Nil Desperandum has written some very good articles on Little Stevie Halbrook, the race fag. Nil writes that the belief among Alienists that race is nothing more than skin color is like believing that the difference between men and women is the shape of genitalia.
A prominent factor distinguishing races one from another is skin color, to be sure, but that is only because it is a visually recognizable component of race, not because it is the entirety of race.
Alienists love to press the point that all human beings have common ancestry in Adam, without ever acknowledging the fact that God has routinely subdivided Adam’s posterity, according to His will, and we ignore these divisions at our peril. The Fifth Commandment compels us to respect God’s purpose in the world and not arrogantly believe that our duty is to come along behind Him and clean up His mistakes, to recombine the lineage of Adam in new and dangerous ways that God never allowed in history.
“There is only one breed – the dog breed!” Such an argument is nonsense and repugnant to common sense, but Halbrook attempts such sophistry to disprove the reality of human races within Adam’s posterity. He must disintegrate the God-created category of race into meaninglessness…
If families can exist with all their distinctive physical and behavioral characteristics, and yet not compromise the physical unity of Adam’s race, then why cannot races do the same? If it is not “familist” to assert the plurality of families within the unity of humanity, then how is it “racist” to do so with larger groups – with very, very extended families? Halbrook’s careless argument from monogenism, in principle, would forbid the family itself. It is exceedingly dangerous.
This principle of variety-within-unity is perspicuously set forth by St. Paul in Acts 17:26a, yet Halbrook cites this passage to prove the exact opposite point. Paul says, “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men.” Halbrook does not notice the object which is made from one blood: a multiplicity of nations. Nations is in the plural, and the term refers not to an arbitrary collection of people within a geo-political boundary, but to a physically related people-group. Paul here teaches expressly that monogenism does not entail racial egalitarianism, but this is ignored by Halbrook.
Blacks have higher bone density and a lower risk of fracture and osteoporosis. This may be why they don’t like to swim; they may not be as buoyant. Their metabolism is lower than that of whites, which could be why so many blacks are obese. Due to at least 31 genes that are “differentially expressed,” they are also genetically more susceptible to hypertension, stroke, and cancer. These are just a few of many physiological racial differences. Race is not merely skin deep.
Part 2 is here, in which the point is made that Halbrook’s racial egalitarianism encourages envy, which leads to countless crimes against our race.
One of the great evils of our day is envy: people, especially non-whites, utterly loathe the fact that others are superior to themselves in wealth and ability. Halbrook perpetuates this idea with his unbiblical myth of equality. Whenever people are led to believe that different races are of equal ability then any observation they make of unequal abilities or unequal success will lead them to believe that these inequalities must have arisen through a series of injustices; and this sense of injustice will then generate moral indignation. In theory, these inferior people will be expressing supposedly righteous anger at the systematic inequalities of “institutional racism,” while in practice, inferior people will be burning with envy at the superior talents of others. In providing such a basis for envy, Halbrook’s racial egalitarianism is heretical and deserves to be destroyed.
Murder, rape, theft, and more, brought to you courtesy of the “Christian” Alienist. “Heresy” is an accurate word for the perverted gnostic gospel they preach, and it’s because, as Nil writes, conversion is not an abstraction from matter but rather the redemption of matter.
Grace does not replace nature but redeems it and builds upon it. God does not destroy the sinner to create some new spiritual being but redeems as much of the sinner as possible by destroying only that which is sinful in him.
Likewise, God does not destroy or replace race, but instead fits the various races into a unity that they could not otherwise know.
Halbrook has a lot in common with the Indian Guru Satya Sai Baba:
There is only one RACE
The race of humankind
There is only one religion
The religion of LOVE
There is only ONE language
The language of the HEART
There have been relatively few Alienist heretics in Christian history. It’s hard to even find much along these lines in ancient writings, but here is a relevant quote from Maximos the Confessor, who is revered as an Eastern Church father:
For him who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of dispassion there is no difference between his own or another’s, or between Christians and unbelievers, or between slave and free, or even between male and female. But because he…has risen above the tyranny of the passions and has fixed his attention on the single nature of man, he looks on all in the same way and shows the same disposition to all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but Christ who “is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11; cf. Gal. 3:28).
This sounds more like Buddhism than Christianity. In general, Christian egalitarianism comes from the Anabaptists.
