrorism, assassinations, and genocide.) “The Talmud teaches us ‘it is not incumbent upon you to complete the work,’” Breyer said. “But neither are you free to evade it.”
If you’re a Judeochristian who agrees with anti-Christ Breyer that Nuremberg was a triumph for justice, don’t miss Rushdoony’s response to a question about Nuremberg at 1:12:00 in his lecture from the previous SWB post. Rush chided the questioner:
I think you picked the worst possible example [to condemn genocide on common-ground principles] because the Nuremberg Trials represent lynch law. And we set the worst possible legal precedent we could, because we said without any law you could execute. And there was no law for the Nuremberg Trials. It means that after the next war, anybody can lynch anybody and probably will. The victors will kill, without excuse…
The questioner asks Rush if he is defending genocide because he has implied that there is no crime without law. Rush responds:
The only way you can have order is first to have legal jurisdiction and then to proceed with a criminal offense and a trial, a hearing. The minute you break the processes of law, you create anarchy instead of justice. And we went in there with lynch law in mind. We weren’t concerned with evidence because…we did not go after those we thought were guilty but those who were designated.
The purpose was not justice, it was vengeance… The trial was a farce, a thoroughgoing farce. [In part because Stalin ordered the Russian prosecutors to file charges against the German defendants for the Katyn Forest massacre, even though he knew that the Allies knew that he himself was responsible for it.] And I believe the trial of Eichmann was similarly farce. I wouldn’t have blamed anyone who suffered under him to go out and kill him, to take the law into his hands. But to pretend that lynch law is law is another thing.
Sweet mother of Sasquatch, we love R.J. Rushdoony. What fellowship we’ll have after the Resurrection!
Some of Rushdoony’s books are now online for free! Three excellent recommendations: The Institutes of Biblical Law, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, and The Foundations of Social Order. Don’t start reading them unless you want your life to be changed. They might post The One and the Many soon, which is also a must-read.
For just one of countless examples proving what Rush says above, see the planned assassination and burial of Osama Bin Laden, who was a salaried scapegoat. Lynching is very, very bad, and racist too, unless you’re from the government.
This dictatorial power derived from Honest Abe Lincoln. According to the late Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, and control funding. Lincoln claimed this power for himself and became the first American emperor.
A century of increasingly bloody wars followed, and after the horrors and waste of Korea and Vietnam, Congress roused from its slumber and decided to try to apply brakes to the runaway train known as the “presidency,” and passed the War Powers Act. This Act politely requests that if the “president” can make time in his schedule, he is to acquire congressional approval within 60 days of starting a new war. And if said approval is not forthcoming (perish the thought), he is to cease and desist his war for Democracy within 30 days…unless patriotism is on the line, of course. Obama has just snubbed the War Powers Act, allowing more than 60 days to pass after his war commenced in Libya. And the lapdog Congress has not demanded compliance. Everyone has simply ignored the law. His truth is marching on! as Yankees love to sing. Be sure to watch the Glenn Beck show, and you can hear David Barton explain that America has lived under the Constitution for 225 years. And then flags will wave, and an eagle will swoop down to lift Baby Jesus high above Mordor. It’ll be fabulous.
This is Memorial Day weekend, when churches everywhere try to outdo themselves in empire worship. A friend of ours was handed this bulletin Sunday morning:
In the sermon, he heard:
- Comparisons of King David with U.S. Grant
- Approving reference to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
- An illustration involving “noble” Union soldiers
- Sappy D-Day stories of courageous U.S. troops who killed bad Germans for American freedom
- A statement that the State should “require” us to pay respects to all U.S. veterans (no matter the war)
- The claim that all men and women who served in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are brave and worthy of great honor
- The request that all veterans (irrespective of whether they served in a just or unjust war) stand up for recognition and applause
The Judaic victory is complete when making war for Jews is now equated with Christian sainthood.
“The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations – a greater Judaism, in fact – all the separate races and religions shall disappear.” ~ Jewish World, February 9, 1883
I’ll give you a quick course in Jewish math, but first some background is needed.
For centuries, Europeans were understandably uncomfortable with having anti-Christs in their midst. Jews were usually required to convert or leave. The problem was that their conversions were more often than not lies, and there was really no place for them to go. Jew Theodor Herzl hatched a plan to found a Jewish state, and Zionism was born. Some claim that this was motivated by the 1894 treason trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France, but historians no longer believe this to be true.
The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. The following year, Herzl traveled to Palestine and met with Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Nothing came of it. He also met with the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, but the Sultan was unwilling to grant a charter to the Jews even for the promise of paying off Turkey’s debt. (A few years later, the pope would also refuse to assist with the enterprise since Jews are Christ-deniers.) Then Herzl turned to Britain and met with Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, and others. The bloody Brits proposed a Jewish autonomous region in Uganda! Negroes are useful dunces for Jews in America in their quest to dispossess the natives, but Jews would have been roasted on spits in Uganda, and their gravy would have reeked of gefilte fish. Let’s just say that the offer was less than appealing to Herzl, and the other Jews in the Zionist Congress were so outraged by it that it almost caused a rupture.
So Jews reverted to a Talmudic strategy based on lies and exaggerations which 45 years later, following two disastrous world wars, would give them everything they wanted. Their strategy was to evoke the sympathy of the world after convincing the world that their very existence was imperiled.
In 1899, you can see that Jews claimed to have been “holocausted” by the Spanish Inquisition.
In 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise (co-founder of the NAACP) told Jewish welfare organizations in the United States: “There are six million living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.” The significance of the number 6 million could be Kabbalistic, but I don’t know if there is any proof for this.
A few years later, the Jewish Chronicle of London charged “the whole of Russia” (meaning Christians, prior to the Jew-Soviet Revolution) with trying to “holocaust” and “annihilate” 5 million Jews. The word “extermination” is used.
Then came World War 1. Despite the fact that the white race tried to wipe itself from the face of the earth in that war, Jews used their media holdings to cast themselves as the Victims. Here’s an article from 1918 that refers to 3 million Jews in Poland and Eastern Europe. Another from the following year refers to 5 million Jews in all of Europe, saying, “Jewry’s back broken.” The same year, in the following Jewish publication, the figure was inflated to 6 million adults and 800,000 children.
Notice that Jews were being “crucified…because of a war to lay Autocracy in the dust and give Democracy the sceptre of the Just.” The god Demos had replaced the One True God, and the cornerstone of the New World Order had been laid. President Wilson involved America in the war for this very reason, “to make the world safe for democracy.” If we were bound to be involved at all, it should have been on the side of the Kaiser. Millions of lives would have been spared, and the evil Treaty of Versailles would not have been imposed on Germany, which more than anything else led to the rise of Hitler and the carnage of World War 2. You’ll recall that the Allies called Germans “Huns” in both wars, but especially the first, to associate them with Attila and his barbarians. Many books have been written on how Jews helped to bring these events to fruition, from the Rothschilds to the Federal Reserve to the League of Nations and beyond, all of it culminating in over 80 million deaths and the founding of the apartheid state of Israel.
In the article above, you can see the allegation that because Jews fought for democracy in World War 1, the “bigoted lust for Jewish blood” threatened them with a “holocaust.” And because “in that war for democracy 200,000 Jewish lads from the United States…fought for democracy as Joshua fought against the Amalekites on the plains of Abraham…the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving $35,000,000 in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women… Because of this war for Democracy six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas; eight hundred thousand Jewish babies are crying for bread.”
Corporal Hitler was a complete unknown in 1919, when this was written (the same year that Stalin rose to power), but that very year he became admired as an orator when he rose in a meeting to vigorously denounce Bavarian secession. He began to write against Jews in the same year, yet here are 6 million of them already allegedly at risk of perishing.
Let’s turn our attention back to Russia. Two years later, in 1921, the Jewish population is now allegedly (wait for it) 6 million.
“Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre,” it says, in big, friendly letters, and all because “scores” had been killed in pogroms. America, the babysitter of the world, is called upon to intervene by this Jew, and money couldn’t hurt. First the Christians in Czarist Russia were to blame for disemboweling defenseless Jews and hacking off their breasts. Then Jews took control of the empire in the Revolution (with Bolsheviks playing good cop/bad cop with the Mensheviks, just as they do here in America). But look out, because the Christian axe murderers are at it again as “Soviet power wanes.” We know that Soviet power was not on the wane, so this was a lie. We know that in little more than a decade from this time, tens of millions of Christians, not Jews, would perish at the hands of Stalin.
After millions of Christians died in the Ukrainian genocide, and millions were deported to Siberia, and millions were sent to the Gulag, Stalin executed tens of thousands of Red Army officers, including Jews Kamenev and Zinoviev. In 1938, almost every leading member of the original Bolsheviks was murdered.
Zionists were unable to gain traction in Spain or Russia, but you know that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, and not a penny less. But not so fast…
This was published in 1938, three years before the so-called “death camps” were opened. (Dachau opened in 1933 but did not at first hold Jews, and not even Simon Wiesenthal believed that there were extermination camps on German soil.) It was published four years before the “Final Solution” was allegedly drafted at the Wannsee Conference.
A brief digression: The “Final Solution” document itself is evidently an English forgery. Germans would never call for a “detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved,” but Anglo-Saxons certainly would. Who do you think invented ISO 9000 certification? The paper doesn’t prove anything about extermination, and it wasn’t of interest at all until people no longer believed the fantastical stories about lampshades from human skin, shrunken heads, and soap rendered from boiled Jews that the Allies peddled after the war. There are other silly things in the minutes from the Wannsee Conference, such as the need to remove Jews “as quickly as possible” but use them in migratory road crews, building as they went. Those crazy Germans! This should have been a scene in the Hogan’s Heroes TV show that I watched as a boy. I must have missed the episode on the army of talking dogs.
For our purpose at hand, notice that even the minutes from the Wannsee Conference refer to 6 million Jews in Europe and 5 million in Russia, for a total of 11 million.
So let’s look at the math. We are asked, over the span of many years, by the Jews themselves, to believe that there were 6 million Jews in Europe, all of them Victims. But in 1945, we learned that there were not really 6 million Jews in Europe when the previous article was written, because if that had been the case, and Hitler killed 6 million of them (as every schoolboy knows), it would mean that none would remain. Therefore, the numbers had to be juggled like so when World War 2 ended:
Ah, but if 3.5 million remained, and the population estimates prior to the war were 5 or 6 million, perhaps “only” 2 million died, you say. This proves not only that you’re an anti-Semite but that you have no grasp of Jewish math. They should throw you in prison until you recant your affiliation with the Nazi Party, you skinhead! Once you begin to understand Jewish math, you’ll know why the official casualty estimate at Auschwitz was lowered from 4 million to 1.5 million after the first Zundel trial but the magical number of 6 million remains, and any European who disputes it can rot in a cold jail cell.
The 9.5 million figure for the population of European Jews came from the American Jewish Committee. But from the very same source, the world population of Jews remained steady all the way through the war.
So where is the loss of 6 million?
Surprise! Lenin was Jewish too. Stalin did his best to bury the fact. Were any of the original Communists not Jewish?
Kevin MacDonald writes: “In Philadelphia in the 1930s, fully 72.2 percent of the Communist Party members were the children of Jewish immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century.”
Some very interesting and well-reasoned comments from a friend of ours on the accusation of being a Nazi sympathizer:
Germany herself is nothing other than a congeries of duchies, principalities, marks, and free cities fused together by Bismarck… You could call it collectivist and totalitarian, provided you understand it was less of either of those than we are right now in the US. As far as I can tell, it was about as socialist as 1950′s America under Eisenhower: the interstate highway system, progressive tax table, incentives for favored industries, and so forth, but otherwise a lot of freedom indeed.
