Whether You’re a Brother or Whether You’re Another

Rest in peace, Doris Elizabeth Wright. You were our favorite black woman, as we wrote for many years. Jared Taylor posts a lament that this famously reclusive woman did not allow him to know her better, along with a few of his favorites quotes.

Anyone who could write and think as Elizabeth did could have achieved prominence, but that would have required her to bow to convention. Instead, she did that old-fashioned thing now so rare it comes almost as a shock; she put principle first.

She will be greatly missed, and the sting is made worse by the knowledge that those of her own people who ought to miss her the most are unaware that she even existed. But we know it, and as avid readers of Wright over the years, we’ve collected some favorite quotes of our own.

If a “racist” is someone who prefers the company of members of his own ethnic group as opposed to others, why isn’t this an individual choice that a true conservative would endorse? Apparently it is not, for such a person, no matter how benignly he expresses his preference, is generally attacked by conservatives just as belligerently as liberals. After all, doesn’t he understand that rejection of others might result in “hurt” feelings? And isn’t it “feelings” that count over individual rights?

Is a “sexist” someone who rejects the notion that Nature made the two sexes equal? The rejection of this notion was, until very recently, a foundation stone of conservatism….

[T]he only reason that the word “colored” has been tinged with the charge of “racism” is because the left/multiculturalists discovered that they could make Whitey jump through hoops by denigrating any term they chose, and claiming that a new one is in order. There was no ignominy attached to the word when ordinary blacks used it to refer to themselves. It is only when the clever elites learned that they could use it as yet another bludgeon against whites, along with a host of other words and terminologies, that it was given a “racist” meaning…

[Rand] Paul felt the need to reassure us that he is not a racist by revealing that he gets emotional and weepy when listening to a Martin Luther King Jr. speech. That may tell us something about his vulnerable mental state, but nothing else…

Even as other groups gradually dispossess them in the country whose political system was constructed by their forebears, conservative Whites persist in their obstinate assertion that their apparent discontent is “not about race.” What hogwash. Of course it’s about race and culture. Why shouldn’t it be? No matter how assiduously they deny it, resentment is growing over the ever-looming fact that this country, due to swiftly altering demographics, will no longer be the product of those Founders…

The media and academia are escalating the negrification of American culture and the feminization of its men, while teaching new generations to care more about strangers in foreign lands than for their own. Where can this possibly lead? Black elites now see power on the horizon that they never dreamed possible, and they’re going to go for it all. The real culture war is just getting under way, and so many whites do not even realize it…

How is it possible to win the respect of others if you produce nothing?…

Who started the lie that the Founders of this nation expended their energies in order to create a haven for the rescue of the world’s displaced populations? Did it come about chiefly from cynical 19th century industrialists eager only for cheap labor, who sought to soften their true motives by wrapping them in sentimental bombast?…

Why it would be normal behavior for any group of men who have been dominant in their society to allow themselves voluntarily to be displaced is never a subject for discussion by [the] arbiters of castration politics…

I ask what the likelihood is that any group would form a nation for a people other than their own kind. Why would these men not desire to retain the cultural integrity of their lineage? Other than today’s self-consciously de-racinating whites, what people do not possess this very preference? Would the Hutu be likely to expend their energies to develop a society to benefit alien tribes and foreigners? Would the Tamil? Those who claim that the world has now moved beyond ethnocentric loyalty, or ought to, might do well to take a look at the real world…

In their quest for power and prestige among whites, black elites help to unravel the bonds of the black community… [Booker T.] Washington claimed that as soon as some black men “halfway learn to read and write,” they grabbed a Bible and ran to open a church, or they took to the political stump. Or they did both. He viewed this behavior as setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the race. For, instead of playing economically productive roles, as did their counterparts in other ethnic groups, such men removed themselves from the critical task of economic development. As solo operators, and heads of their own little private church entities, they thus avoided the risks of economic competition with other men… From early on, there were blacks expressing the concern that every time a black man built a church, instead of a business, he established his own personal “cathedral of commerce,” to benefit himself and a few others…

As a faithful follower of the agendas set by white liberals [Jews], there is no reason to believe that King would not have joined with those who are responsible for encouraging the almost daily appearance of a new group of people who style themselves as “victims”…

[S]lavery is the price I paid for civilization…

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…

When these people [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. 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 reeducation… [There is] no deep-seated heartfelt opposition to this trend except among white Southrons. Other types of conservatives talk tough until an epithet is hurled their way. Then they fold… Who is most likely to fight the hardest to maintain and conserve this extraordinary experiment in freedom? Who else but the actual descendents of those founders…. 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 be only accomplished by white Southerners. 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 own ancestors. So if a white South would guarantee the preservation of those institutions, then let’s have a white South.

She truly was a modern-day representative of the doctrine of Booker T. Washington. I don’t know of anyone who will step up to fill her role.

The states in which blacks are most likely to be on welfare relative to the population. The answers might surprise you.

“A person dependent on somebody else for everything from potatoes to opinions may declare that he is a free man, and his government may issue a certificate granting him his freedom, but he will not be free… How can he be free if he can do nothing for himself?… Men are free precisely to the extent that they are equal to their own needs. The most able are the most free.” ~ Wendell Berry, A Continuous Harmony, p. 124

Listen to R.J. Rushdoony and Otto Scott discuss the problem of envy and what it has meant for our people in dealing with perpetual dependents.

At 5:50:

Rush: Over the years I’ve encountered numerous examples when people have been envious, and bitterly so, because someone else who they feel is not as intelligent or not as capable as they are has a better job, a better income, a better wife, better children, you name it. Somehow, that’s wrong. They have no right to excel, they have no right to be better than anyone else. And this kind of hostility has thoroughly warped our society, and as a result we have many, many groups who feel that they’re justified in being envious. I believe it’s a very, very important part of racial conflict…

Scott: It’s really a retrogression to the primitive. The old idea, let’s say the pre-revolutionary idea of society, was of inequality under both the king and God. It was understood that people were unequal, that their situations were unequal, their responsibilities were unequal, their authority was unequal, and that their talents were unequal. Now, to some extent, we could simply soften that by saying “different.” People are differently equipped. Some are advanced in certain areas and deficient in others, and so on. So there is an uneven profile, you might say, which affects all humanity. But never, before the French Revolution, have men risen up to lead the masses on the argument not that they will make men rich, but that they will stop others from becoming rich. From the French Revolution until today, envy has been the single appeal, the single dominant approach of all the revolutionaries. Socialism is based on envy.