Anabaptist John Piper talks about “racism” here like it’s a bad thing. I kept waiting to hear evidence of cruel behavior in his wicked Southern past, and I never did. So I don’t get it. Is the purpose of this video just to get the ladies moist? Nice touch about the ovens at Dachau. That really tops it off with a cherry. What’s the deal with 48-year-old white women who have four natural children but are so selfish that they are displeased with what God has given them and must adopt a little stranger? If this is Christianity, why would anyone desire it? It’s ingratitude. It’s the Christianity of narcissists. And what’s the deal with the suggestion that opposition to this unnatural relationship is a denial that the “daughter” is created in the image of God? This is one of the classic non sequiturs that is a trademark of race-mixing Alienists.
It’s not at all surprising that Piper’s race-mixing has led him straight into pluralism. He writes:
…God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order… Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths)… [R]epression of free exercise of religion and persuasion is as wrong against Christians as it is against secularists. We believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ… [T]he spiritual, relational nature of God’s kingdom is the ground of our endorsement of pluralism…
This is a perverted American-baptist-evangelical religion, and it’s as far from Christianity as you can get. Piper makes it clear that he does “not…want to establish Christianity as the law of the land.” But the real history of Christendom has always been coercive. During the Middle Ages, do you think the national adoption of God’s law and the requirement of baptism to hold any kind of office was put up for a democratic vote? Yet this is what made us who we are. A man who invites a stranger into his home and heritage and makes her the equal of his natural children is at the very threshold of idolatry. John Weaver has preached sermons about how multiculturalism, miscegenation, and idolatry are intimately connected. John Piper is living proof of Dan Brannan’s dictum that only Christians who are lovers of kin are a threat to idolatry in the world today. The other “Christians” are no threat at all.
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” ~ G.K. Chesterton
Here’s a far better, and shorter, video than Piper’s suckfest: The Ugly Duckling. This duck couple has four little quackers, just like the ungrateful Mrs. Piper, but they aren’t nearly as delighted as the Pipers to find a fifth in the nest. One look at the little stranger gives the he-duck the thought that his she-duck has been playing the harlot. This is what all Christians used to think of women whose children bore no resemblance to them or their husbands. But “Christians” today aren’t nearly as concerned about looking like whores, what with the “gospel” at stake. The she-duck adamantly denies being guilty of infidelty, then leaves the little stranger to fend for himself as she performs her God-given duty of caring for her own offspring. This used to be the joy of honorable womanhood until selfish, ungrateful 48-year-old “Christian” TV-watchers forced their wormy husbands to get with the program of the New America. The little stranger tries to climb aboard, but the she-duck tosses him off the bus and gives him a good scolding. If only Doug Phillips had been there to teach her how to grow the animal kingdom. I mean, why get all hung up on species or anything else having to do with God’s will? Dejected, the little stranger tries to move in with another family, on the good side of the tracks, in a good school district, but the racist mother chases him off and gives him what-for. Of course, there’s a happy ending, and the swan meets up with his own kind. Familiarity gives him identity, which is another way of saying that he turns into a racist too, and all is well with the world. His new-found racist mother places a much higher value on the color of feathers than the content of character. “Christians” today could never write a story like this.
Here’s another in an endless list of articles about “brave” pastors who are waging jihad against ol’ debbil racism. But in the fine print of such articles is always a statement about how most Christians want nothing to do with their race-mixing.
Ninety-two percent [of congregations] are homogeneous, meaning at least 80 percent of the congregation is comprised of a single racial group.
Christians are apparently still not on board with Dr. King’s Dream. Tsk, tsk. Our friend Colby reminds us that living the Reverend Doctor’s Dream involves joining the Communist Party and buying hookers. But that’s a small price to pay for racial reconciliation, which John Piper says is the greatest need in the Church today.
Let’s reach into the mailbag and see what falls out. Here’s a letter from a friend who is wondering what ever happened to the faith once delivered to the saints.
At the Reformed church we’ve been attending, the Pastor and his wife have one child, an adopted Chinese girl. They’ve been trying to adopt another Chinese child so that their first could have the company of someone like her. (To me, that screams volumes of which the Pastor and his wife are sinfully oblivious.) Their attempt to adopt another Chinese child fell through, so they’ve agreed to adopt a Nigerian child. Almost everyone at the church is giddy about the prospect, and are praying fervently for it to come to pass.
Since we’ve been attending this “church,” I’ve witnessed I don’t know how many child baptisms. A baptism always cheers me. Last week, three children were baptized – African kids who were adopted by a White couple with two natural children. (I feel so sorry for their two real children. I swear, they always look morose and detached. At church services, the family’s seating arrangement is niglet / mother / niglet / father / niglet / White daughter / White son. It’s damned disgusting.) During the baptism, the Pastor began to weep and blubber in something like ecstacy, apparently overcome by his perception that the whole thing was especially rare and exceedingly beautiful. I was sickened by it. I’ve never seen him behave like that over the White children he’s baptized.