Now as far as the One and the Many: I would prefer the First Reich, which I think was the ideal balance… Certainly, I am anti-democracy: how could any sane person not be, seeing what we have arrived at? A strict patrician Republic is probably ideal, but I don’t see any evidence that such a thing can last more than a generation or two. It lasted for us approximately four score and seven years. Get over it. It is over. Hegel suggested that the Prussian monarchy was the perfect state thus far in history…
So, at the end of the day, am I a Nazi? Well, as I pointed out before, that is an ambiguous question. History never repeats itself. We are not facing the Bolshevik threat concentrated so many miles to the east, we are not wedged in the middle of three imperialist regimes or wanna-be imperial regimes, we don’t have the tradition of monarchy, we are not occupied by foreign powers, we are not paying reparations from an unjust treaty, etc. etc. So what does the question mean, “Are you a Nazi?” The questions are all different, so the answers will all be different. “What if you were there?” That too is not as clear as it seems at first blush. If “I was there,” does that mean my parents were there also? My parents, or some other, German-speaking parents? My parents speaking German? But then, teaching me to play soccer rather than baseball, I presume? Learning Goethe rather than Shakespeare, etc.? When all the changes are made, is it still “me”? It is the problem of identity between possible worlds. It is not clear to me that it can be done while retaining personal identity. So the real question is, would someone “like us” that was a German in the 1930s be a National Socialist? Someone that is Christian, patriotic, concerned about the kikenpornography from Berlin and the communist threat both from within and without; would someone like that become a National Socialist? The answer is very obvious: yes. They did, in large numbers…
As for Hitler, there is no question in my mind that of the four leaders – Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt – he was the best (or least bad, depending on how you want to put it).
Being present at the scene of a crime does not mean that you participated in a crime, unless Jews have labeled you a “Nazi war criminal.” For the first time ever in a German court, “the case against Mr. Demjanjuk [once erroneously believed to be Ivan the Terrible] rested on the prosecution’s charge that anyone working at the camp at the time he was there shared responsibility for its function of systematic murder.” (Except for Jews who aided Nazis, of course. It would be anti-Semitic to convict them.) The prosecution also rested on the assumption that the Soviets were in the habit of telling the truth.
Michael Hoffman writes:
Can any accused “Nazi” get a fair trial in Zionist Germany, where defense attorneys can be arrested for defending their accused clients too vigorously, and where writers and publishers such as Ernst Zundel, rot for years in prison because they dare to doubt Holocaustianity, the last truly believed religion in the otherwise agnostic West?
In 91-year-old John Demjanjuk, the Zionists have their pound of flesh.
Pat Buchanan’s article on Demjanjuk and this abortion of justice is superb.
Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: ”No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime.”
That is correct. No evidence was produced, no witness came forward to testify he ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone. And the critical evidence that put Demjanjuk at Sobibor came – from the KGB.
“The antique European was put on trial in the 20th century for the crimes of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. On all three counts he was found guilty. He was found guilty of racism because he did not give the black man equal status with the white man. He was found guilty of sexism because he placed the female of the species by the hearth fire with her children and endeavored to keep her out of the workplace. And he was found guilty of anti-Semitism because he thought the unrepentant, unconverted Jew was an enemy of Christ.” ~ CWNY
“The people who have thus been driven out [of their homes] are the wastage of the Federal Reserve Act. They are the victims of the dishonest and unscrupulous Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival here of the institution of human slavery.” ~ Congressman Louis T. McFadden, from a speech on the floor of the U.S. Congress, 1932
If the imperial debt were a stack of $1,000 bills, it would reach beyond the stratosphere. Of course, you read something like this but are not really capable of visualizing it, and it’s because we’ve allowed the empire to grow far out of proportion to ordinary life.
Most people have trouble conceptualizing $14.3 trillion.
Stan Collender, a budget expert at Qorvis Communications, said the biggest sum most Americans have ever handled – in real or play money – is the $15,140 in the original, standard Monopoly board game.
The United States borrows about 185 times that amount each minute.
“Whatever Scott Craig Mooney writes on Usury people should read… Sermons on the sin of Usury (not to mention the sin of fiat money) are almost never heard because usury is no longer considered a sin.”
“Utah became the first state in the country this month to legalize gold and silver coins as currency.”
Interesting news for Roman Catholics: According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, no one can agree with 1 Thess. 2:14-16 “without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church.”
The World Council of Churches is again blaming Whitey for “violence, injustice, militarism, racism, casteism, intolerance and discrimination.” Sham repentance feels good to these people, better than detoxing the bowels. Here’s what your impastor wants to hear from you. We really need to do something about Kentucky Baptists and Pennsylvania Amish committing arson and rape and murder. And let’s not even talk about Swedes.
Here’s a half-good article from Kevin MacDonald against libertarianism. Two points made are that 1) “there have never been any pure libertarian societies”; and 2) libertarianism is race denial.
[T]he libertarian idea that we should alter government as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity, whether based on ethnicity or on a voluntary association like a corporation.
In Christian terms, it is covenant denial. Since the focus here is immigration, the Christian answers that biblical property laws obviate the exploitation and dispossession that now afflict us under an open-borders democracy. Both stem from a centralized government that derives its power not from the consent of the governed but from the interest groups that are able to funnel the most money to it. Immigration, therefore, becomes the “Viagra of the State,” as MacDonald writes.
MacDonald’s problem is that he bows to the god of evolution; as though this god of his is what has made the West differ from the East; as though his god made Westerners monogamous. He writes:
Moreover, in the libertarian Eden, regulations on marriage and sexual behavior would disappear so that wealthy men would be able to have dozens of wives and concubines while many men would not have access to marriage. Sexual competition among males would therefore skyrocket.
In fact, the social imposition of monogamy in the West has had hugely beneficial consequences on the society as a whole, including greater investment in children and facilitating a low pressure demographic profile that resulted in cumulative investment and rising real wages over historical time. In other words, progress.
At the same time, libertarianism is a white invention. This is why only white men read Ayn Rand books: “Her characters appeal to our vanity and our natural desire to live free of burdensome constraints and to be completely in charge of our own destiny.” One can almost hear Lindbergh’s warning that we have mixed our own poison. Whites are alone in the world in having “been able to free themselves from clan-based social structure (a form of collectivism) and develop societies with a high level of public trust needed to create modern economies.” But public trust means nothing when the strange gods of the stranger possess his blood. This is the point of Jared Taylor’s latest book – that (as Gary North likes to say) you can’t fight something with nothing. The individual libertarian is helpless against a united front of non-white races.
Whitey lost the moon because we’re too busy subsidizing ghettos.
One look at this grocery receipt will tell you why off-whites love being in our country. “Nobody has handed you a thing,” says Obamination to the freeloaders of south Memphis, even though everything they have has been given to them. And this will not change, said Obama. The “federal” government, he said, will always be “there for you.”
Talking about the rising number of people on food stamps when a black man is president is RACIST.
“The unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes…and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds.” ~ John C. Calhoun
Carlos Santana has scolded Georgia for following Arizona in making it easier to deport wetbacks (which the Supreme Court has just supported, in a 5-3 vote). Whites ought to be “ashamed,” he says, for passing their “cruel law,” which is “about fear,” not justice. “People are afraid we’re going to steal your job. No, we aren’t. You’re not going to change sheets and clean toilets.” Well, you can’t argue with that logic. Before the wetback invasion, it’s a fact that Americans used to throw their dirty sheets in the road and replace their toilets when they crusted over and could no longer flush.
More stellar logic from Santana: “If people want the immigration laws to keep passing, then everybody should get out and leave the American Indians here.” To say that Indians believed in property laws is like saying that Africans believed in marriage.
This was said at baseball’s annual “Civil Rights game,” which is just a corporate-sponsored excuse to discriminate against whites in the name of equality. They trot out anyone with a public presence, as long as the most important factor about the person is that he isn’t white. Santana was one of the non-black tokens; he plays a guitar and has nothing to do with baseball. Morgan Freeman is the favorite choice of liberals to play God in movies, so he was there. Al Roker is a network weatherman, so he had to be there, having studied meteorology without dropping out. Hank Aaron, who is a genuine baseball star, was there, of course, but what he has to do with “civil rights” is anyone’s guess. The very idea that swinging at balls has more to do with civil rights than what our (white) anti-federalist fathers secured for us is offensive, especially in light of the fact that diversities have done everything in their power to render the Bill of Rights ineffective. The “civil rights” movement was not about civil rights at all. As James Edwards says, it “was all about the abolition of private property rights and the freedom of association in America.” Not to mention the legal right to deflower white girls. It’s funny that Mr. Aaron trots out to every ceremony that is held, when you think of white baseball stars like Ted Williams, who just wanted to fish in his retirement, and would not have even been seen at autograph shows if his son had not dragged him around; or Joe DiMaggio, who was famously reclusive, and all the more loved because of it. The funniest quote of all from the “Civil Rights game” came from Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro: “Any time you can honor the people that changed the game, it’s a good thing.” They certainly have changed the game. I would prefer to honot the race which invented the game, but that would be racist.
Along the same lines, the Washington Mall used to be all-white, and something had to be done about it to give other races the illusion of accomplishment and involvement in the empire’s history. Though the “separate but equal” era is now denounced by off-whites as horrible, and to bring it to an end schools had to be integrated even if they had received equal resources, separate but equal museums are now considered a good thing. But even for race-mixers, the balkanization doesn’t sit well. “The Museum of American History is where all the white folks are going to go,” says Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, “and the American Indian Museum is where Indians are going to feel at home. And African Americans are going to go to their own museum. And Latinos are going to go their own museum. And that’s not what America is all about… The next one will probably be Asian Americans. The next, God help us, will probably be Irish Americans.” The Indian museum, which Moran hilariously dismisses as “a glorified arts and crafts fair,” opened seven years ago, and the black one will open in four years, with a mestizo one likely to follow. And that’s just fine with Puerto Rican Rep. Jose Serrano. “This generation has been called on to remedy a lot of stuff that happened in the past,” he says. “We have to take care of it.” And whites will bend over and take it, because anything less would be racist. There sure is a lot of confusion over “what America is all about.” The old “racist” Christians didn’t seem to be nearly as confused.
Jew Dan Adler, who has a Korean “wife,” has a character in his campaign commercial who says, “We minorities should stick together.” At the end, Jew Dan says, “I definitely approved this message.” Though the congressional district is only 13.8% white, the message is clearly that all minorities except whites should stick together. Jew Dan can get away with this easily, but any white politician who runs with a message of whites sticking together will find that his campaign ends after one press conference, and for the rest of his life he will be branded as a hateful-evil-racist. If this were to happen, in the words of Steve Sailer,
Oprah would fly in to help the healing begin. Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and Hendrik Hertzberg would each suffer aneurysms while competing to see who can most furiously castigate hate. President Obama would give a thoughtful, nuanced speech about this national trauma. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would get into a shoving match trying to elbow themselves to the front of the protest march. The Southern Poverty Law Center would [flog it] in its next dozen fund-raising letters.
My favorite line is where Jacquie Chan tells Jew Dan, “You’re Jewish!” “My family is Jewish,” he replies, which is a clever way of offloading the stigma to his poor family.
If you or your children suffer nausea or dizziness while watching this report about “America’s openly racist past,” help is just a phone call away. Please dial 1-800-NIG-GERS. Counselors are standing by.
The First Annual African-American National Spelling Bee was held in Houston. And this fits with the Brown v. Board of Education decision how? It was obviously instituted because black kids can’t compete with whites, Jews, and Asians, but the irony is inescapable. When someone floated the idea recently of an all-white basketball league, there was outrage in all the predictable quarters. The racial integration of sports is considered one of the crowning achievements of “civil rights” race-mixers, but now it’s interesting to see the popularity of the old Negro baseball league. It goes beyond nostalgia. Blacks wanted an entrance to white sports because of money, and now they miss having a league of their own. Whites viewed it (unfortunately) as giving all players an opportunity that they did not otherwise have, which is the exact same reason given for the creation of this black spelling bee. It’s another example of how blacks and whites think differently; whites are deracinated and blacks care for their own interests. Both sides also lie to themselves in different ways. Notice that the black woman defending the black bee says that it’s needed because of inequality. And where is the inequality 57 years after the Brown decision? “Access,” she says. But this is the very thing that trillions of dollars have been spent to resolve, and the only thing that has worked according to plan!
As Adlai Stevenson used to say, “Given a choice between agreeable fantasy and disagreeable fact, Americans will go for the agreeable fantasy every time.”
Where’s the Jew Fonz when you need him?
Michael Berry’s theory is that you’re not allowed to talk about race unless you’re black, and you’re not allowed to talk about race if you are black unless you’re also stupid.
It’s easier to be showered with free money.
Imagine being upset when a city spends money to build special drinking fountains and bathrooms for you.
Black Bike Week in Myrtle Beach got so bad that the city no longer recognizes it, as of 2009. Blacks continue to show up, but there are now curfew and anti-gathering laws to keep them spread out, and hopefully less violent. Many businesses close, just because they don’t want to deal with T.N.B., so the NAACP shows up every year, saying that the closing of businesses to discriminate against blacks will not be tolerated.