At 15:32:

Rush: When people turn envy into a virtue, they cease to be responsible. Instead of doing something to correct their condition, they say somebody else is responsible for their condition. And as a result, they begin to hate, and they turn their hate into social action, legislation. And we have today, in both parties, a strong vein of envy legislated…

Scott: He said that one of the reasons why the black tribes of Africa had not advanced was that, in order to advance, one person has to do something better than other people, and when the other people see that it works, they begin to imitate it. But the envious will not accept that. They feel that, for instance, if one farmer got a bigger harvest than all the rest, the others would say he put a curse on us to keep our crops below his. So therefore any effort to get ahead of the other fellow is an insult. You’re trying to put him down…you’re trying to get ahead of him. So nobody gets ahead, and when nobody gets ahead, there is no progress. And the primitive tribes therefore froze everything that they did at a certain level. And it stayed that way from time immemorial.

Scott shows here that what whites tend to perceive as black racial solidarity is not really as strong as it appears. They are not bound as brothers. Their perceived solidarity is born of envy, and is a unified reaction to white hegemony. Take away whites as the “evil oppressors,” and black unity dries up, and they regress.

Now, what’s happening to us? Innovation is declining in the United States; innovation in thought, innovation in expression, innovation even in the areas where it is supposedly encouraged, in scientific effort. Because there is a subliminal acceptance of the idea of magic, the idea that you don’t have to do anything to improve. If everything around you falls, you will somehow be bettered, but yet you don’t grow in stature because the other fellow is taller and you don’t like it. You can cut him off at the knees, and it’s still not going to increase your stature.

Rushdoony quotes from Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora that “envy is no more than the anxiety and impatience of a man who sees and acknowledges himself as inferior to another,” that it is the affliction of impotence, is anti-social, anti-solidarity, and is a perversion of charity.

Quoting de la Mora:

The opposite of envy is the communion of the saints, a fellowship in terms of a common faith, a common life. Envy isolates people, and instead of the communion of the saints, instead of community of any sort, you have an anti-community impetus. You have a hostility directed at everyone from a position of isolation, because the envious man is not content to be at peace with anyone.

Otto Scott adds: “The envious feels entitled to do anything injurious to you that comes into his mind…”

At 24:09 is the following exchange:

Rush: We live in a world in which no one preaches against envy, neither in the church nor out of the church. It is regarded as altogether natural to be envious.

Scott: Well, it’s promoted, it’s encouraged, but it is true that you don’t hear sermons about it. I don’t really know what the church today sermonizes against. When we really come to it, all sins seem to have shriveled down to racism. Beyond that, there is no sin.

Rush: Yes, that’s very good. That is about the only sin that is left. And that’s an odd thing to choose as a sin because one of the characteristics of people all over the world has been a preference for their own. People prefer their own families, they prefer their own nationality or their own race, which is entirely legitiimate as long as they don’t abuse and mistreat others. I believe that the world has seen more racism in this century than ever before precisely because we are trying to equalize everything, and we’re trying to obscure the differences, and say they don’t exist. And when you do that, you’re going to create a situation where there will be a bootlegged and resentful recognition of differences…

Scott: The whole idea of a civilized society is based on the idea of mutual respect. But respect is one thing; a denial of reality is something else. If, in order to get along or to placate, we have to pretend that everyone has the same intellect and intelligence, the same ability, then we have downgraded all intelligence and all ability…

Rush: Well, by obscuring the fact of differences, what we have done is to create a climate in which any awareness of reality is gone.

Scott: Well, it’s dishonest.

Rush: Yes, you’re not living in a real world if you don’t recognize differences and say he’s better than I am, he’s of another color, and he or she is not as good as I am in this particular field…

Scott: Well, I had that conversation with the sales manager of the magazine I was with. He said, I was raised to believe that I was as good as anybody. Weren’t you? I said no, I wasn’t. He said he was surprised. He said, well, how were you raised? I said I was raised to think that we were better than some and not as good as others. And I still think that’s true.

Rush: Yes, yes, that was very much a part of our training in our generation.

Scott: Well, now of course, it’s forbidden to say that you’re better than anybody else. That is an evil thought in the popular jargon…

Rush: Yes, well as I said, when you will not allow reality to govern your thinking, you’re going to live in a world of hypocrisy, and that hypocrisy will increase year by year in a more and more warped society. And I believe that the envious character of our society, its anti-racialism, its hypocrisy in one sphere after another, is leading to more and more dislocations, because reality is not allowed to impinge upon our world…

At 35:58:

Scott: There were ethnic identifications, but they were identifications, and they were not invidious. Although [today it is believed that the] language that was used in the 1920s and 1930s [was] insulting and evidence of great ethnic hostility, it was not true. The language was used affectionately. Many of these nicknames were considered harmless. They were used by the people themselves. I recall, in my mother’s family of working-class Irish, when all the Irish in the New York area called themselves donkeys, and were so known, and didn’t think anything of it. The whole idea of the affection that existed between black and white in the United States a generation or more ago is now denied of ever having existed. But it did exist, and there was a lot of affection.

Rush: Yes, Well, our society is being divided by envy. And envy continues to divide a society progressively until it destroys it. And today, envy is institutionalized in every country in the world. There isn’t one that today, in some form or another, has not passed legislation that makes envy somehow legitimate in one sphere or another.

“Demagogues appeal to envy because its universality makes potential victims of all the people, and because the invincible inequality of our own personal capabilities and of the irremediable limitation of many social goods makes it inevitable that the majority will feel inferior to certain minorities. The promotion of this envious feeling of inferiority is the dominant political tactic, at least in the present age. The demagogic promotion of envy, as with everything else that refers to this unpublishable feeling, is not carried out in public but under cover. A contemporary disguise of collective envy is what is called ‘social justice.’ How does this ideological and derivative argumentation run? A fundamental postulate is established that the more just a society is, the more equal its members are in opportunities, position, and wealth; and immediately it is established the party will fight without rest to achieve such justice. The appeal of this axiom and of such a program is evidently unbeatable for the envious, since it promises to abolish the unassimilated inferiority that causes them so much pain. Quality is a paradisiacal promise for the envious—the definitive incentive.” ~ Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, Egalitarian Envy; The Political Foundations of Social Justice, p. 93

Speak of the devil:

The MLK monument cost $120 million to erect, but not without paying almost $800,000 in licensing fees to the King family for the right to use his quotes. This sudden concern for intellectual property is funny, seeing as how a Boston University committee found that that 45% of the first part and 21% of the second part of King’s doctoral dissertation was plagiarized, not to mention the “I Have a Dream” speech and other writings. Yet to keep their own jobs, the committee insisted that “no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.” Oh, of course not. Perish the very thought.