Today, after the service, the Pastor invited everyone to join in a celebration of those childrens’ baptism. I became angry, so I left the sanctuary to get a drink. The fellowship hall was festooned for the occasion, and there was a large cake decorated with the names of the three African children. Again, I’ve never seen such done for any of the White children I’ve seen baptized, or make a profession of faith, or received into membership. I’m not saying that it should either always be done or never be done. I’m just mad as hell that the people are falling all over themselves because of the presence of these three Negro children, abandoned by their own people but rescued by White guilt, or White arrogance, or wasted White virtue.
Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year,
Our fathers’ title runs.
Make we likewise their sacrifice,
Defrauding not our sons.
A friend of ours observes that Alienists are like Arminians.
For Arminians, God is cruel if some are chosen by Him to have eternal life, because that would mean some are damned for not being chosen by Him. For universal racists [the one-race idolaters], God is cruel if He has chosen people to belong to distinct people groups and nations, because that would mean that some would belong to worse groups. They are repulsed that God would be sovereign in doing both.
This really is the point. Every heresy begins with dissatisfaction with the fact that God is God and we are not.
We at SWB take great pride in having been the first to introduce Cambria Will Not Yield to the world. Years ago, we were very impressed with his writing in print and encouraged him to expand to the web, and the rest is history. Laura Wood calls him “Tribal Dad” and posts this very good synopsis of his work:
The pseudonymous writer CWNY often argues that the white man has replaced faith in Christ with worship of the black man. CWNY’s argument is more subtle than that. He says rationalism ate away at the heart of the white Christian, who then turned in his lifelessness to the primitivism of the Negro. The liberal Christian sought to recover the elemental and fend off spiritual death.
In other words, the bonds of race can’t be avoided, for to stop running with the pack is to die. The bonds are routinely rejected by liberals only to be substituted by an oath of fealty to The Other. Any race or ad hoc group will do, as long as it satisfies the liberal’s masochism. A somewhat heated and amusing discussion follows at the link above about whether CWNY is too racist. He can’t be that racist; we know that he gets out in the sun when he can.
CWNY on the “inhuman hellhounds who have betrayed their own people and their God in order to serve the satanic abstraction called ‘The People,’ which in modern times has become equivalent to serving the negro,” whose history is a “boring continuum of blood and sex. The only time their histories rise to the level of interesting is when they intersect with the histories of the white people.”
At 30:42 in this talk, R.J. Rushdoony and Otto Scott briefly discuss what was lost as a result of racial desegregation.
Rushdoony: No one then would have imagined the kind of crime that goes on in black neighborhoods.
Scott: No, because they had their own community, and they didn’t consider it segregation.
Rushdoony: And their churches were stronger.
Scott: They had their own churches; not just their own clergy but their own physicians, their own dentists, their own lawyers, their own pharmacists, their own stores, and shopkeepers, and so forth. And they had all the role models in the world, whereas now the black bourgeoisie who gets successful moves away from the black community… The black community lost a lot with desegregation.
Rushdoony: Yes.
Listen at 17:45 in this very interesting talk. Scott and Rushdoony discuss good will and fellowship among racially segregated churches.
Scott: I remember when the early civil rights movement began in the fifties. And if you recall, the cameras would go down into the South, and several black people would appear in a white church and demand entry. And there was quite an outrage when they were not accepted or invited in. Well, putting that to one side as to whether that was a good tactic or not a good tactic, I remember discussing it with some fellows at the Overseas Press Club in New York at the time. And one of them expressed great outrage. And I said, well, have you ever been a member of a church? He said, well, I’ve been to church. I said, did you ever join a church? Have you ever been a member? Have you ever paid dues? Have you ever said you would obey the rules of the church? He said no. I said, are you under the impression that anybody that walks by attends church? Well, he said yes. I said, that’s not true. Catholics go into their church, Protestants go into their various churches. I said, these are not public institutions. They are the most private of institutions. Why should any band of strangers come with a camera crew to demand admittance?
Rushdoony: During the 1930s, California had a great many churches that were organized along nationalistic lines. The Japanese had their churches, the Chinese had theirs, the Assyrians…had their churches. And in fact, they are about the only group that has still been able to maintain them… But I recall that one of the strong groups that was immediately a target of dissolution was [the] Welsh churches. The Welshmen were quite numerous in this state at that time, and they had a number of churches. They had their own presbytery. They had, annually, since the Welsh are magnificent singers, a concert of some of the mass choirs from their churches, in some place like Los Angeles, often in a stadium, with great throngs attending because the Welsh are magnificent singers. [They were] destroyed.