Castle down to South Africa! It’s sublime! “Look, honey, we’re talking to Negroes.” Now, one in three women in South Africa is raped, and 25% of the men admit to it. Baby rape is also prevalent.
One glance at this headline tells you that America’s crime rate is the lowest in four decades. Except that it’s not true. In heavily-black big cities, the crime rate is worse. In New York City, murder is up 14% and rape is up 24.5%, with Philadelphia, Boston, San Antonio, Minneapolis, and Detroit also showing increases. Here are the most dangerous cities in the country, all of them heavily blackened. As it says in the article, decreasing crime rates are not always due to decreasing crime. Sometimes it’s because of fewer policemen on the streets. A closer look at the FBI crime report shows murder to be way down in small towns (-25.2), with a marked difference between urban and rural areas (-2.9 vs. -12.5, respectively). This could mean that more blacks are moving to large cities as the economy worsens.
Donuts are racist. Notice that the Youtube comments get right to the point, unlike this article, which calls the nigger vandals “youths,” “teens,” and “kids.” Even in the old days of “racism,” before it became illegal to hurt the feelings of black people, white criminals were called things like “hooligans,” “hoodlums,” “ruffians,” “thugs,” and “scoundrels.” Now when black criminals show up in the newspaper, it must be made to sound like they crawled over the playground fence and stumbled into Mr. Wilson’s yard, trampling his freshly-seeded lawn. The mischievous little tykes! See the color of crime in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Imagine what these states would look like without black people, and how much money would be saved.
The unfireable black female public employee.
The least attractive women of any race are black, according to a study in Psychology Today authored by a sociologist at the London School of Economics. White women are, of course, the standard by which everyone else is measured. Concludes the professor: “Black women are far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.” The student body has unanimously voted to have him fired, just because he reported average assessments that shouldn’t surprise anyone. The magazine has apologized for publishing the story.
Home births are up 20% in the last four years, and as you would expect, it’s driven by white women. Whites giving birth at home: 1 in 98. Blacks: 1 in 357. Hispanics: 1 in 500.
According to our friend Greg Miller, “To speak with and observe the average mestizo or Amerindian is to marvel at a biped patched together from impulse and hot dog parts.”
Here’s an excellent summation of Kinism from a Brazilian or Portuguese. I think his name is Rodrigo Sbarros, and his grasp of the subject is amazing. It’s definitely worth saving after cleaning up the English a bit. Kinism is sweeping the world!
“It is not enough to be white merely in color; you must be white from the backbone forward.” ~ John Ney
We really do hate the SCV. In fact, “hate” is a word that hardly seems strong enough.
The League of the South decided, to its own hurt, about a decade ago not to champion Kinism, but if you have any doubts that the president of the League, Michael Hill, is an extraordinary man, feast your eyes on his even earlier essay, Our Survival As a People:
When God foiled the building of the Tower of Babel on the plains of Shinar he did so in order that the people might be scattered into separate nations and no longer be one people with one language (Genesis 11:1-9). In the previous chapter, we are told that the sons of Noah – Shem, Ham, and Japheth – and their descendants would occupy specified parts of the earth. For example, we read in Genesis 10:5 regarding the sons of Japheth: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” It is clear, then, that God intended men to live separately with their own languages, kith and kin, and nations. Therefore, nations (i.e. peoples) have a Biblical mandate to exist and thereby to protect their interests from those who would destroy them either by war or more subtle means.
Because of a resurgence of godless multiculturalism and universalism (the new Tower of Babel), white Western Christians are threatened with extinction as a separate and identifiable people because of their own weakness and lack of Biblical understanding about the God-ordained principles of nationhood. While all other “nations” (i.e. groups based on race and ethnicity and “blood and soil”) are encouraged to preserve themselves and their cultures, white Christians in the West (the descendants of Japheth) are told that we must give up everything we have in order to placate those different from ourselves and who bear some alleged grievance toward us (i.e. slavery, “racism,” hatred, etc.) Sadly, it is often “Christian” ministers who lead the charge toward multiculturalism, pluralism, and universalism in the name of God himself. But they are false teachers.
By the grace of God, the philosophies and institutions of Christian liberty are the creations of Western European whites. In this age of rabid “political correctness,” this salient truth is buried beneath the monumental lie that all men (and hence all cultures and civilizations) are “created equal.” But truth is a stubborn and resilient thing. And the truth is that for at least the past 400 years, Western Christian (i.e. European-American) civilization alone has enjoyed the fruits of ordered liberty and abundant material prosperity. Elsewhere in the world despotism has been the order of the day. However, let us not boast for the simple reason that God has ordained things thusly out of His eternal wisdom. The Western world’s blessings of the Gospel, liberty, and prosperity are just that, a blessing. In Acts 16:6-9, Paul and Silas were headed for Asia to spread the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit forbade them to go into that region. Instead, the Spirit led them, by means of Paul’s dream, westward into Macedonia. Thus the Gospel was forbidden to Asia in that day. Conversely, it was God’s will that it be spread into Europe. Of this we cannot boast. Rather, we can only thank God that in His providence He saw fit to bless our ancestors with His word and all that flows from obedience to it.
Our white European-American ancestors had no trouble enunciating the obvious truth that Western Christian civilization was superior to all others. Moreover, they had no hesitation about defending it, as their God-given patrimony, against those who would denigrate or destroy it. Just a century ago, our civilization was still distinguished by a robustness and self-confidence born out of a realization of the natural superiority of the West and its ways. None but the most crack-brained utopians believed in social, political, economic, and cultural equality, nor did they believe in the equality of the races in intellect and accomplishment. Unfortunately, the present century has witnessed the old order turned upon its head.
Today, the descendants of those European-American whites behave as a shamed and defeated people. Not only do they refuse to proclaim the God-ordained superiority of their own civilization and its venerable institutions; they also refuse to defend the very ethnic and racial particularities that gave form and definition to that civilization. “White” has become a dirty word, and few whites can even use the term now without wincing and casting furtive glances to and fro. But to deny one’s identity in such a manner is to dishonor the God who made us what we are and who separated us apart from the other races for His own eternal purposes. While blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other groups revel in their natural peculiarities, whites will not dare even admit that race is one of the primary factors that determines who we are and what we create on this earth. This is a simple and fundamental fact of God’s creation. We are who we are simply because He has commanded it.
Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and America disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor” – the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.
Why do white Americans, in particular those who can trace their lineage to the founding stock, lack the backbone to stand for the civilization given them by their forebears? A major reason is collective guilt. The white man first came into widespread contact with the darker races through the institution of slavery in the seventeenth century. Slavery (and not “man stealing”) was successfully defended from a Biblical standpoint through the War for Southern Independence and beyond, but after the South’s defeat and subsequent “reconstruction” the institution’s legitimacy was systematically undermined in the name of “equality” and misappropriated “Christian ethics.” During the first half of the twentieth century, Communists in Europe and America seized on the issues of “equality,” “racism,” and “white guilt” and began to use them as battering rams to knock down the gates of the old social, political, and economic order in the West. Moreover, the bogus work of leftist intellectuals such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead told white Europeans and Americans that all cultures were basically equal (i.e. what became known as “cultural relativism”).
Slavery and “racism” (the latter term was coined by the Communists), then, became instruments wielded by the left to destroy the very civilization, which allowed them the freedom and leisure to formulate and articulate their ideas in the first place. This nihilistic predilection shared by all leftists appears paradoxical at first glance; however, upon closer inspection it reveals a deep-seated hatred of God-given order and rationality, hallmarks of the white Western world. The leftist embrace of the antithesis of ordered Christian liberty manifested itself early on in a fascination with the primitiveness of non-white, non-Christian peoples and cultures. It was the “Enlightenment” philosophes in France who first became enamored with the idea of the “noble savage” who had not been corrupted by the vile civilization of the West.
The leftists’ success in introducing the concept of “racism” into the American social and political lexicon has led today to increasingly shrill demands from black leaders for reparations. This is clearly a policy of economic blackmail intended to transfer yet more wealth from whites to blacks. It also is another means of eliciting from whites an admission of guilt in order than their civilization might be further discredited. But instead of whites owing blacks reparations for slavery and its alleged attendant ills, blacks in reality owe white America (especially the South) a debt that likely will be neither acknowledged nor paid. Sold into slavery by their own people (or by the Muslims whom many blacks hold in such high regard today), Africans were transported out of a heathen and idolatrous continent and set down in the most Christian section of America – the South. There they were instructed in the Christian religion of their masters, given cradle-to-grave security, and generally treated quite humanely. In short, they were given a chance to live in an advanced civilization and have prospered mightily because of it. All one has to do is contrast the lot of today’s black American with that of his brethren back in Africa to see the truthfulness of this assertion.
The South’s military defeat in 1865 and the subsequent sudden emancipation of three and one-half million slaves was a disaster for whites and blacks alike. Former slaves, who found themselves on top in many areas of the Reconstruction-era South, generally proved unfit to hold positions of authority. Spurred on by the Radical Republican leaders, these black legislators and newly enlisted soldiers earned the enmity of disenfranchised whites who saw the destruction of their society at hand. Therefore, once the Union military occupation forces withdrew from the South in 1876, white Southerners immediately began to reassert their authority over a war-ravaged society. During the period from 1865-77, whites in the South had seen enough of Negro rule to understand that their [i.e. white] civilization would perish should blacks be given the vote and thus be permitted to control the political system.
Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population. Nonetheless, the “black community” of the late nineteenth century began to experience problems largely absent prior to 1865: black-on-black crime, illegitimacy, abject poverty, and family disintegration, among others. Despite trillions spent on welfare and other programs, these problems – and many others – still plague the “black community” in the present day. Clearly there is an ever-present problem here that emancipation and money did not solve.
Today, it is fashionable for black leaders and their white liberal allies to blame slavery and “racism” for the continuing ills that beset the “black community.” These ills were not eradicated by the “Civil Rights” revolution, and now black failure must have a fresh excuse: institutional “racism.” To the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world the only remedy is the destruction of white Western civilization in which blacks and other minority victim groups cannot compete and its replacement with a society based on the principles and mores (usually some form of Marxism) of dark-skinned peoples. This is why whites (beginning with Southerners, the easiest targets) and their way of life must be demonized and then eradicated. Blacks and other minorities claim they simply cannot get a fair shake in the white man’s world.
The cold facts of history tell us that blacks have never created anything approximating a civilization in the Western sense of the term. Indeed, history gives the lie to the bogus claims of the Afro-centrists who hail Mother Africa as the cradle of a glorious civilization that the white man stole and made his own. What progress and light that did shine on the Dark Continent came only as a result of nineteenth-century European colonialism. Once those colonial regimes were dismantled after World War Two, Africa began a steady descent once again into decadence. One need only look at Zimbabwe (the former prosperous and orderly country of Rhodesia) and Nelson Mandela’s South Africa to see the deleterious effects of white disestablishment and black rule. Again, it is a cold and hard fact that if white Christian European-Americans should lose control over the North American continent to non-white, non-Christian minorities, then it will cease to be the civilized place we have known for the past several hundred years. As blacks and other minorities (e.g. Hispanics in the American Southwest) have gained political control over towns and cities, the decline in the quality of life for whites has become precipitous. Whites have quietly deserted the very places their forefathers built rather than stay and be subjected to the crime and disorder that frequently comes with minority rule. Especially intolerable is the never-reported epidemic of black-on-white violent crime. Whites, then, do not leave because they are “racists” (whatever that means), but because they fear for their lives and property in an unfamiliar and inhospitable environment. They have become cultural outsiders.
By inflating the moral worth of non-white cultures (we dare not call them civilizations) while at the same time diminishing the stature of white Western civilization, the left has succeeded in lowering the cultural aspirations of the white man. Why listen to Mozart when you can have Rap? Today, because of the influence of the MTV-Hollywood nexus, it is the epitome of “cool” among young whites to act like blacks or other minorities. Baggy pants, backward-turned caps, rap music, sexual license, all are manifestations of this descent to the lowest cultural common denominator. And stemming naturally from this sad state of affairs is not a sense of cultural equality but of cultural superiority – non-white over white. It is then but a short series of steps from white guilt over slavery and “racism,” to equality, to multiculturalism and diversity, to hate crimes and hate speech, to the ultimate compromise of racial (i.e. national) extinction through miscegenation. At that point (which we are approaching rapidly in 2000) the old European-American Christian civilization will be ready for the dustbin of history.