Jackie Kennedy called MLK “tricky,” “terrible,” a “phony,” and said she could barely stand to look at him. She accused him of “calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy,” as the FBI also knew. (The purpose of the “civil rights” revolution was to make it easier for black men to score with white women.) Comes now Jackie’s daughter, Caroline, to say yes, but “she admired him tremendously.” Obviously, Caroline still hopes for a career of some sort.

King’s legacy: In Washington, DC, student enrollment increased by almost 119,000 from 1995 to 2010. Of these, only about 1,000 were white (less than 1%).

I don’t think any of us saw this coming: Obama’s “hip hop charter school” has wasted $700,000 and has nothing to show for it. It fits nicely with the rest of Obama’s achievements.

Headline of the year: “Obama’s Uncle Omar Arrested Outside the Chicken Bone Saloon.” Does the man have any relatives who are not illegal aliens?

Obama voters for whom English is a second language. It reminds me that Koko the gorilla was able to use sign language to ask for candy.

The National Bureau for Economic Research has found that students are more likely to stay in classes and earn higher grades if they have instructors of their own race or ethnicity. That dripping noise you hear is the Rev. Dr. King weeping over the fact that judgments are still not being made solely on the basis of character.

“African American people who identify more strongly with their racial identity are generally happier, according to a study led by psychology researchers at Michigan State University.” But heaven forbid that whites should be considered happier for identifying more strongly with their racial identity. That would be downright racist.

The only kind of public art that is now allowed to express masculinity must depict Negro advancement. They call white art of this kind “fascist.”

Whenever blacks and mestizos attack white people, the news reports invariably say it was “unclear as to what their motivation was.” It’s never a hate crime unless one of the whites who was attacked is later found to be a fag.

Another reason why you want to live in an all-white area.

So even the blacks who are not in the mobs excuse those who are. How would you like to be one of these store owners and know that there is no community, because everyone around you feels entitled to steal what is yours? Spike Lee made a movie about this, called Do the Right Thing, in which the heroes are the vandals and arsonists. Very few blacks understand the meaning of community. Again, their apparent racial solidarity is a reaction against what they call white “racism,” which is actually natural inequality. But if you go to where there are no whites present, like in Africa, you see black “community” for what it is: every man for himself.

James Edwards reviews The Help, which is the latest Jew-fantasy out of Hollywood “depicting the benighted South before the triumph of liberalism.” There is a Jew-happy ending as the “stoic, long-suffering blacks imbued with both homespun wisdom and impeccable moral rectitude” vanquish the evil, white, Southern system of racism and usher in a new era of Equality. Then Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to the alien spacecraft, saving the world. Or something.

Gary DeMar reviews the movie too, and he reveals himself yet again to be a South-hating, white-hating lickspittle. We should write a booklet called Gary DeMar’s Madness. He calls the Jew-propaganda “tremendous” and “powerful,” and bemoans the fact that “supposedly church-going Christians [had] these attitudes towards blacks.” Notice the word “supposedly,” which is meant to convey the idea that Southern Christians in the 1960s who were kind enough to employ blacks, and were quite fond of them, but didn’t want them to become relatives, were not really Christians at all, or were living in sin. Surely Gary realizes that Southern white Christians agreed with countless generations of Christians who preceded them, and yet he doesn’t use the word “supposedly” when surmising the salvation of our church fathers and the great men and women of American and European history.

Gary waxes indignant about the “oppression” that “overwhelmed” blacks during the sixties, but the only example he cites is that a bathroom was built outside for one maid because the family didn’t want her to use the bathrooms indoors. Horrible racism! Wicked spite! Especially when you see how clean and well-groomed the black folks are in this fair and balanced appraisal of Jew-history. No horrific odors from lack of bathing! No diseases!

Southerners are used to being lectured by tools like DeMar, who admits that he never grew up around blacks, doesn’t currently employ one, and probably knows no more than one or two at church. He is a brazen hypocrite, but that’s not the worst of it. He is also a liar, because he knows that the white Christians in question had good reasons for the rules that were enforced to make interracial relationships tolerable. Even today, black women are 23 times more likely than white women to have AIDS. Black women have two-thirds of all new AIDS cases among women. Blacks have two-thirds of all AIDS cases reported for teenagers. Blacks are 7 times more likely than whites to have chlamydia, 5 times more likely to have syphilis, and 16 times more likely to have congenital syphilis. So Gary can feign outrage at “racism” all he likes, but he doesn’t want blacks sitting on his toilet seat either. What an affected, lying, hypocritical bag of mashed-up jackass meat. If it is now a crime to prevent diseases from entering your private bathroom then doctors should apologize to patients for wearing latex gloves.

It’s funny when, in the midst of his movie review, Gary gets worked up because blacks had to “go literally across the tracks into the northern suburbs of Jackson, Mississippi” to find a job. They didn’t just have to suffer the indignity of crossing the tracks, they had to literally cross the tracks! I’m sure the rest of us could never relate to the humiliation of waking up in the morning and actually going to where the jobs are.

At 32:22 in this talk, following a good conversation about Thomas Sowell, Otto Scott says:

The old definition of the word “discrimination” was choice. It was never expected that the right of choice would become illegal in the private sector.

Or in private bathrooms.

Read Gen5′s excellent article on moderate Northerners during the War who opposed disunion but advocated white ethnostates. It’s a shame that the North had lunatics like Lincoln and the bankers representing their interests rather than these men. For those of us who defend slavery on biblical grounds, this article is a needful reminder that what is lawful is not always prudent. African slavery was possibly the worst idea ever hatched by our race, and we’re still paying the price. In retrospect, the desire to halt the spread of slavery to the West was not at all unreasonable, and if Southern elites had not been so dependent on this institution that was forced upon them by the king, more than one half million of our best men, North and South, might not have been destroyed.

Just as the state may legitimately prevent a refinery from dumping known toxins like benzene into a common body of water, it also has the right to prevent pollution of the body politic upon which the entire basis of law and society partially depends…

A great strength and weakness of Southern character is that of pride, sometimes sinful and sometimes not, but never amenable to being told what to do. The thought of these lapsed Calvinist Yankee hypocrites – these heretics who deny the Divinity of Christ – whose own ancestors were the lawbreaking man-stealers who created the slavery problem, telling the South that its entire way of life was an abomination – this was truly unbearable.

Dabney, who was a great defender of slavery, believed that the South was punished for its sins; not the “secular sin” of slavery, but perhaps the entire system of usury that surrounded the slave market.

Note that slave family separations, while occasionally the intention of callous and cruel masters, were mostly initiated by creditors possessing a bankrupted estate, who legally had to auction every slave to the highest bidder. Like all farmers for all history, the Southern planters got excited by high crop prices, which resulted in overinvestment funded by debt, then oversupply, then a collapse in prices followed by a liquidation of assets by creditors of the most overextended estates.