Scott: How were they destroyed?
Rushdoony: Because it was felt that it was discrimination to have a Welsh church, and particularly since the Welsh churches classified as WASP, they had to be destroyed, and a rich heritage was just wiped out… And in due time this will be the direction of things, and [it] has been proposed that there be no discrimination in churches with regard to race, color, sexual preference, or creed…
Then, something that people forget is that prior to World War II, in the South, there was a close relationship between black and white churches. They were segregated. But usually a white church would take a black church under their wing and help them with building projects, with various activities, and regularly the pastors would exchange pulpits and have occasionally a joint service. Now, this was routine. But both the ungodly bigots on the far-out fringes, as well as the liberal bigots, helped destroy that.
At 15:55 in this sermon, Rushdoony explains that the “civil rights revolution” is contrary to Scripture because “the purpose of the law is not equality.” Throughout the Bible, right up until colonial America, citizenship and church membership were considered identical, he says. Restrictive covenants were in place for moral character and other reasons, such that even when everyone went to church, there were oftentimes relatively few church members (perhaps 15%). Just as in the Old Testament, slaves and criminals and foreigners and eunuchs were not allowed to be members, meaning that they were not allowed positions of authority, even though they were Christians. There are racial considerations, as Rushdoony confirms. He observes that the first Church council in Acts 15 permitted segregated congregations, yet with one standard of justice for all.
Restrictive covenants, of course, have been abolished by courts in recent years… Equalitarianism is a modern idea. It did not even exist until fairly recently. It cannot be forced back onto the Bible without violence and dishonesty… The purpose of the law is not to level men, to equalize them, but to establish God’s justice. In relationship to all men, I must maintain one law, God’s offer of salvation, God’s justice; in relation to my family, I can be partial; to my group and my society, restrictive. And I can do this in good conscience before God, provided I do not deny justice to others. This, then, is the biblical standard. Equality, which is the modern purpose of government, has no place in biblical law. It is totally hostile to biblical law. It is no wonder then that John Dewey declared that there is no place in democracy for biblical Christianity…
At 33:04 in this talk, we hear some very true comments about black entitlement.
Scott: The black people of the United States have become convinced that the white people have been placed on earth by God to take care of them, that it is our duty, our holy Christian duty, to support all the black people. They argue that we should bring in more Haitians. We’ve already brought in a million from Haiti, and the island only has three and a half million. They want us to bring them all. Then of course, all the rest of the Caribbeans will follow. Now, we have never really faced up to the consequences of having implanted that idea, that we are responsible for their lives. My own opinion, as a Christian, is is that God put black men on earth to take care of their own wives and children. That is their duty. And our duty is to take care of ours. And if we go beyond that, beyond being as good as we can in our own area, all we do is open up a chain of evils…
Rushdoony: Yes, and what they don’t say when they talk about these people of Haiti is that Haiti is one of the main locales in the world of AIDS.
Scott: Well, we are actually listening to men who tell us that we should bring in the diseased of the world, that it is our duty…
Only Portugal made the mistake of intermarriage. And it was a mistake, because within three generations Portugal ceased to be a first-class power. And they were great in their day. They were the great explorers, the great seamen, and so forth, and they had a very high culture.
At 13:41 in this talk, Rushdoony adds:
I believe that because the white man has lost his courage, he has lost his faith. And he is fearful about everything. All kinds of minority peoples who are being trained, brought along on the road to civilization, educated, and helped by the white man, have suddenly smelled fear in him and are becoming outrageous in their behavior, contemptuous, and a great deal of our social unrest, I believe, is because the white man has lost his guts.
“As the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian Summer of our civilization.” ~ Pat Buchanan
“There is not a single year between 1970 and 2050 where Germany’s birth rate even approaches the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. By mid-century, Germany will have been below zero population growth for 80 years. This is a nation slowly taking its leave of this world.” God help us.
The world’s largest sperm bank is no longer accepting redheads as donors. But redheads are extremely popular as mates in Ireland, where births are up 7.6%, the vast majority of which are white. The rest of the West should take notice. Ireland is reversing the decline of our race, and it’s because the Irish love themselves. Germany is dying because it has been taught by Jews to hate itself.
Redheads were the first Americans.
More than 97% of the National Register of Historic Places commemorates white men, which means “that the score is not even,” according to the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, the empire will continue to pretend that diversities had some part to play in the founding of our formerly-white, formerly-Christian nation.