The appeal of non-white-dominated popular culture (especially sports and entertainment) combined with low white birth rates and massive Third World immigration threatens to engulf whites both culturally and genetically. What will happen when America is no longer a “white Christian nation”? Already we have seen that the “Civil Rights” revolution of the 1950s and 1960s (the Second Reconstruction) was more about special privileges for blacks and other minorities than about “equality.” Moreover, guilt-ridden whites have acquiesced to a campaign of silence about the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime (the media’s dirty little secret that never gets reported). It is an open secret today that many black and Hispanic leaders are calling on their followers to “get even” with Whitey for perceived past injustices.
There are, however, some blacks who see the truth and are willing to speak it. One is syndicated columnist and George Mason University economist Walter Williams, who opined that the antebellum South was absolutely right to defend its largely Anglo-Celtic civilization from the machinations of Yankee Abolitionist meddlers. Then there is Elizabeth Wright, whose views undoubtedly shake liberal egalitarians to their very core. Wright noted, “I am not fooled by the ‘diversity’ folk into believing that the institutions of this society will be preserved and honored by those who happen to share my gene pool… The multicultural ideologues…make it clear that they view these institutions with contempt. They are working for nothing less than total control…”
Wright indeed has pegged the multicultural egalitarians correctly. Raw power is their one and only end, and they will use any means necessary to obtain it. And when they do, white European-Americans will be their first target. Then we will understand what “equality” really means. Wright believes that “when these people [i.e. blacks and other minorities] come to power, their major aim will be to institute their ‘enlightenment’ policies in all quarters of society… I have heard them refer to liberties such as freedom of speech as no more than…’jive ass claptrap’…” She continues: “I predict that, once in power, they will actually create laws to impose interracial unions, in order to finally bring about the ‘raceless’ dream society… He…who insists on union with his own kind will be dubbed an intractable racist and sent off for further re-education.”
It goes without saying that few whites today would have the intestinal fortitude to say what Elizabeth Wright has said, and that is precisely the problem. Even in the benighted and “racist” South, most whites will no longer speak and act in their own interests. However, the situation in Dixie, as bad as it is (especially in the big cities, yuppie suburbs, and wimpy churches), is much better than elsewhere. If a spirited defense of white, Western, Christian civilization is to be mounted on these shores, it will be in the South among that remnant of proud Anglo-Celts who remember the glories of their past. As likely as not, the South will find it necessary to break away from a decrepit Union that has already succumbed to the poison of multiculturalism and then form a new Confederacy dominated by the mores and institutions of our own civilization.
Once again, Elizabeth Wright (and don’t you feel ashamed that a black woman has to do our talking for us?) seems to understand our predicament better than most whites themselves. She sees “no deep-seated, heartfelt opposition to this trend [i.e. multiculturalism] except among white ‘Southrons.’ Other types of conservatives talk tough until an epithet is hurled their way. Then they fold.” Undoubtedly she is making reference here to the Republican Party. Wright concludes her remarkable essay with a call to arms for white Southerners: “Who is most likely to fight the hardest to maintain and conserve this extraordinary experiment in freedom…? Who else but the actual descendants of those Founders, that’s who. That means you, white Southrons. Once you lay down the sword, that will be the end of resistance… I view the battle as one that can only be accomplished by whites… I would think that most whites would want to be among the last who would destroy that which came out of the genius of their ancestors. So, if a ‘white’ South would guarantee the preservation of those institutions…then let’s have a White South.”
Wright’s clarion call is refreshing indeed. But it is white Southerners themselves who must muster the courage to act and act soon. Demographers predict that whites will be a minority in this country by 2050 (this is already true in California). If we are not willing to fight to preserve that glorious heritage bequeathed us by men of honor, genius, and principle, then we truly deserve the disinheritance that will befall us within the next half century. We are sowing the wind because of our inaction regarding immigration and multiculturalism. We will likely reap the whirlwind.
We could not have said it better ourselves. In fact, there is so much packed into this short essay that a book could be written on every sentence. We especially appreciate Dr. Hill’s condemnation of miscegenation and his association of race with nationality, which you don’t hear from any “respected” conservatives these days, not even from those who have been in the leadership of the League of the South, such as Franklin Sanders, Tom Moore, Clyde Wilson, and Tom Fleming. Even in this recent LOS blog post, you can see the same confusion of nationalism with internationalism and imperialism that Crazy Uncle Tom Fleming taught from the beginning. Thankfully, there is no such confusion in Dr. Hill’s essay. Though you won’t find the word “Kinism” in the essay, since it was written before the term was coined, this is precisely the theme, and it is worlds away from the colorblind conservatism that is common elsewhere.
“[O]ur hearts are designed to love the particular, not the generic,” writes our friend from Cambria. “When you deny your own particular race, you will not become a great lover of mankind, even though you might profess to be such; you will be an abstracted human being incapable of loving anyone or anything. If you don’t care enough about your own people as a distinct race of people, why then should you care about distinct and separate sexes and distinct and separate faiths?” There is also to be found in this article one of the best definitions of liberalism that I’ve ever read, and it comes from liberal Senator Bill Bradley, of all people, one of the most boring men who has ever lived: A liberal is one who does not accept tragedy.
Richard Weaver taught that the Southerner is precisely opposite. While Yankees chase utopian dreams, the Southerner “accepts the irremediability of a certain amount of evil and tries to fence it around instead of trying to stamp it out and thereby spreading it. His is a classical acknowledgment of tragedy and of the limits of power.” The Southerner distrusts abstraction, idealism, and progress, and loves kith and kin, blood and soil; the permanent things, as Russell Kirk put it. The Yankee is “unhappy unless he feels that he is making the world over. He may talk much of tolerance, but for him tolerance is an exponent of power. His tolerance tolerates only the dogmatic idea of tolerance, as anyone can discover for himself by getting to know the modern humanitarian liberal.” Weaver used a couple of Oswald Spengler’s terms and called the Southerner “Apollonian” and the Yankee “Faustian.” The Apollonian man is classical and prefers “a permanent settlement” and “a coming to terms with nature,” whereas the Faustian is a creature of “restless striving” and “constant outreaching,” who is known by his “denial of limits” and his “willingness to dissolve all into endless instrumental activity.” As Weaver wrote, “The North had Tom Paine and his postulates assuming the virtuous inclinations of man; the South had [Edmund] Burke and his doctrine of human fallibility and of the organic nature of society.” Thus, the Southerner “has only contempt for the tender, querulous, agitated creature of modern artifice, sighing for the comforts he is ‘entitled to.’”
“The reigning upper middle class white view is that everyone should always act on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative: ’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.’” Thus, whites both run from their problems and throw money at them, with “success” defined as who can afford the most impregnable fence, topped with lethal finials, around his property. But the same whites are always suprised to find that other races do not share their self-loathing. “Their race is the largest extended family to which they feel an instinctive kinship.”
While you’re buying gold to hedge against inflation, the hedge fund managers are buying farmland. “Hedge funds and investment banks are swapping their Gucci for gumboots,” according to the Financial Times.
A history of home values from 1890 to the present.
The seven most racist occupations.
If skin color is an accident, are genitalia also accidental?
Using the word “gay” in a negative sense is unexpurgated HATE.
“Christians” of the 21st century like to join with these fags and celebrate Loving Day, when the racism of our benighted Christian past was vanquished by the empire.
Uttering the word “fag” is now a more serious offense than rape and adultery. It’s a crime to offend perverts.
Here’s a fag heat map (sorry, Canada):
“Hollywood only has one story left. From The King’s Speech, to Thor, to Avatar, we’re just seeing the same movie over and over again. Aristocracy, identity, pride, and hierarchy must be humbled in the sacred name of equality. While conservatives bleat about the dangers of ‘moral relativism,’ Hollywood reflects a moral absolutism so rigid and uncompromising that we know the White Hats and Black Hats, how a story will end, and What We Will All Learn barely after the movie begins.”
“There used to be a real popular culture in America… In that veiled and lost epoch, many Americans played musical instruments they were raised to play instead of buying recordings produced by European musicians and Japanese corporations, wrote poetry for themselves instead of puzzling over thin volumes and crippled and bitter verse cranked out by whatever lesbian poetess-in-residence New York publishing houses have decided to make a celebrity for a week, and acted in and sometimes even wrote plays that they produced themselves in local theaters…” ~ Sam Francis
Here’s an excellent article on why world history is white history, not Asian history. Printing, gunpowder, and the compass “were invented in China centuries before Europeans began using them, but only Europeans developed them and applied them to transform their society and then the entire world.” In spite of this, “fascination with foreign cultures is uniquely Western.”
Mapping the advance of world religions.
Teach your children about real heroes, like Dmitry Donskoy, who repelled the Mongol hordes from Russia and saved north Asia for Christ and the white race. We Americans don’t know anything about him because we’re too busy venerating rubbish like MLK, Harriet Tubman, and Rosa Parks, and studying the laws of niggerometry. But in the East, Donskoy is every bit as significant as Charles Martel is in the West. We’ll build great edifices in their honor after the Resurrection, if not before.
About the SCV and such, I have complained elsewhere that the South spent decades refusing to take its own side in the civilizational dispute:
Southerners have wanted to preserve the distinctive white culture — instead of having diversity forced upon them at gunpoint — yet their leaders often refused to defend the point.
Back in the 1960s, for example, when people asked Jerry Falwell and other Southern religious leaders about race, they said it was a mere matter of politics.
“We believe in separation of church and state (‘two kingdoms’),” they said. “Therefore we need not defend our own people’s policies.”
This was an absurd cop-out.
Politicians like George Wallace made the same error by hiding under the mantle of state’s rights. Over time, the heat got too strong, and both Falwell and Wallace reversed themselves. The rest is history.
To make matters worse, these people left a terrible legacy. They refused to make a moral case for the South’s right to exist.
So except for increasingly marginalized people like the Citizen’s Councils, the only people addressing race as morality were the bad guys, the Left.
This is still true today. There is little moral defense of white rule as a positive good. This leaves a vacuum that multiculturalists (and their neocon allies) easily fill.
Have a look at the photo of a Ukrainian statue that depicts the Ukrainian Prince Sviatoslav’s defeat of the Khazar Army 968 A.D.
Note the HEX on the Khazarian shield.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/747
Prince Sviatoslav was a pagan but his mother (who undoubtedly prayed for this victory) was a convert to Christianity.
His son, Vladimir, converted to Christ approx 988 A.D. and all Kievan Rus was baptised.
There is very famous painting by Kavdiy Lebedev depicting this historic event of the baptism of a nation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/summoning/ifrit/3962992839.
Looking at this painting, this is exactly what is needed for EuroAmericans.
Great, great graces flowed to the European peoples who were baptised as nations. All nations of Europe converted. By the grace of our Lord, the White peoples became the Christopherian race.
Two EXCELLENT comments, but do you have a working link for the second one, Lynda?
I notice that this picture of a Sviatoslav statue does not have the same hexagram on the shield of the fallen Khazar.
http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/44/136444-050-2481FB31.jpg
I wonder why there’s a difference.
The link for Klavidy Lebedev’s painting “Baptism of the Kievan Rus” is
http://www.flickr.com/photos/summoning_ifrit/3962992839
Or just Joogle -
Klavdiy Lebedev baptism of Kievan Rus image
Very good, Admin spotting the airbrushing of the Hex in the Britannica. Yes, the Jewish historical revisionist project is at work in the Britannica.
Again I must register my annoyance that you repeat uncritically ultra-revisionist claims that you come upon in the Internet. In general, it peeves me when modern White-rights movement is, metaphorically speaking, handcuffed to the rotting corpse of Hitler (whether by PC propagandists or pro-Nazi enthusiasts).
For example, take this claim: “The “Final Solution” document itself is evidently an English forgery.”
David Irving (who is what I would call a “responsible revisionist”) does not deny the authenticity of the Wannsee Protocols as far as I know.
In fact, the CODOH website from whence you took that Wannsee-denying piece contradicts itself in this regard by elsewhere posting this piece by Irving which affirms it:
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irvrevgoebb.html
“Wannsee Conference
In late 1941 Heydrich sent a message to all the relevant ministers and state secretaries calling them to a high-level conference on the Jewish question. This is the famous Wannsee Conference, which took place on January 20, 1942, at a villa in suburban Berlin. There the officials discussed how to deal with all the administrative problems of large-scale transportations of Jews. There’s no reference to killing Jews, not even an indication, anywhere in the Conference record.