Like Gen5, my love for South Carolina runs as deep as my roots in that state, ”the last aristocratic republic of the 18th century.” The problem was that the men of South Carolina thought they could reproduce English feudalism with African savages as the peasant class. As James Edwards likes to say, you can’t have a First World nation with a Third World population. It was not good enough that the Negroes were merely subservient. Though the gentlemen of South Carolina “can be seen as noble but quixotic reactionaries who were the last vestiges of feudalism against the dehumanizing wave of materialistic modernism,” biology got in the way.

Gen5 explains in just three points why the South failed, and why the empire that conquered it is currently failing to compete:

1. Blacks are definitively materially better off under white rule.
2. As a consequence of #1, blacks will have higher fecundity than whites. Less intelligent, less responsible individuals will always have more children, lacking the self-control to voluntarily limit births. White medical care guaranteed that more of these children would survive to adulthood than white children.
3. The reliance on cheap labor distorts the economy and begets more and more demand for additional cheap labor, a race to the bottom demographically.

The deracinated “Christian” of our time responds that we need to support as many births as possible, naturalize the parents, and adopt the children if they’re not wanted. They treat “pro-lifeism” as an idol. But is the “rescue” of a small number of blacks, to our own harm, really necessary when the science of the white man has elevated Ethiopian life expectancy by 87% in the last 90 years?

White people should consider this carefully: when Africans are now only 90 years behind the Western world (in terms of quality of life), is it really necessary to continue this destructive rescue fantasy where we ruin our own homelands to “save” (and morally corrupt through welfare) a tiny sliver of the Third World?

The task at hand is the self-preservation of European peoples with ethnostates in their historic homelands: Europe, Russia, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, and at least parts of South Africa if possible. We will gladly grant to every other people their place under the sun according to God’s ordained order if our own sovereignty is respected.

Burn that last sentence into your brain. Fellowship is conditional. Good will and respect are not free; they must be earned. As Kevin Strom once said: “Respect White existence or expect White resistance.” Seven little words to remember.

‎”If we do not defend ourselves, none will defend us; if we yield, we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit, we will be trampled underfoot.” ~ John C. Calhoun

Gen5′s comments on admixture are very interesting. We all know the age-old charge against Southern slaveowners of running harems on their plantations. If this were so, it would have resulted in a heavily-mulatto slave population.

Under the most damning set of assumptions for Southern masters, let us pretend that miscegenation has been constant for all of American black history. If we take the year 1700 as the year for the average full-blooded African to arrive in America, and assume the average age of childbirth was 20, we calculate that there have been 15.55 generations of blacks in America. To calculate the average admixture per generation, we only have to raise the inverse proportion of white blood to the inverse power of the number of generations, so (1-0.175)^(1/15.55) = 0.9878 and subtract the result from 1, which leaves us an average admixture per generation of about 1.2%. Since we know most of this miscegenation has taken place since 1900, and on an even more accelerated basis since 1950, these Southern masters were some of the most chaste slave-owning patriarchs in history, which makes sense because of the genetic distance between Europeans and Africans, and the effects of that on mutual attraction between white men and black women (compare by contrast the numerous and frequent pairing with concubines and servants in the Old Testament when both masters and slaves were from genetically similar groups). Also note how liberal rhetoric changed: before the War, racist slavery was said to cause miscegenation, whereas 100 years after the War racism was held to prevent miscegenation, now promoted as a positive good.

By Jove, I like the cut of his jib. Gen5 is a drop-everything writer. Whenever you see that he has written something new, you have to drop everything and read it. You just have to hope that you’re not carrying your bride across the threshold when your phone chimes with a feed alert.

This snippet about the deplorable state of mulatto women was printed in the New York Times in 1874.

“Q. 37. Is it lawful to buy and use men as slaves? A. It is a great mercy accidentally for those of Guinea, Brazil and other lands, to be brought among Christians, though it be as slaves: but it is a sin in those that sell and buy them as beasts, merely for commodity, and use them accordingly: but to buy them in compassion to their souls, as well as for their service, and then to sell them only to such as will use them charitably like men, and to employ them as aforesaid, preferring their salvation, is a lawful thing, especially such as sell themselves, or are sold as malefactors.” ~ Richard Baxter (Puritan), from Vol. XIX of his 23 volume set of Practical Works, p. 210

Generation5 on interracial and transracial adoption. Remember the Vision Forum types who spared no expense to fly to Haiti after the earthquake and kidnap black children to bring them to America and raise them as Oreos? Read about the 29 Makeni children, who were stolen from their families during a civil war in Sierra Leone in 1998. You can see that the circumstances were very similar to the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, with desperate parents wanting their children to be taken to safety but not realizing that evangelical “Christian” lunatics wanted to take their children from them permanently because they think that God has called them to build the kingdom by mixing races.

The families have repeatedly insisted that no one mentioned adoption. Nor would they necessarily have expected anyone to. In their culture, as in many traditional cultures, it is common to exchange children informally but not permanently; as one birth father told me through an interpreter, adoption was not even a word in his vocabulary. In parts of Asia and Africa, moreover, child-welfare centers frequently serve as temporary child-care centers, boarding schools, medical facilities, and feeding centers, even for children who have families…

“But how can they adopt a kid if I didn’t give them that kid?” Suma asked, incredulous. “We agreed that they could educate our kids. At the time they were adopted, there was no official judicial system; everything had fallen apart. They weren’t adopted; they were sold.”

A very good comment from our friend Kevin:

Speaking for myself and not all Kinists I would agree [that race is an extended family] to a degree but I would go a little farther to define race scientifically and genetically as different phenotypes. I’m no scientist and I’m no expert in genetics but I believe that it is very obvious in nature that God does some awesome work with genetics and DNA.

I have two dogs. I have a Cairn Terrier and a Beagle. The Terrier is a hairball of energy and activity and doesn’t meet a stranger. He’s also feisty and tough and very excitable. These are the traits of a Cairn Terrier. The Beagle is calm. She is a natural born hunter. She lives outside and loves it. She comes home with a rabbit in her mouth once in a while and more often than not she likes to be left alone.

Human races are similar to dog breeds in that they have different genetic makeups that give much of the information as to how they will be. This doesn’t dehumanize people in any way in my opinion. I’m not saying that we are as low as animals and I believe (of course) that we are made in the image of God. On the other hand, we don’t need to get too high and mighty as far as what we are on this earth. We eat like animals, we kill like animals (to eat), etc. And like animals, we have different genetic makeups. This doesn’t mean that all Negroes are exactly like other Negroes or all Whites are like other Whites, etc. But it does mean that you will find many physical, mental, emotional and behavioral traits that are common in races.

“Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass. Moses says that Anah was the author of this connection. But I do not consider this as said in praise of his industry; for the Lord has not in vain distinguished the different kinds of animals from the beginning. But since the vanity of the flesh often solicits the children of this world, so that they apply their minds to superfluous matters, Moses marks this unnatural pursuit in Anah, who did not think it sufficient to have a great number of animals; but he must add to them a degenerate race produced by unnatural intercourse. Moreover, we learn hence, that there is more moderation among brute animals in following the law of nature, than in men, who invent vicious admixtures.” ~ John Calvin on Genesis 36:24

“Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you.” ~ Job 12:7

Notice that John Calvin, in this quote, directly associates miscegenation with adultery, and therefore tags miscegenation as a violation of the Seventh Commandment.

Harry Seabrook sent the following to a reader who disputed some of his arguments regarding adultery:

Adultery (moicheuo) was defined in my letter as: “Of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” This is taken from Kittel’s original Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), where you will find the words “ausch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen” (“mixing of man and beast, or a mixture of different races”). The translation to English by Bromiley has been bowdlerized. Kittel undoubtedly believed that interracial “marriage” is adulteration.

I believe we can also gather from Scripture that adultery is not simply cheating on a spouse. In Hosea 5, it is said that the tribe of Ephraim has been defiled by playing the harlot. Whoredom here is zanah, which means to commit adultery or idolatry. The result of the whoredom is the begetting of strange children, where “strange” is zuwr, meaning the product of adultery. This relates to the problem faced by Ezra and Nehemiah, where the subsequent separation of the mixed multitude was on lineal and not merely confessional grounds, as you know. In other words, the Babylonians and mixed children were sent away because they were Babylonians by blood, not because they failed to pass a covenantal litmus test, such as a confessional recitation or proof of circumcision.

Extra-biblical sources support the concept of illicit intercourse being an adulteration of the bloodline. For example:

“While children mostly resemble their parents or their ancestors, it sometimes happens that no such resemblance is to be traced. But parents may pass on resemblance after several generations, as in the case of the woman in Elis, who committed adultery with a negro; in this case it was not the woman’s own daughter but the daughter’s child that was a blackamoor.” ~ Aristotle, Historia Animalium, Book XII.6

I like Ehud’s definition of adultery: the mixture of those things which are by nature, religion, covenant, culture, or kind, separate. It fits nicely with the sadly relevant question of how two faggots are to be divorced if adultery and desertion are the only biblically permissible grounds for divorce. They can be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sinful behavior, but how can their legal union be annulled if there is not a biblical reason to separate parties that should not be joined? The same rule could be applied to incest. If a man has legally married his mother, how can the church persuade the state to annul it or to enforce the death penalty if not on the grounds of adultery?

You asked for the source of the Hebrew word miyn, or “kind” in Genesis 1, as to “sort out or portion.” This is taken from Strong’s #4327: “to portion out; a sort, i.e. species.” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also defines it as a species.

You asked for the Hebrew source of Noah being perfect in his generations “in a non-covenantal sense.” This is a misunderstanding. I affirm that Noah being a “perfect” (meaning “complete”) Sethite in his generations is connected to his being a perfect covenant-keeper. I don’t know of anyone who takes this to mean that Noah did not sin, but rather that he lived unblemished by the corruptions of his age. The primary corruption of his age is made clear in the first verse of chapter 6, which is that Sethites were intermarrying with Cainites. God’s judgment on the miscegenation was the Flood, and Noah and his family were spared because they had remained pure. Noah’s righteousness by faith (Heb. 11:7) was intimately connected to being a complete Sethite in his generations.

The Barnes Commentary for Genesis 6 supports this:

It is probable, moreover, that he was of pure descent, and in that respect also distinguished from his contemporaries who were the offspring of promiscuous intermarriage between the godly and the ungodly. “Noah walked with God,” like Henok [Enoch].

You asked for the source of “Gentile” as “those who belong to a specific clan or tribe that excludes all foreigners from membership.” I confess that I did not phrase this well. The definition is my own, and by it I mean that citizenship is by nature exclusive. I also mean that the Gentile nations and the Hebrew nation were formed in the same way, as one or more tribes of common ancestry. Babel and the empires foretold in Daniel are, if I’m not mistaken, the only examples to be found in the Bible of pseudo-nations formed by ideology or military might. This is also what we have in America today.

Numbers 36 allows for intertribal marriage only if it is accompanied by a permanent loss of property, which would make such marriages extremely rare. It stands to reason that this rule would also apply to international marriages, and there would be no such thing as dual citizenship. I can find no biblical examples of marriages that are both international and interracial.

You also dispute the following references from Ehud’s blog:

The word “Illegitimate” in Deut. 23:2 used to be translated “Bastard.” In the Septuagint (Greek) the word is “Nothos,” meaning generally, “a mongrel.” So too did the Vulgate (Latin) use the related term “Nothus,” meaning “a mongrel.” And in the Masoretic text (Hebrew) it is “Mamzer,” meaning, among other things, “a mongrel.”

The word mamzer (Strong’s #4464) appears twice in the Old Testament, once in Deut. 23:2 and again in Zech. 9:6. The Barnes Commentary defines mamzer as “one born unlawfully, whether out of marriage, or in forbidden marriage, or in adultery.” Clarke’s Commentary more accurately defines it as “the offspring of an illegitimate or incestuous mixture,” not merely one who is born out of wedlock. Consider Jephthah, who was the son of a harlot (Judges 11:1-2) and therefore a bastard, but was not a mamzer, or a mongrel. He was allowed to enter the congregation and serve as a Judge for six years. It would seem, therefore, that the KJV’s interpretation of the word as “bastard” is not as accurate as the NIV’s reference to a “forbidden marriage.” For some reason, the NASB translates the word as “illegitimate” in Deut. 23:2 but as “mongrel” in Zech. 9:6. It’s the same Hebrew word, mamzer, used in both places. The latter is clearly a more accurate translation because these people were never to enter the congregation (Neh. 13:1). Unlike Noah, they were not complete in their generations.

The same thing that happened in the Kittel-Bromiley translation is happening here. Words lose their meaning to make them more politically palatable (i.e., diversity-friendly), and when the bowdlerization has had enough time to work its way through cross-referential sources, someone posts it to Wikipedia, complete with footnotes, as the consensus definition. (Here’s an article about Wikipedia’s troubling and inventive history with the word “macaca.”)