Goebbels was not present at that meeting because the invitation that was sent to the Propaganda Ministry was addressed to Leopold Gutterer, the Ministry State Secretary and Goebbels’ number two man. Gutterer is still alive, age 92. I went to interview him two or three times before I was banned from Germany (on November 9, 1993). He told me he never got the Wannsee meeting invitation, that it was probably intercepted by Werner Naumann, who was his rival on Goebbels staff.
Although Goebbels did not hear in advance of the meeting, you’ll find in Goebbels’ diary — in his entry of March 7, 1942 — that a copy of the well-known Wannsee Conference protocol was sent to him. Nobody else has spotted this.
There were still eleven million Jews in Europe, Goebbels dictated on that day, accurately summarizing the document. “For the time being they are to be concentrated in the east [until] later; possibly an island like Madagascar can be assigned to them after the war.” It all raised a host of “delicate questions,” he added. “Undoubtedly there will be a multitude of personal tragedies,” he wrote airily, “But this is unavoidable. The situation now is ripe for a final settlement of the Jewish question.”
More chilling is another diary entry a few weeks later. On March 27, 1942, Goebbels dictates a lengthy passage about another SS document that had been submitted to him, and which appears to have been much uglier in its content. “Beginning with Lublin,” he states, “the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work.”
It’s a very ugly passage, and it’s easy to link this diary passage with everything we’ve seen in the movies and on television since then. He’s describing “Schindler’s List” here — or is he? I don’t know. All he’s actually saying here is that the Jews are having a pretty rigorous time. They’re being deported, it’s happening in a systematic way, and not many of them are going to survive it.
When I visited the Hoover Institution library in Stanford, California, to see the portion of the original Goebbels diary that they have there, this was the first page I asked to see. And when I was in the Moscow archives to examine the glass plate copy of the diary, this was also the first plate I searched for. I knew that if the diary had actually been copied by the Nazis in Berlin, and the glass plate version in Moscow matches the text in the Hoover library, there’s no way anyone could have faked it. And there it is on the glass plate in Moscow, identical. As a final clincher, this portion was also microfilmed in 1947 in New York from the text that is held by the Hoover library. So there are three different indications that this is a genuine quotation from a genuine Goebbels document.”
I second Petr’s annoyance. I’ll add that Hitler’s occupation forces persecuted the Dutch Reformed and we have no reason to treat the Third Reich sympathetically. If the Bolsheviks and Cultural Marxists are antichrist, so is National Socialism.
One reason Whites refuse to defend their own existence is that our culture confuses it with Hitlerism, Christ-hatred and brutality. Why perpetuate the confusion?
I’ve been visiting your blog for a while now and I always find a gem in your new posts. Thanks for sharing.
Concerning Dmitry Donskoy, here’s a short Soviet animated film about him, made back in 1980 – on the 600-year anniversary of the battle of Kulikovo (three parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&hl=en&v=zGv7IF2XKa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh-jv8cxJuY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92aAp28aQqc&feature=related
In other news, here’s how race really works in the PCA:
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/04/the-pcas-korean-language-presbyteries/
Summary: The Koreans want their own segregated churches and presbyteries free from white control. The rest of the PCA can’t fathom why anyone would want to do this!
But to what extent was the Final Solution document actualized?
I went to high school in the 1960s and I don’t recall anything about ‘the holocaust’. We had to read the memoirs of Churchill, FDR (may his name live in infamy) and Eisenhower. These are primary, contemporary sources and none of them mention ‘the holocaust’ as some kind of special event apart from the great killing field of WW II.
I think there is far better evidence that both Hitler and Bormann were agents for the Crown and were in league with the Zionists to destroy European Jews who did not answer the call of the World Zionist Congress ‘to return’ to Palestine between the wars. And they did kill many.
Nowhere near the number of Whites the Jews genocided in Russia and Eastern Europe
The primary task of Hitler, as I see it, was to genocide the German nation at the hands of their fellow Zionists (and in FDR and Churchill’s case – Zionist Jews) of the Allies.
“MacDonald’s problem is that he bows to the god of evolution; as though this god of his is what has made the West differ from the East; as though his god made Westerners monogamous.”
Yes, he writes as if some spontaneous genetic determinism had made Europeans abandon culture-retarding clannishness.
For example, according to (Lowland Scotsman) Victorian-era historian T.B. Macaulay, the Scottish Highlanders were still around 1700 in rather “non-Western” cultural condition:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2612/2612-h/2612-h.htm#noteref-320
“While the old Gaelic institutions were in full vigour, no account of them was given by any observer, qualified to judge of them fairly. Had such an observer studied the character of the Highlanders, he would doubtless have found in it closely intermingled the good and the bad qualities of an uncivilised nation.
He would have found that the people had no love for their country or for their king; that they had no attachment to any commonwealth larger than the clan, or to any magistrate superior to the chief. He would have found that life was governed by a code of morality and honour widely different from that which is established in peaceful and prosperous societies. He would have learned that a stab in the back, or a shot from behind a fragment of rock, were approved modes of taking satisfaction for insults. He would have heard men relate boastfully how they or their fathers had wreaked on hereditary enemies in a neighbouring valley such vengeance as would have made old soldiers of the Thirty Years’ War shudder. He would have found that robbery was held to be a calling, not merely innocent, but honourable.
He would have seen, wherever he turned, that dislike of steady industry, and that disposition to throw on the weaker sex the heaviest part of manual labour, which are characteristic of savages. He would have been struck by the spectacle of athletic men basking in the sun, angling for salmon, or taking aim at grouse, while their aged mothers, their pregnant wives, their tender daughters, were reaping the scanty harvest of oats. Nor did the women repine at their hard lot. In their view it was quite fit that a man, especially if he assumed the aristocratic title of Duinhe Wassel and adorned his bonnet with the eagle’s feather, should take his ease, except when he was fighting, hunting, or marauding. To mention the name of such a man in connection with commerce or with any mechanical art was an insult. Agriculture was indeed less despised. Yet a highborn warrior was much more becomingly employed in plundering the land of others than in tilling his own.
The religion of the greater part of the Highlands was a rude mixture of Popery and Paganism. The symbol of redemption was associated with heathen sacrifices and incantations. Baptized men poured libations of ale to one Daemon, and set out drink offerings of milk for another. Seers wrapped themselves up in bulls’ hides, and awaited, in that vesture, the inspiration which was to reveal the future.”
And a striking description of how this tribalism crippled the efficiency of Highlanders in war, in spite of all their personal bravery:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2612/2612-h/2612-h.htm#noteref-343
“Had Montrose been chief of the Camerons, the Macdonalds would never have submitted to his authority. Had Dundee been chief of Clanronald, he would never have been obeyed by Glengarry. Haughty and punctilious men, who scarcely acknowledged the king to be their superior, would not have endured the superiority of a neighbour, an equal, a competitor. They could far more easily bear the preeminence of a distinguished stranger, yet even to such a stranger they would allow only a very limited and a very precarious authority. To bring a chief before a court martial, to shoot him, to cashier him, to degrade him, to reprimand him publicly, was impossible. Macdonald of Keppoch or Maclean of Duart would have struck dead any officer who had demanded his sword, and told him to consider himself as under arrest; and hundreds of claymores would instantly have been drawn to protect the murderer. All that was left to the commander under whom these potentates condescended to serve was to argue with them, to supplicate them, to flatter them, to bribe them; and it was only during a short time that any human skill could preserve harmony by these means. For every chief thought himself entitled to peculiar observance; and it was therefore impossible to pay marked court to any one without disobliging the rest. The general found himself merely the president of a congress of petty kings. He was perpetually called upon to hear and to compose disputes about pedigrees, about precedence, about the division of spoil. His decision, be it what it might, must offend somebody. At any moment he might hear that his right wing had fired on his centre in pursuance of some quarrel two hundred years old, or that a whole battalion had marched back to its native glen, because another battalion had been put in the post of honour. A Highland bard might easily have found in the history of the year 1689 subjects very similar to those with which the war of Troy furnished the great poets of antiquity. One day Achilles is sullen, keeps his tent, and announces his intention to depart with all his men. The next day Ajax is storming about the camp, and threatening to cut the throat of Ulysses.”
The weekend’s crime report from Myrtle Beach.
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/14746715/myrtle-beach-police-see-busy-weekend-for-crime
You can see why business owners and tourists wish that black people would drop off the face of the earth. They would never say so publicly.
Another example of pre-modern European culture that resembled today’s Third World was pre-partition Poland. This country remained in a state of feudal anarchy to the latter half of the 18th century, and the Germans could hardly avoid looking down on Polish neighbors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#First_Partition_of_Poland
“Frederick looked upon many of his new citizens with scorn. He had nothing but contempt for the szlachta, the numerous Polish nobility, and wrote that Poland had “the worst government in Europe with the exception of Turkey”.[24] He considered West Prussia as uncivilized as Colonial Canada[34] and compared the Polish peasants to the Iroquois.[24]”
The selfish Polish nobility had complacently allowed and even encouraged the Jews to almost entirely overthrow Poland’s gentile middle classes. The huge Polish-Jewish population was a result of this policy.
Magna Carta and the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath remain among the greatest documents of constitutional Monarchy and its jurisprudence the world has ever seen.
They are fundamentally Catholic (as in ratified by the Pope). They enshrine both Apostolic and Common Law, Monarchy and the representative rights of the Christian nation – both noble and common.
The West must return to government that is based upon these foundations.
The forces of anti-Christ led by Jewry has waged unceasing war upon the nations which have given these foundations to nations which have an inheritance in the Christendom. And the resulting de-gradation of those peoples does not invalidate their high and inestimable contribution to the fight for Restoration.
The great nation of Poland was made to be the Pale of the Settlement by the Russian Empire.
I think we need look no further than ‘beyond the Pale’ to see why that Catholic nation was over run by Jewry.
Omnia Instaurare in Christo.
Lynda: I thought the Pope condemned the Magna Carta. Wait… yep, I’m right:
“On August 24,1215, Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta invalid because it was achieved through the threat of violence.”
Thank you, Google Timeline.
Besides, the document that could have saved constitutional monarchy for the ages was the Solemn League and Covenant. Too bad Charles II violated it and William let it pass into history.
It is never a good idea to rely on joogle for information, The Monitor.
The Pope ruled correctly in 1215 A.D. The first issue did amount to a coup d’etat of the nobles.
Check out the amended version of 1225 A.D.
Thereafter, King and Parliament were the institutionalized temporal power in England. And they were mandated to rule a Christian England under the Apostolic Law of the Church. And they enforced the Church’s ban on usury. This necessitated the removal of the Jews.
Henry VIII violated the Church and the Magna Carta by introducing divorce and appropriating the patrimony of the Church for himself – in effect closing the monastic foundations that were the colleges and hospitals.
Check out the Runnymede Institute
http://www.rmiglobal.org
Hello all. I’ll go on record as supporting Admin’s posting information on holocaust revisionism and also weighing in on the question of National Socialism. For the record I agree with the statement posted above that responds to being accused of being a Nazi sympathizer. I have a couple of thoughts.
The first is that the admin has never stated that he gives unequivocal support to National Socialist policy, Hitler, or any and every revisionist theory of “holocaust” revisionism. I don’t think that anything that Admin has said is out of bounds in my honest opinion.
I would also add that I have a profound respect for David Irving, but it seems like he has at least partially changed his story after serving jail time. I can hardly fault the man for being softened by hard time. I don’t know how I’d react to that kind of persecution.
I think that we all ought to keep in mind that people are being imprisoned in Europe merely for raising the questions that Admin raises. I find myself more angry at European Zionist governments than at Admin even if I disagreed with him.
With regards to the Wannsee Protocol I will have to do more research. I have heard that any extent manuscripts are forgeries. There are many suspicious details of the document itself. One of the most glaring examples is how the document is supposedly issued by Reinhard Heydrich on authority of Hermann Goerring, when Heydrich’s superior was Heinrich Himmler, not Goerring.
I would also like to look into the supposed journal entries of Joseph Goebbels more in depth. The earlier entry seems to quite reasonably indicate that the National Socialist policy was one of removal of Jews to somewhere outside of Europe. In fact, a friend of mine has recently wondered if Hitler was an unwitting accomplice to Zionism itself!
It seems immediately suspicious to me that the only direct documentation of a plan for mass extermination of the Jews would come from a private journal entry. Perhaps if the entry is genuine than Goebbels was writing something obscene but nevertheless outside of any official policy. If it was official policy then where is the mountain of documentation that an undertaking of this magnitude would require? There should be blueprints of gas chambers (or just original gas chambers), records of transactions for the massive amounts of equipment that this would require, etc. There is plenty of primary source documentation to validate the historicty of Maoist mass murder or Stalinist gulags for example. This is why there is no Marxist revisionism that denies their existence. I would thoroughly question what we read in private journal entries unless it can be corroborated by more reliable external evidence. Private journals are just too easily tampered with, especially in light of the circus that was Nuremberg.
“I would also add that I have a profound respect for David Irving, but it seems like he has at least partially changed his story after serving jail time. I can hardly fault the man for being softened by hard time. I don’t know how I’d react to that kind of persecution.”
That piece by Irving that I quoted was written back in 1994, a decade before he had been imprisoned in Austria.
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irvrevgoebb.html
“There is plenty of primary source documentation to validate the historicty of Maoist mass murder or Stalinist gulags for example. This is why there is no Marxist revisionism that denies their existence.”
As a matter of fact, a lot of new scholarship that I’ve seen suggests that the death toll of Soviet Gulag was much lower than what suggested back in the days of Cold War – that only fraction of those who went through Gulag system died and that its death toll was “merely” few millions rather than tens of millions:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309g.asp
“Applebaum takes the story of the Gulag through the period of the dissident movement of the 1960s and 1970s to the end of the system in the 1980s. As part of her summary, she attempts to estimate how many people actually went through the Gulag system. She comes up with a total of 28.7 million people, out of which millions died as a result of the system of forced labor. This, of course, does not include the millions of others who were murdered by the regime during the years of Soviet power as part of the purges or as “enemies of the people.””
Lynda: There’s no such thing as the “Apostolic Law of the Church.” At the time usury was defined as an lending at interest. As the demand for banking grew in the early modern people, people accepted that low interest rates could exist without being exploitation.
The problem is that free market ideology came and told people usury is a non-issue. Instead, the moral high ground is reversed and interest rate ceilings are considered tyrannical.
May I ask your religious affiliation? You seem dedicated to promoting speculative historical conclusion and I wonder about your agenda, if any.
Fayre: David Irving was not much of a “Holocaust denier” before he went to jail. So why should he be one now? After all, these days he gives speeches for the IHR. If he wants to take the ultra-revisionist case, he has plenty of opportunity.
Further, the revisionists would agree with me that the facts of the Holocaust are not a theological issue. (Granted, sacralization is a problem, but that isn’t the topic here.) So if one of Kinism’s goal is to wake up the church on racial matters, this issue is not central.
“At the time usury was defined as an lending at interest.”
Monitor, I am not an expert in financial matters – can there really be a way of taking interest that would not constitute usury? Any sources available that go into detail on this?
Monitor, at the time of Magna Carta, which is the time under discussion, everyone knew what is meant by ‘the Church’; everyone knew that the Church has laws and government.
Apostolic Law and government flowing from it has to do with the code of cannon law and the constitution of whatever was/is the current pontificate.
Under a form of government like Magna Carta, the Parliament and the King were mandated to govern as the temporal power on the basis of Christian morals as defined by the government of the Church – the pope and the bishops.
It could not be whatever your individual belief about Christian morals happened to be.
The laws had to reflect the faith of the Christian nation. For example, they could not make legal or lawful what the Church declared to be sinful and illicit – I should not need to spell this out.
While it is true that laws might be ‘honoured more in the breach than in the observance’ – i.e. the law against usury; that is not the same thing as saying that a temporal power such as a Parliament could legislate in favour of it.
For those who will say that this is an intolerant state of affairs, I would like to point out that post Revolutionary governments – republics, democracies and what not – are even more intolerant of the Christian faith and morals than the Christendom ever was of pagan and Jewish latitude, so to speak.
The Beltane fires and free for all burned right through the centuries of the nations which formed the Christian polity of the Holy Roman Empire. I don’t defend this, but I recognize that this was so.
Lynda: Where do you get this stuff? _Canon_ Law governs the administration of the Churches. We Reformed have something similar we call Church Order. It looks like this:
http://www.cambridgeocrc.org/ChurchOrder.htm
Further, Canon Law did not operate in Greg Bahnsen style as if it were the Mosaic Code to be enacted on the kingdoms of Christendom. In fact, the Church taught that the King and the Pope each held one of the two swords granted by God.
The King’s relation to Christian morality was never fully resolved. Fast forward a few hundred years and England fights over the Divine Right of Kings.
Again, may I ask your religious affiliation?
At the time of Magna Carta, there were no Reformed Churches, Monitor.
At the time of Magna Carta, the King’s relation to Christian morals and canonical law of the Church was fully resolved – as a Christian he was bound by it; as a King he was sworn to uphold the rights of the Church.
The king was anointed by the bishop to hold temporal authority over a Christian nation, in the case of England, by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
After Magna Carta the king wielded this temporal authority with the Parliament; just as in France, the Bretton Parliament was the self-government of the Bretton people under the temporal authority of the King of France.
Why not read The Runnymede Institute
I have stated my religious affiliation numerous times on this blog, Monitor.
I am a baptised member of the Roman Catholic Church, for the present in eclipse.
This is cross for us and a sign for those who are elated. Believe me, our Lord will give them their little moment of triumph in world and time – even though it is only a glitch on the timeline of His Story.
That said, the Arian Crisis lasted about 400 years, so ‘glitch’ is certainly not the way it looks and feels to us.
This ‘stuff’ you are taking such exception to, I do not regard as Catholic statements per se. I am intending them to be statements of a factual nature.
The great foe of rhetorical argument and ad hominem is neither Catholicism nor Reformed Christianity – it is Socrates.
The biggest fool in the world can announce that the sun is shining – but that doesn’t make it dark outside.
A papist can make statements contra factum non est argumentum – that still doesn’t mean you you are going to find Reformed Churches at the time of Magna Carta – even on a Joogle time line.
Now, I will grant you the present situation is difficult.
“Rome shall apostasize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism…Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning: invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” Henry Edward Cardinal Manning. The Present Crisis of the Holy See. 1861 A.D.
As for the return to ancient paganism, this does not mean honouring the saints, their icons and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mother of God.
It is the stuff of the Church Revolution in Pictures file documented on http://www.traditioninaction.org
Check out the Bhudda on the high altar of Assisi
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A169rcBhuddhaAssisi.htm.
Check out Benedict praying with the Rabbis and reassuring the anti-Christs that the Church does not seek their conversion to Christ.
I could go on, but if the subject interests you, Monitor, please feel free to look at the whole file. Just make sure your seat belt is fastened, your tray table is stowed and your barf bag is at the ready.
Our Lady stated uniequivicably at La Salette a decade before Cardinal Manning penned “The Present Crisis of the Holy See” – “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ”
Little Jacinta Marto (aged 7 years) spoke often of the suffering Holy Father of this dark and diabolical hour. The Chair of Peter in Rome is overturned. “Pray much for the suffering Holy Father” said Jacinta.
Many reading this care about the ongoing self-hatred of the PCA, a denomination which once carried the mantle of Dabney and Thornwell. Well, here’s a black PCA elder demanding we all repent of the never-defined sin of racism. Not even the church’s ritual condemnation of its own heritage is good enough:
“Fathers and brothers, if you are among those who harbor (or have harbored) racist attitudes in your heart, be warned: GA doesn’t have you covered. A general statement from the PCA is not the same as personal repentance. I call you — as a fellow elder in this church — to repent of your sin and then to be reconciled to your brothers. If you are not guilty of this, but choose to look the other way, then I urge you to repent of your apathy and join me in this call.”
http://vintage73.com/2010/07/no-the-pca-isnt-a-racist-church-but/
The Home School is the only place that children will be taught about the heroes of the Christendom, of the White nations and the unique polities that kept the forces of anti-Christ in check until the Revolution they inaugurated in 1789.
The character of the anti-Christ powers in our time is such that, in order to understand the world they are shaping, we have to reach back to the older and ancient matter of Europe.
As a scholar of Anglo-Saxon, J.R.R. Tolkien did this in his study of Beowulf when he defended the ancient understanding of monsters against the critics.
Tolkien did not have much use for scholars who approved of Beowulf as a story wherein the Beowulf poet “tried to fit a deed of ‘errantry’ into a complex political field: the English traditions of the international relations of Denmark, Gotland and Sweden in ancient days”.
“… that is not the strength of the story, rather its weakness”.
“Beowulf’s personal objects in his journey to Denmark are precisly those of a later Knight: his own renown, and above that the glory of his lord and king; but all the time we glimpse something deeper”.
“Grendel is an enemy who has attacked the centre of the realm, and brought into the royal hall the outer darkness, so that only in daylight can the king sit upon the throne. This is something quite different and more horrible than a ‘political’ invasion of equals – men of another similar realm, such as Ingeld’s later assault upon Heorot”.
….
“It is the monstrosity and fairy-tale quality of Grendel that really makes the tale important, surviving still
when the politics have become dim and the healing of Danish-Geatish relations in an ‘entente cordiale’ between two ruling houses a minor matter of obscure history. In that political world, Grendel looks silly, though he certainly is not silly”…
Indeed, in a world where the forces of anti-Christ are victorious on all fronts, the character of Grendel, a chthonic power of the ancient world, is a serious and modern character. Sauron is a serious and modern character.
The antique Europe and its Christendom kept this type of power in check. And now it returns. The Beowulf poet was close enough to the ancient matter to understand the nature of that power. As a Christian, he understood its defeat or rather the conditions of its defeat.
In Beowulf, Grendel is defeated. And this “is a victory in which all men can rejoice because he was a monster, hostile all men and to all humane fellowship and joy. Compared with him even the long politically hostile Danes and Geats were Friends, on the same side.”
J.R.R. Tolkien. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Unwin. 1981. Letter No. 183.
Thus it is the monstrosity and fairy tale quality of Grendel that really makes Beowulf a story for our time – if we understand it in terms of the older matter.
The older matter had to do with the same chthonic power before it took its historical form of anti-Christ.
In terms of Old English, Grendel is an Orc which is the word for demon. Not in a supernatural or metaphysical sense, but in the sense of a corrupt form of life taken by the dark, chthonic powers and ruined.
In this sense, Fafnir became a dragon through the kinslaying.
The Beowulf poet describes the monsters as “no hie faeder cunnon” – men know of no father for them. They are maneaters. And they bring the world of men “under the shadow” – under sceadu bregdan.
This is a shadow governed by “searo nipas” – cunning malices. ‘Searu” is West Saxon O.E. for device, design, craft and by this craft are men transformed into monstrosities and devoured.
This is the picture.
In 1935, Tolkien addressed Oxford and said: “IN our own time – the spirit of Ragnorak has revived.”
Ragnorak. This is a vision of the Old Norse. It was a vision of the skilds (bards) who saw the spectre of the ninth night with wind howling across a torrid waste and the skein of all life unravelling as the earth and world of men pass sceadu bragdan.
In Ragnorak, the gods and men would fight the demons and lose.
In the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien puts it like this: “Now all roads were running together to the East to meet the coming of war and the onset of the Shadow.”
St Louis De Montfort (1673-1716) puts it like this: “The enemies of God – idolators, shismatics, Mahometans, Jews and souls hardened in impiety – shall rise in terrible revolt against God to seduce all who shall oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats”…”because the devil, knowing that he has but little time, and now less than ever, to destroy souls will every day redouble his efforts and his combats. He will presently raise up cruel persecutions…” And “it is principally of these last and cruel persecutions of the devil, which shall go on increasing daily till the reign of Antichrist, that we ought to understand that first and celebrated prediction and curse of God pronounced in the terrestrial paradise against the serpent.”
“God has never made and formed but one enmity; but it is an irreconcilable one, which shall endure and grow even to the end”.
We await the formation and appearance of the apostles of the latter times of the world whom God will raise up to go before our Lord who must return to “destroy those who are destroying the earth.”
“And then the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed Him..”
Rev 19:14.
Today is the Sunday of Our Lord’s Ascension. And Jesus came and said to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matt 28:18
““Rome shall apostasize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism…Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning: invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” Henry Edward Cardinal Manning. The Present Crisis of the Holy See. 1861 A.D.”
Manning wrote this in the aftermath of Italy’s unification in 1860, led by Garibaldi, the hero of anti-clericals. At that time, it seemed quite possible that Italian nationalists might boot the pope out of Rome.
The defense of national socialism has been a magnet for disaffected Whites, I think, because it’s counterculture. In fact, it’s one of the few genuine counterculture things you can do today. “Jews hate Whites, and national socialism, therefore I should support national socialism.” Hopefully more Whites see will that this is a dead-end strategy.