You dispute this passage from Matthew Henry’s commentary on Lev. 19:

“Here is, I. A law against mixtures, v. 19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen. i. 25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Eccl. iii. 14. As what God has joined we must not separate; so what he has separated, we must not join.” [Deut.32:8]

This is an exact quote. As we’re told in 1 Cor. 9:9-10, this law chiefly concerns human relations. Some additional insight on what Henry means by “monsters” is found in his commentary on Proverbs 30:

In every age there are monsters of ingratitude who ill-treat their parents. Many persuade themselves they are holy persons, whose hearts are full of sin, and who practise secret wickedness. There are others whose lofty pride is manifest. There have also been cruel monsters in every age.

Ehud links Henry’s quote to the legal definition of “monster” found in a passage from Sir William Blackstone that you dispute:

A monster…hath no heritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage… But our law will not admit a birth of this kind to be such an issue as shall entitle the husband to be tenant by the courtesy; because it is not capable of inheriting. And therefore, if there appears no other heir than such a prodigious birth, the land shall escheat to the lord.

This is taken from Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law, Vol. II, Ch. XV. Sources here and here. See here for more on what Blackstone means by this. He writes that there are five methods for acquiring a title to property, and bastards, monsters, and aliens are excluded from the possibility.

He defines a monster as that “which hath not the shape of mankind, but in any part evidently bears the resemblance of the brute creation…but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape it may be heir. This is a very ancient rule in the law of England; and its reason is too obvious and too shocking to bear a minute discussion.”

As I understand it, Siamese twins would be included in this category, as would hermaphrodites or those with acquired or congenital deformities. Ehud’s point is that by combining the Blackstone and Henry quotes, one could imply that a child could be classified as a monster whose resemblance so differs from his parents that he must be the product of extramarital relations. By morphology, he would fit the profile of “spurious brood” without rights of inheritance.

“If a body left out overnight defiles a land, how much more so man’s abusive use of the soil, his contempt of God’s creation, and his attempt to hybridize and mingle what God ordained to be separate?” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1

“Because we have separated faith and the land…faith and possession of the earth…Christianity has ceased to be a biblical faith and has become a type of ‘bubblehead spirituality.’ But all through the Bible, faith and the land are tied closely together.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, from his lecture God and Government (Deuteronomy)

“The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony

Australia is now issuing passports that have three options for sex: male, female, or indeterminate. Why only three?

What in blackest hell is all this?

The Moderator is a retired public and private school teacher who has been married to AfroAm, MexAm, EuroAm and AsianAm ladies and has three wonderful and grown AfroAm-IndiAm-EuroAm daughters and two wonderful MexAm sons-in-law.

And let’s be honest, you shouldn’t marry centaurs either.

A record-high 86% approve of black-white “marriage,” which is almost a reversal of the rate of disapproval 60 years ago. That’s what people are saying in public, anyway. Their private lives tell a different story, as interracial pairing is extremely rare on online dating sites.

1879:

1884:

1885:

1900:

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” ~ Aristotle

Listen again to Rushdoony at 12:38 in this sermon called “The Tents of Shem”:

The term equality, therefore, does not fit a concrete, a real world. It is valid in economics. It is valid in a world of abstractions. The biblical idea is one of vocation and of calling. And the Scripture make abundantly clear that God gives diverse gifts. To some He gives one kind of talent and to others another. And we have no right to be dissatisfied with what God has given us, either individually or racially. Second, we must say that not only does Scripture assert that there are differences between peoples. We must add that natural differences exist and are obvious to all. Different races have different endowments. Accordingly, heredity is important. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches us to despise heredity. Does not the Bible, for example, make clear that genealogical records are kept, that these records are important? That, for example, after the exile, Nehemiah barred from the congregation those who were of mixed blood; such people could not enter in immediately. Heredity does make a difference. And we must remember, not in pride but in humility, that we are different, by the grace of God, because we represent people with 1500 to 2000 years of Christianity behind us. And the effect, the impact of this, is tremendous…

On the other hand, if you take such a people as the Negroes, you find that their background in Africa through countless centuries is one of savagery. No culture was ever produced there. The only kind of life was one of “eat, drink, and get all the stuff you can today because tomorrow you may be dead, you may be in the pot.” And so there was no premium on character or honesty…but only on physical dexterity and killing and escaping being killed. Can untold centuries of this type of living do anything but produce a particular society? It would be the height of folly to deny this. And certainly, everything we know from character and extensive testing does indicate a greatly inferior intelligence, although often a superior physical dexterity on the part of African people.

Clearly, Rushdoony disagreed with the vast majority of neo-Christians today who believe that genetics are inconsequential, and faith is all that matters for “being all you can be.” His colorblind followers know it and hate it. Look back on this thread, where John Lofton splits a gourd at the thought of Rushdoony believing that genetics are effectual. Then he backpedals, claiming that he only meant that Rushdoony never used the word “genetics.” But he only had to read a few paragraphs down the page to see that this was false.

“The modern liberal is very fond of idealizing the various backward peoples of the world, and he consistently portrays the Christian as the despoiler and the ravager of the simple paradise of ‘primitive’ cultures. Our concern here is not with the sexual and other depravities of these cultures, but simply their attitude towards work. It needs to be said, however, that the various idealizations of these backward cultures are works of fiction.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Salvation and Godly Rule

‎”In orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, the problem of the one and the many is resolved. Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The temporal unity and plurality is on a basis of equal validity. There is thus no basic conflict between the individual and the community. The individual lives in community, and the community flourishes as the individual finds himself and grows in terms of consistently Christian faith. Instead of a basic philosophical hostility between individual and government, believer and church, person and family, there is a necessary co-existence. Neither the one nor the many is reducible to the other. They cannot seek obliteration of the other, for it involves self-obliteration. The Augustinian and Calvinistic faith, by its hostility to subordinationism, holds, if developed, the possibilities of true social order, and, to the extent that Augustinianism and Calvinism have been followed, Western culture has developed both freedom and order.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

One could easily add that there is no conflict between race and faith, contrary to the claims of the Alienists. Distinct races may dwell in the Church, and the Church flourishes as races and tribes grow in faith, at their own pace, equally yoked.