I don’t follow the insinuation that an effort to understand the truth about what happened during WWII is a defense of national socialism.
At any rate, here’s a very interesting site containing old newspaper clippings:
http://theforbiddentruth.net/12315-zions-big-lie-six-million-myth.html
There’s lots of unanswered questions and those who make generalized statements are likely wrong. In fact, if you read some of the scientific revisionists who focus on forensic evidence, they pointedly separate themselves from neo-Nazis and some of the wilder claims.
As for the “six million” number, it is not the core establishment claim. Raul Hilberg, the top mainstream scholar, said only 5.1 million died. David Irving, the top revisionist, is quoted saying three million died. Either way, that is mass murder.
(To anticipate the knee-jerk response: mentioning Nazi crimes does not minimize the evils of Bolshevism.)
Body counts are not the political issue. What matters is the idolatry of suffering and its ideological use around the world.
As the title of “The Present Crisis of the Holy See” would indicate.
Garibaldi was not ‘anti-clerical’ – he was a revolutionary trained by Grand Orient Red Masonry to take the Revolution inaugurated 1789 into Italy.
The Bloody Revolution into which the Grand Orient plunged Italy under Garibaldi and Mazzini was but a foretaste of the Revolution that continues today.
It is now in the final stage indicated by Albert Pike to Mazzini in his letter “Three World Wars”.
The events described by Cardinal Manning occur in the latter times of the world initiated by the Revolutionary Era led by the forces of anti-Christ.
WW II revisionism is interesting, but we should make clear that NS racialism and kinism are two different entities.
The NS view derives from evolution, and seems to deny a common humanity–with some groups being superior to others in every respect.
Kinism affirms differences (which are often God-given), while affirming a common humanity. From the kinist perspective, all peoples have worth as a part of God’s harmony.
NS racialism, it seems to me, can easily degenerate into arrogance and self idolatry. Kinism proposes a preferential servanthood to one’s own people, while offering due benevolence to others.
Well said, Luther!
Patrick Edouard, the defrocked Haitian minister accused of sexually abusing women in his Dutch Reformed church, goes on trial July 12.
Pray.
“NS racialism, it seems to me, can easily degenerate into arrogance and self idolatry.”
…as well as nihilistic despair and defeatism. That’s what you get for leaning on “the arm of flesh” (alone).
Revilo P. Oliver is a classic example of this, committing suicide and being convinced that Aryan race is doomed.
Heck, Hitler himself was an example of this!
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0795f.asp
“But in 1944-1945, as the war was approaching its end with a German defeat, Hitler had no more sympathy for the German people than he had had for the Jews and Slavs, whom he despised as subhumans. In July 1944, after the attempt on his life, Hitler had declared:
“If the German nation is now defeated in this struggle, it has been too weak. That will mean it has not withstood the test of history and was destined for nothing but doom.”
And in March 1945, Hitler told Albert Speer, his minister of armaments and war production:
“If the war is lost, the people will be lost also. It is not necessary to worry about what the German people will need for elemental survival. On the contrary, it is best for us to destroy even these things. For the nation has proven to be the weaker, and the future belongs solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. In any case only those who are inferior will remain after this struggle, for the good have already been killed.”"
The One and the Many has been added at Chalcedon, for free:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/books/the-one-and-the-many-studies-in-the-philosophy-of-order-and-ultimacy-2/
Be warned, it’s a life-changer!
Speaking of Rushdoony, late in life he back-pedaled from the old pro-revisionist stance — in a most unhelpful manner:
“Historical revisionism condemns the future to play by the dangerous rules of exaggeration and denial. As I noted then, this will inevitably lead to even greater horrors as the bar of the capacity to shock is continually raised. This is the true danger of the myth of neutrality, where God’s law is viewed as merely ‘one side of the debate”
http://1dl.us/kAT
This reads as if RJR is trying to save face while keeping certain associates from denouncing him as an anti-Semite. And this raises questions about the legend of Rushdoony as a kinist.
Look at how, on RJR’s watch, Andrew Sandlin was running straw man attacks on racialism.
http://1dl.us/kAW
Meanwhile Schlissel was touting his new Black protege, the infamous Patrick Edouard:
http://1dl.us/kAV
You may say Rushdoony was a kinist in the 1970s. Perhaps so. Yet his actions and inactions in later years show he evolved into broader views.
Considering how abruptly RJR denounced his own son-in-law, Gary North, I can’t imagine him not ejecting Schlissel and Sandlin if he were a kinist in his last years.
This is an odd thing about Rush, and even those who worked closely with him have told me that he wasn’t very discriminating about what went into his magazine. Sometimes it wasn’t easy to tell what he was thinking. We certainly disagree with some of it, but on the whole, he was more than remarkable.
I think it’s safe to say that the worst of the Chalcedon Report came from the Jews Schlissel and Blumenfeld.
Schlissel is an especially absurd case. He left first Judaism, then Messianic Judaism, only to fall into a false theology that parallels the Judaizers.
As for Samuel Blumenfeld, what gives with that guy? I only remember him beating up the educational establishment. His ultra-Zionist side was not so visible until a few years ago. I can’t find anything specific about his other beliefs. Is Blumenfeld a Baptist? Presbyterian? What?
Here’s what Jews for Jesus has to say about Blumenfeld:
“After reading John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Samuel L. Blumenfeld became convinced that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah, and that he had been sent to earth to extend the covenant to non-Jews in fulfillment of God’s promise that through Abraham “all the nations shall be blessed in him” (Genesis 18:18).”
What does “extend the covenant” mean? I wonder what anti-supersessionist stew is brewing in that man’s head.
One of the reasons Jews ‘convert’ is to spread this idea within Christianity that Judaism and the Israelite faith, covenant and obersvances are one and the same.
They also try to ‘put over’ the lie that the Jews as an ethnicity are the same identity as Israelites.
Both are false.
The Urgaritic people descended from Esau – that is the Edomites who mixed with the Cainanites also went into Captivity in Mesopotamia and Babylon along with Israelites and Judah. The former group commenced their Pharisaic cult in Babylon as a subversion of the Israelite religion.
Later they were propogating this in Judea as Idumeans. Many Israelites converted to the Pharisaic sect thinking this was observant Israel. Saul who sat at the feet of Gamaliel was one of these.
The Jews properly speaking are an ethnic people whose ancestors are Urgaritic and their genealogy goes through Esau and the Cainanite peoples and later extended into the Urgaritic peoples of the North in the Urals – TURkiyeh, Khazak, Tatar, Samite etc.
Their Pharisaic sect is today called Judaism from the days when they sytled themselves ‘Judeans’. Today it has been elaborated as a subversion of the Israel of the Covenants as well as the Israel of the New Covenant – the Church.
As Michael Hoffman says it is a religious code and tradition of nullification of both Old and New Testaments.
This is kind of funny.
http://lifehacker.com/5809331/what-sugar-actually-does-to-your-brain-and-body
Lifehacker, a very mainstream and popular site, used a David Dees illustration in one of their posts yesterday, and they have even linked to his site.
Profuse apologies will issue from Lifehacker any minute now, so you may not see it the image there for long. “We had no idea that David Dees is an anti-Semite! We are appalled that any of our readers might have seen his other illustrations.”
Apostle Paul already had problem with false converts from Judaism, or “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26, Galatians 2:4) as he called them.
Yes, Petr, St Paul did indeed. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee before his conversion – probably styling himself, a Jew, as a resident of Judea – although ethnically an Israelite.
To the warnings of St Paul are added the warnings of St Jude, the brother of St James.
“Beloved, being very eager to write to you, of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of God (scriptural nullification of the Traditions of the Elders)into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 3.
This could apply to both apostate Israelites of the Pharisaic sect as well as Idumeans of the same sect.
Today it applies to the ethnicity that styles themselves ‘the Jews’ whether they are secular or Talmudic – who have infiltrated all Christian congregations and as Masonic ‘brethern’ are usually found in leadership.
The present anti-pope for example is a rabbi and has been photographed making rabbinical hand signs in accordance with his many Judaizing heresies.
It was at the time of the Avingion anti-papacy there arose St Vincent Ferrer (1350 – 1419 A.D). The anti-papacy was the mischief of the Marrano Jews working ruin from within the Church.
At age 50 yrs, St Vincent was called uniquely by our Lord to preach the Gospel to Christendom and the Last Judgement to the Synagogues of France, Italy, Spain, Blgium, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. So many miracles attended St Vincent’s evangelism that in the Bull of his Canonization 29 June 1455, two popes proclaimed him – the ‘Angel of the Judgement’. Apoc 14:6-7
This was for his preachiing that the Last Judgement was imminent if people did not repent of sin and convert their lives to Christ.
And like Nineve at the warning of the Prophet Jonas, the people of Christendom did repent and change their lives the time was changed and the world has continued to this (our time) because of St Vincent’s witness and the true conversions that were made in the Christendom.
And to these, were added some true conversions from the Jews as well as from the Moors living in Christian lands.
Seeing this, St Vincent made many prophecies over the latter times of the world (our time). He said that a society of apostolic men would rise up at the command of our Lord to do the works that he, himself, was given – apostolic works that took as their province: the souls of the living, the souls of the dead, persons in health, persons who were sick, the earth, the air, the sea and all the elements of creation.
In anticipation of these apostolic men whom St Vincent and other saints like St Louis de Montfort have clearly prophesied, Pope St Pius X declared the Apostolic Constitution of his pontificate: ‘omnia instaurare in Christo’.
Friends, it is coming.
Lynda: Vincent’s prophecies aside, Marranos are a specifically Catholic problem because the RCC teaches people that baptism takes away original sin. Rome refuses to mend her errors and this is an example of the insanity that results.
Within the Reformed there is a different problem. Our Jewish converts have no problem condemning Judaism and the oral tradition. They’ll even make pointed condemnations of dispensationalism.
These people still tend to be stuck on the idea that Jewish people are still special because of their ancestry. In this view, some say the State of Israel belongs to the Jews because of divine right in the OT.
In addition, they typically say a massive revival will one day deliver the Jews from apostasy in a massive revival. When this happens, the world we see what Schlissel and many others call “the restoration of the Jews.”
This means the Gentiles will be pushed back to marginal status within the Church and the newly-converted Jews will resume to their full standing as Chosen People.
The “Restoration” teaching allows Jews to reject Judaism yet still maintain a certain exaggerated ethnic pride.
To his credit, Schlissel admits the tensions of Christian philosemitism at one point where he writes, “Since Israel is now not merely an unbelieving nation, but in some instances anti-Christian, questions concerning Mideast policy need to be determined by making reference to considerations much wider than Biblical prophecy.”
For those who care, the standard Calvinist philosemite handbook is this by David Brown:
http://www.google.com/books?id=ZJo2AAAAMAAJ
I submit this is a different kind of issue from fake converts trying to tell us the Talmud is holy.
Another Jewish convert to Calvinism who created an entirely different mess was Meredith Kline. If you have ever heard of Radical Two Kingdom theology, he invented it. Surprisingly, one of the few discussions of Kline’s ethnicity comes from Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/kline-k2-and-judaism.html
Michael Hoffman refutes Judaic racial pride codified in the Talmud (and its shabbos goy slave flatteries) absolutely.
“It’s Time to Tell the Truth About Who the Children of Abraham Really Are”
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page4/page4.html.
“For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.”
– Titus 1:10-11
I have read a theory that many early Gnostics were former embittered Jews who like modern Jews “lost their faith in God after Holocaust” – they became convinced after the Jewish rebellion against Romans had failed crushingly that the material world was ruled by an evil demiurge.
Jews posing as Christians take on whatever doctrinal form is needed in order to subvert the specific congregation.
Judeo-Masonry within Protestantism subverts according to the Confessions of those churches.
I have attended Protestant churches and I had no trouble observing the brethern greeting one another at the four points of the compass, cutting signs, supporting the judeo-christian version of ‘salvation is from the jews’ and pushing every liberal agenda with an xtian veneer.
As a Catholic, I had more in common with the stalwarts in the ‘Amen Corner’ (which had fallen silent) than I did with most of the judeo-xtian congregation.
Liberalism is not only a poison – it is a sin contrived for the ruin of the Christendom – as Pope Pius IX pointed out in the Syllabus of Errors given ex cathedra under the Seal of the Fisherman’s Ring.
I commend it to you, Monitor.
The anti-papacy (est 1958 – ?) disputes this, of course. Benedict opines that Vatican II is a ‘counter syllabus of errors’. All the errors of the ordinary, constant magisterium of the Church are now reversed according to Benedict.
So you are a Sedevacantist, Lynda?
A fundy radio preacher named Stinnet Ballew is under fire for preaching against interracial marriage. I’ve never heard of him. See:
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2011/06/a-study-in-racism
Monitor, regarding your link to the screed against Stinnet Ballew at stufffundieslike.com, a look at the comments shows who or what he is under fire from. Bet he will knuckle under and bow to the new god?
Here the same ex-fundies complain that their parents were base, ugly and immoral because they didn’t throw incense on the MLK altar:
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/page/17/
Sure, the fundies believe stupid things. Yet this business of throwing tantrums of white guilt at the people who raised you is vile and indecent.
Petr:
I cannot speak for Lynda, but it is my understanding that she is indeed a sedevacantist, based on previous comments of hers regarding the current Pope and whether or not his episcopal jurisdiction is valid or rather has been “usurped” (or however the sedevacantist jargon terms it).
Like Michael Hoffman, I find myself highly critical of many of the actions taken by recent Popes, yet I do not jump to the conclusion that a bad Pope necessarily means an invalid one. That was covered, more or less, during the Donatist controversy wherein St. Augustine coined his famous dictum: “Securus judicat orbis terrarum”. This same principle condemns both the Donatist and the sedevacantist. Interestingly enough, it is one of the soundest condemnations of the Alienist as well.
The Monitor:
You stated: “Vincent’s prophecies aside, Marranos are a specifically Catholic problem because the RCC teaches people that baptism takes away original sin. Rome refuses to mend her errors and this is an example of the insanity that results.”
The Roman Church actually teaches that baptism removes the guilt of original sin, but not the consequences thereof. So a person who is baptised is still afflicted with the proclivity toward sin (concupiscence) even though the original sin on his soul as well as sins committed prior to baptism are washed away, as the Scriptures plainly teach. There is no such teaching that baptism makes people saints automatically or removes the requirement for Christians to live in accordance with Christian virtues.
Good points all around. Blessings to all.
Anthony Bradley released a book promoting himself as a great prophet on race issues. See the heavy-handed promotional video and the tacky book cover:
http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2011/06/trailer-black-a.html
You see, Bradley is a Calvinist and he cares about his own kin. Good for him. So why doesn’t he go minister to his fellow Blacks full time? Why must he constantly milk white fantasies about racial reconciliation?
Because that’s where the money is. What else is he going to do with his “Ph.D.”? He’s certainly not going to work for a living. And a black man at a think tank is going to do NOTHING but talk about race, with all the necessary groaning and hand-wringing about how white people, for hundreds and thousands of years, have done things wrong.
Of course, he can and does talk about race until the cows come home, because he’s a liberal, but whenever we talk about it, it’s “racism.”
This Facebook group called “I Love Being Black” has over 5 million fans.
https://www.facebook.com/lovebeingblack
But if someone makes a group called “I Love Being White,” Zuckerberg will probably ban it. I’ve seen pages banned that oppose interracial unions, but those which support the same are welcomed.
Admin: It shows that Bradley’s pose as being Black and tired is just that: a pose for a paycheck. Instead of complaining about how Black life is going in the dumper, he should light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.
It isn’t as if people wouldn’t be lining up to support him, since Black Calvinists are like an endangered species.
Hey, if Moses could leave the palaces of Pharaoh to fight for his people, Anthony Bradley can exit the white missional subculture.
Petr, the term ‘sede vacante’ is on the webpage of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.
It is the official term for the interregnum between valid Roman pontiffs. It means that the see of Rome is without a bishop.
You are simply using this term as a label.
Some examples of ‘sede vacante’
Pope Clement IV died 1268 AD and his successor was elected 1271 AD. From the time of Clement’s death to the election of the pontiff who became pope Gregory X there existed a period of sede vacante for 1,006 days.
The See of Rome was sede vacante when pope St Martin in Rome was bound over by Exarch Theodore Calliopas on the orders of the Emperor Constans II.
Pope Martin, you may recall, had declined to confirm the Patriarch of Constantinople, Paul and Emperor Constans II in their Monothelite heresy. So the pope was bound over by the forces of the Emperor at the Latern in 653. From thence he was taken to Constantinope where he was branded as a heretic, confined in prison and then exiled to Cherson where he passed the remainder of his life, dying in 655 AD.
From 653 – 655 AD, the See of Rome was de facto sede vacante. As the pope can not abdicate, there did exist a pope de jure – but he was not in Rome. So, the teaching that pope St Martin gave in Constaninople against the Monothelite heretics was Catholic doctrine. The Chair of Peter is where-ever the true pope is. From the time of Pope St Martin’s arrival in Constaninople, the Chair of Peter was there – but the See of Rome was vacant.
During the Great Western Schism anti-pope John XXIII reigned from Rome. Because he was not a validly elected pope, the See at that time was sede vacante. even though John XXIII calling himself pope was in Rome.
To my mind, this disastrous event most closely parallels the anti-papacy of Roncalli who appropriately took the name John XXIII 1958 and continued the reign of an anti-papacy from Rome that continues to this day.
Does this answer your question?
Lynda: Why is it OK for you to call John XXIII (1958-1963) an anti-pope, but not OK for me to call Pius IV (1559-1565) an Antichrist?
Both men sought to usurp Christ’s place as head of the church. Both declared that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is anathema. Both promoted false doctrine and prophecy as that of the Apostles, so that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect.
The Monitor:
I think we can all agree that Christians have many differences of opinion, and that some opinions are worse than others. And I think we can both agree that the importance of sound doctrine should not be belittled.
But seriously, why take a perfectly good pro-Europe blog and start a Catholic-Protestant debate? It will not end well; they never do. You will be no more convinced of the Catholic faith than Lynda or I will be of the Protestant faith. If you’re ever in Atlanta, come over to my house, enjoy some good food and good company, and I will happily talk religion with you. But seriously, nobody’s going to change religions over comments in a blog post, so why bother?
The Monitor, this is a Calvinist blog and you I assume are of this confession. I am not going to tell you what you can call anybody.
I speak for myself and I do call John XXIII (both 1 and 2) anti-popes.
The Church calls John XXIII (No 1) an anti-pope and with this I am in full agreement.
And I call John XXIII (No 2) an anti-pope because he was a Mason (by many witnesses and publicity of his ‘Lodge’ visits – especially in Paris) and therefore he was automatically excommunicated from the Church. Also, according to the testimony of witnesses “terrible” things happened in that Conclave 1958 – and look what followed.
I commend the writings of St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (AD 35 – 100) to you, Monitor.
The Chair of Peter was in Antioch before it was in Rome. And Ignatius succeeded St Peter and Evodius as bishop there.
St Ignatius was martyred for the holy faith under Trajan 107 AD – thrown to the wild beasts.
His thoughts on the subject are as follows:
“Let me be food for the wild beasts for they are my way to God…No earthly pleasures, no kingdoms of the world, can benefit me in any way. I prefer death in Christ Jesus to power over the furthest limits of the earth. He who died in place of us is the one object of my quest. He who rose for us is my one desire.”
St Ignatius shares your loyalty to our Lord as the head of His Body – the Church.
And his episcopacy and writings come from the time when the holy faith burned white hot against: the devil and all his works and pomps; the empty display and false values of the world and the sinful desires of the flesh.
When Christians recover the holy faith of St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr -then our battle is going to turn around and we are going to make them taste Lucifer’s defeat again.
Until that time why not study his Letters. I commend you especially to his writings on the ecclesia – the Church. This means order. There is due order in the body of Christ and no one has expounded the relevant passages from Sacred Scripture better than St Ignatius.
Why not begin with the Letter to the Magnesians.
“I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.”
St Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, Ch 6
The bishop does preside over his dioscese “in the place of God – our Lord Jesus Christ”.
If you are going to state state that Pope Pius IV (1559 – 1565) declared the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be anathema, I do think you should supply the reference.
Lynda: Any discussion of the suicide of the West must include Rome’s decision to shatter Christendom by refusing to reform. Don’t forget her actions that made things worse in later generations. Not only is she the mother of heretics, she is now the mother of modern Jacobins.
Let’s look at Council of Trent, Canon 9 on Justification:
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
This is still in force. Every Pope has upheld this.
Mind you, Rome has moved past these doctrines and become a beacon of modernism and social democracy. Yet the old doctrines are still there on paper (and embraced by misguided converts).
Now, you as a sedevacantist are right to complain that modern popes broke with the Catholic faith. You just don’t go far enough to include Trent, the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II. In fact, I submit that we Reformed have maintained and developed the true Catholic religion in our creeds and confessions.
Per Dave Hodges’ request, I won’t belabor the point. Nevertheless, our civilizational crisis is more than race and ethnicity.
It is true, Monitor, Our civilizational crisis is more than race and ethnicity.
This topic is worthy of many Spirit Water Blood essays.
Canon 9, Trent expounds the following scripture. Remember, Monitor, Sacred Scripture is all of one because it is God breathed. Those ordained to the ministry of the Word – the bishops – must in no wise interpret any passage of text so as to contradict another.
The passage that Trent has in view on the justification by faith is James 2:14 – 25.
The seeming contradiction to this will be St Didymus “Remember me, O Lord, when you come into your kingdom”.
As Catholic, I would see (in line with Trent) this confession before the enemies of our Lord as a work of faith. A work that bore immediate fruit in St Longinius who was there to do the work of a legionaire. The conversions among the legions probably begin here with the confession of St Didymus.
That said, the Apostle James asks: “What does it profit, my brethern, if a man says he has faith but has not works…” KJV
When the Apostle Paul discusses ‘works’ he is v often referring to ‘works of the law’ as detailed in the 63 mitvohs of the Tradition of the Elders and all the minutae associated with them – the 63 mitzvohs which an observant Jew or Pharisee must fulfill in order to be justified.
The anti-papacy 1958 – ? is a beacon of modernism and social democracy. Anti-pope Benedict said it best in summing up the magisterium of the post conciliar church: “it is a counter-syllabus of errors”. This choice piece of Jew perfidy is memorialized on Wiki.
Well. Need one say more. The Syllabus of Errors (Pope Pius IX) – which condemns liberalism among the pernicious errors of the age is irreformable Catholic dogma – given ex cathedra.
The “old doctrines still there on paper” are the ordinary, constant magisterium of Holy Church. It is the light of the Church in Eclipse which corona reveals the occulting body infallibly.
You, Reformed have a lot more of the holy faith than the present outfit currently in occupation of the Roman Catholic structures worldwide. I salute you.
Lynda: The Bible doesn’t always use words in the scholastic sense. “Justification” is not the same thing in James as it is in Romans. For fuller discussion see here:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/02a.html
In the end, who cares what the Vatican teaches? You already know the Pope is evil and you’re out of communion with him. And you can’t just blame everything on the Jews either.
History shows that Rome sacked her own city. The chance of the RCC ever announcing that VC2 was a fake council (and that all popes after Pius XII were impostors) is slim.
So why carry water for an anachronism? Why don’t you come over to our side? This would be a good start:
http://www.opc.org/locator.html
This is the most ridiculous and ill-informed article (if you can call it that) I have ever come across. I can see it was put together by some uneducated, racist and incompetent piece of white trash. You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you should find a real job instead of writing this absolute filth. Get over your xenophobia like the rest of the United States did a century ago and read something that doesn’t have pictures. (or is that too hard? If so I suggest cat in the hat.) You’re also probably some god fearing moron, so in that case I and the rest of the world hope all that you nazi (that doesnt deserve a capital letter) bastards and your tainted wives and seed burn in hell.
Yours Sincerely,
Go die in a hole.
Ha Moderation… more like selective publisism of real facts.
@ An “Educated” Man:
I guess you could try refuting even one of the “hatefacts” that is posted here. Just one? Or is that too hard for you. Fortunately ignorant retards like you will soon die out when we realize that WWII did not produce “the greatest generation” at all. Soon your Jewish atrocity lies will be exposed and your antiquated anti-racist views will be rendered obsolete.
Being gay is not being a pervert! What is a pervert anyways? Everyone has preferences you! What’s it to you?
Amanda, of course being gay is perversion. Originally calling sodomy a perversion was a polite term to avoid calling homosexuality sinful or abominable. Eventually the word perversion took on negative connotations because homosexuality itself is always conceived as a negative in any society. No matter what you call homosexuality, it cannot and will not ever be accepted as normal.