“The question which haunts the dialectical culture is this: how to have unity without totally undifferentiated and meaningless oneness? If all things are basically one, the differences are meaningless, divisions false, and definitions are sophistications, in that the tyranny, or destiny, of oneness is the truth of all being. But, if all things are basically many, and if plurality is ultimate, then the world dissolves into unrelated particulars and becomes, as some thinkers insist, not a universe but a multiverse, and every atom is in a sense its own law and being. The first leads to the breakdown of differences and the liberty of atomistic individualism and particularity; the second is the breakdown of fundamental law into nihilism and the retreat of men and their arts into isolated and private universes.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

“The essence of the ancient city-state, polis, and empire was that it constituted the continuous unity of the gods and men, of the divine and the human, and the unity of all being. There was no possible independence in a society for any constituent aspect. Every aspect of society was a part of the all-absorbing one. Against this, Christianity asserted the absolute division of the human and the divine. Even in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the human and the divine were in union without confusion, as Chalcedon so powerfully defined it. Thus, divinity was withdrawn from human society and returned to the heavens and to God. No human order or institution could claim divinity and therefore claim to represent total and final order. By de-divinizing the world, Christianity placed all created orders, including church and state, alike under God. By denying divinity to all, and by reserving divinity to the triune God, all created orders were freed from one another and made independent of each other and together interdependent in their dependence on God. Church and state were alike required to be Christian, but neither was able to be total Christian order.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many

Our friend Petr left this very profound comment: about how a trinitarian may interpret the liberal perversions of Christianity:

• Unitarianism presents a false image of God the Father (deity becomes an abstract monadic idol, Babelistic worship of absolute oneness)
• Pelagianism presents a false image of Jesus Christ and His work (Christ becomes a mere “inspiring character” whose example we should try to imitate with our own righteous deeds)
• Gnosticism presents a false image of the Holy Spirit (the spirit swallows up the foul matter and turns the esoteric spirit-initiates into omnipotent deities themselves)

Picking up on what was written a few months ago in a Kinism.net article about Abraham Kuyper, here’s an article that touches on Kuyper’s foolish advocacy of racial mixture.

“White… is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black… God paints in many colours; but He never paints so gorgeously, I had almost said so gaudily, as when He paints in white.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

“Respected” “Christian” “authority” Tim Keller says: “I don’t see much of a role for a purely white church anymore, but I do see a role for the ethnic churches.”

“Anyone who thinks whites deserve countries and communities in which they are the majority is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who concludes from the evidence that genes explain why the average Japanese is smarter than the average Haitian is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who notices that diversity weakens a country is a ‘hater.’ Anyone who thinks masses of Third-World immigrants are not helpful for America and should stay home is a ‘hater’… Of course, the Left still sheds tears over the ‘victims of McCarthyism’ and can think of few things more shameful in post-war America than the Hollywood blacklist. How could a free country have persecuted people merely because of their politics? The vileness of it!”

We reported on this a few years ago when the decision was made, and now the tribe’s Supreme Court has upheld it: the Cherokee Indian tribe has officially expelled the descendants of all slaves once owned by Cherokees. Blacks are calling it a “human rights” issue, as usual, while the Indians hold to the biblical definition of nationhood: an inheritance of blood. “Cherokee Nation officials maintain that the tribe has the right to amend its constitutional membership requirements.” When will white people come to the same realization?

According to Gen5, whites ought to establish ethnostates patterned after Israel:

Since I support the formation of a white ethnostate on the North American continent (or at least, more realistically, a state with permanent white hegemony, sort of like an Israel for white American Christians, likely achieved similar to the Israelis by a combination of gerrymandering and limited suffrage for the residual minority population), and I believe some form of secession is a necessary precondition for such an outcome, there is much to learn from the [South Carolina] fire-eaters, a group that went from being seen as a marginalized group of extremists to mainstream political power in a remarkably short period by exploiting political opportunities.

The fact that 75% of casualties in the Middle East are white is not a problem for Obama. That kind of overrepresentation is to be expected of the white race. No, instead he is focused on a real “problem.” Take it away, Pat Buchanan:

Obama, wrote Isaac Arnsdorf, is targeting “a problem that has been on the administration’s radar. Whites still hold more than 81 percent of senior pay-level positions.”

Now, as white folks are two-thirds of the U.S. population, and perhaps three-fourths of those in the 45 to 65 age group who would normally be at senior federal positions, why is this “a problem”?

As no one has contended otherwise, we have to assume that the men and women who hold these top positions got there because of the longevity of their service and the superiority of their skills.

Why is the color of their skin a “problem” for Barack Obama?

Overseeing this new federal directive “to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce” will be the EEOC, where blacks are overrepresented by 300%. Blacks are already overrepresented in the feral government “workforce” (I hate that Commie term). They are 13% of the population and hold 18% of feral government jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.38. Whites are 69% of the population and hold 81% of senior jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.17. Yet as Pat Buchanan writes, no Democrat U.S. senator can be found who will step aside and allow someone black to be appointed in his stead. The real purpose of “diversity” is to destroy the white race. Ending “racism” is simply code language for ending the white race.

Kevin MacDonald writes that as whites sink into the minority, the rationale for “civil rights” has changed to continue to favor blacks, as we’ve long predicted.

The basic idea is that during the Civil Rights Era, the issue of equal opportunity was framed “in the soaring language of moral justice.” But now, with Whites becoming a minority, the rationale has changed: “The cause of providing an equal chance to all, which was historically framed as a question of fairness, has become an issue of economic competitiveness.”

Jew Ronald Brownstein calls for more “spending,” “reform,” “investment,” “training,” “and finding more creative ways to compensate for the decline of the two-parent family, especially in the African-American community.” In other words, whites continue to have the upper hand, despite their dwindling numbers, because they make too much money. And until this changes by transferring the money to blacks, mestizos, and anyone else who is not white, we will never be able to say that the “civil rights revolution” has been successful. Therefore, whites must “compensate” (ka-ching) for black illegitimacy, because everyone knows that blacks will never birth producers whose taxes can support the sea of consumers. The Jew insists that whites are saddled with this burden forever.

You might recall this Youtube video of Suleiman the Magnificent arguing with Jared Taylor. It’s interesting that in order to disprove the obvious truth of what Jared is saying, Suleiman must argue that some races accomplished great feats in the past but outgrew them for some unexplained reason. In reality, great races fall due to mixture, like the Spanish and Portuguese. Conversely, our accomplishments are not far removed from those of our British ancestors because they taught us to be “racists” and abstain from mixing our blood with savages. Suleiman talks about the Egyptian empire being black, but it wasn’t, and then he refers a couple of times to the Arab empire. If he’s referring to the Sumerian or Babylonian empires, those were Aryan, as Arthur Kemp has documented. The Arabs were bedouins who never cooperated with each other until common oil interests fell into their laps (oil reserves having been discovered and tapped by the white man). They did become organized for a short time when led by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia).

Geneticists in Switzerland have discovered that 70% percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to King Tut, which is another way of saying that Steve Martin was correct back in the 1970s; King Tut really was a honky!

How did King Tut come from western Europe, where the crackers are thick on the ground? The ancient world was apparently very much like the world of today: the cream rose to the top.

Hieroglyphics of Egyptians chasing Negroes:

“We are all, we Europeans of the old stock, in Hamlet’s position. We are born to set it right… One of the many admirable aspects of Hamlet’s counter-revolution was his complete unconcern as to whether the people, the grazers, were for or against him. He knew what his duty was and he did what his high calling demanded of him.” ~ CWNY

If you want to see how white activists are taking the fight directly into the belly of the beast, watch the excellent NPI conference at the National Press Club. It brought out the goons who so hate free speech that they fantasized about dealing with the “terrorists” and “racists” with a cop’s assault rifle.

The SPLC reviews the conference here.

Dr. David Yeagley has filed suit against the correctly-named terrorists who shut down Amren 2010 with their “threats of murder, violence, and other tactics.” God bless him for taking this stand. Now there are people who are going to learn that even so-called “racists” have protected freedoms of speech, contract, and assembly, and it’s going to be expensive for anyone who tries to take our freedoms away from us.

Some terrorists are apparently better than others. And of course, any competition for worthless Jew-currency is “domestic terrorism.”

Speaking of terrorists, here is confirmation that American involvement in WWI was based on a lie, as is always the case. Munitions found on board the Lusitania prove that the Germans were correct that it was a legitimate military target. The Brits whipped up resentment against the “Pirate Hun” for bombing and drowning children, but the true crime lies with the Allies for using civilians as shields. The ship was sunk by one torpedo, only because the torpedo set off tons of munitions “dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.” Among these were four million rounds of Remington .303 bullets. Winston Churchill was a murderer, and the British government has the blood of millions on its hands.

A few decades later, with the same murderer, Churchill, at the helm, Britain again embroiled the West in white genocide on behalf of Poland. Pat Buchanan asks, “Why did Britain do it?”

The American empire is just an extension of the British empire, funded by the same damned Jews, and we pray that its demise is rapid, sure, and permanent. Blessed is the man who throws lime on its rotting corpse.

The debt is growing by $3 million per minute.

Inflation in the last decade:

In terms that are easier to understand:

All according to plan.

For the American economy – and for many other developed economies – the elephant in the room is the amount of money paid to bankers over the last five years. In the United States, the sum stands at an astounding $2.2 trillion. Extrapolating over the coming decade, the numbers would approach $5 trillion… That $5 trillion…is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees. Such transfers represent as cunning a tax on everyone else as one can imagine.

Nearly one in six are now in poverty, and despite Obama’s more expensive health care, the number of uninsured has gone up.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
Blessed are the meek,
For theirs shall be the kingdom
That the power mongers seek.
Blessed are the dead for love
And those who cry for peace,
And those who love the gift of earth,
May their gene pool increase.
Left like a shadow on the step
Where the body was before.
Shipwrecked at the stable door. (Bruce Cockburn)

It’s been more than a year since First Word was updated, but it was well worth the wait. Read about the government’s conspiracy theories.

The dictator of Libya will apparently soon join the dictator of Iraq and Osama bin Ackbar in the club of CIA employees who were terminated with extreme prejudice. As the late ruler of South Vietnam, Nguyen Cao Ky, said when Vietnam fell: “It is very dangerous to be an enemy of the United States. It is positively fatal to be a friend.” I’ve decided to spell Kaddafi’s name as “Codify.” Who’s to say that your spelling is better than mine?

In New Zealand, it will soon be a crime to disseminate “racist” or “xenophobic” material on the Internet. Expect this law to come to a country near you very soon.

Newborn circumcision rates have drastically declined in the last decade in direct proportion to the self-loathing Christian’s lust for strange flesh. Pediatricians no longer recommend the practice, insurance companies no longer cover it, and it is increasingly compared to the female genital mutilation practiced by savages. Yet it is easy to envision a day soon to come when this former mark of the covenant continues to distinguish the people of God from all other peoples of the world.

Thirty-four thousand British schoolchildren, as young as age 3, have been identified as “racist” and “homophobic” in a government database for using words like “gaylord” and “broccoli head” on the playground. I wish the kids had come to us. We could have taught them better words.

As Martin Luther said, “It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

There is no free speech in Europe.

The ten most wanted fugitives in Texas. (Mestizo perps are “white” while mestizo victims are “Hispanic.”)

“Would the issue of race be ignored if a group of White players and coaches had dogpiled a Black referee?” And if I might ask a second question: There are that many Hottentots in Sarasota?

Despite being an abuser of dogs, and despite never having gone to the Super Bowl, Michael Vick is now earning more than those who have actually won the Super Bowl. What if Vick were white?

Sporting While Negro, an international misdemeanor.

Two white men invent a prosthetic tail that saves the life of a dolphin, and so of course Morgan Freeman plays both of them in the movie being made about their accomplishment. Brought to you by the makers of The Help.

A Dodge Challenger ad showing a Negro in George Washington’s Continental Army. It’s about as historically accurate as George Washington posing beside a Dodge Challenger.

Why the Fourteenth Amendment is illegal.

A march in Toronto was organized so that idiot white strumpets could protest a cop who said that women can avoid being raped if they don’t dress like sluts. The bimbos saw to it that the cop was dispatched to sensitivity indoctrination, and now whores everywhere can hold their heads high, flush with the euphoria of liberation.

Mighty-White Idaho has one of the most successful marriage rates in the country.

Holy-Rolling Imbecile Pat Robertson refuses to condemn marital infidelity if a spouse has Alzheimer’s.

This is only a dramatization, just so you know.

A children’s history of the United States written by the Vice-President of the Confederacy. Now that’s what I call homeschool curriculum.

News for homeschoolers: How to squeeze more kids into the minivan.

Proof that blondes are a terror on the highways.

For lunch on the go! Mmm, good.

Batman Begins, the Engrish version.

The Flintstones, the racist Stone Age family. Beaver’s parents were racists too. At least she didn’t say that she would never listen to another Jew again; that would be anti-Semitic.

The big bad wolf is anti-Semitic (6:05).

“How boring is the world of Christopher Hitchens and his fellow science-worshipers!”

Kinism at Wikipedia.

Support the Ten Million Word Project of transcribing Rushdoony’s recorded works.

Listen to Christian Gray’s Kinist podcast! Part the second. Part the third.

I don’t know which is better, this letter from Gary North to Little Davie Bahnsen

or this hysterical reply from Bahnsen.

Good news for writers: John Marshall at Kinism.net is now paying honoraria for accepted articles in the Kinist Review. The award is $100 to $150 for each article, depending on length. He will also pay for back-dated material that has not been published elsewhere, so it does not need to be freshly written or topical. The Kinist Review is the academic side of our movement, and is quite impressive. Kinism.net is also in the process of a site redesign.

And now, one of our corporate training videos.

It kind of reminds you of Braveheart, doesn’t it?