A BB&T bank announces a holiday to whites as Columbus Day and to mestizos as “El Día de la Raza” (The Day of the Race).
At 50:40 in this talk, Scott and Rushdoony reflect on the genocide of the white race.
Scott: A country that throttles its writers while claiming to be free is especially infuriating… The white Christians are the only white whales left on the horizon, and there are lots of Ahabs with spears looking for them. It’s a very strange state of affairs. And really, if we come down to it, I think that is what has killed our literature. We cannot tell the truth about our society. And if we can’t do that, how can you write?
It certainly is hard to write for money if you want to write the truth.
Listen at 27:57 in this talk.
Scott: We are undertaking a series of experiments in this country that have never worked in the history of the world. Now, that’s a long time. And it takes an awful lot of arrogance to fly in the face of the history of all humanity and say we are going to do something that has never been done before. We are going to make all people believe that race, ethnicity, class, background, size, and all other differences are going to be totally irrelevant.
Rush: Well, a minor point; it has been tried on a very small scale, some of the Greek city-states. And Aristophenes ridiculed the whole idea…in his plays. But it has never worked.
At 14:03 in this talk, Rushdoony observes that if not for the white gift of quinine to the world, 6 out of 7 people in India would not be alive. It also made colonialism possible in South Africa and Rhodesia, which were not populated until the white man pioneered the land. We routinely hear that white men brought diseases with them that wiped out the native population, but everyone conveniently forgets that the white man brought the cure. Otto Scott notes that the Indian gift to white people was syphilis, which “wiped out a fair percentage of Europe within a few decades, and is still a plague in the world.” But schoolkids don’t learn about that; they learn that whites killed Indians by diseases, probably on purpose, because they’re white, after all. To argue that whites deliberately developed immunities that other races could not “is to abandon reason,” says Scott, “because every race has certain strengths and weaknesses, and they are not all the same.”
Rushdoony: Yes, and the high ratio of sickle-cell anemia among blacks is due to the fact that they somehow survived malaria.
Scott: Yes, and of course as we know, the blacks in the United States lost tribal identity, and so they intermarried with each other. And some of the characteristics now are quite confused.
But instead of lamenting this loss of tribal identity and consequent ugliness as an aberrence of nature, it is now heralded as normative for the Christian.
Continuing at 21:39:
Scott: Nobody gives Europe credit anymore for anything, not even Europeans… Americans don’t give themselves credit anymore. To even talk about it is to start an argument.
Rushdoony: Well, you remember in ’87, how everybody in England, virtually, that we met was damning their own country for its colonialism, either damning it or apologizing for their past.
Scott: You remember, we both came to the conclusion that they were violating a commandment, they were dishonoring their own parents and their own heritage. I mean, honor thy father and thy mother. What sort of person is it that denigrates his heritage?
When we Kinists talk this way, Alienists call us evil. I’ve had several pastors vociferously deny to my face that the Fifth Commandment has anything to do with love of race or love of heritage.
“Here would I also eike another crime to bee vnpardonable, if I should not be thought partiall: but the fatherly loue I beare you, will make mee breake the bounds of shame in opening it vnto you. It is then, the false and vnreuerent writing or speaking of malicious men against your Parents and Predecessors: ye know the command in Gods lawe, Honour your Father and Mother: and consequently, sen ye are the lawful magistrate, suffer not both your Princes and your Parents to be dishonoured by any; especially, sith the example also toucheth your selfe, in leauing thereby to your successors, the measure of that which they shal mete out againe to you in your like behalfe. I graunt wee haue all our faults, which, priuately betwixt you and God, should serue you for examples to meditate vpon, and mend in your person; but should not be a matter of discourse to others whatsoeuer. And sith ye are come of as honourable Predecessours as any Prince liuing, represse the insolence of such, as vnder pretence to taxe a vice in the person, seeke craftily to staine the race, and to steale the affection of the people from their posteritie: For how can they loue you, that hated them whom-of ye are come? Wherefore destroy men innocent young sucking Wolues and Foxes, but for the hatred they beare to their race? and why wil a coult of a Courser of Naples, giue a greater price in a market, then an Asse-colt, but for loue of the race? It is therefore a thing monstrous, to see a man loue the childe, and hate the Parents: as on the other part, the infaming and making odious of the parents, is the readiest way to bring the sonne in contempt. And for conclusion of this point, I may also alledge my owne experience: For besides the iudgments of God, that with my eyes I haue seene fall vpon all them that were chiefe traitours to my parents, I may iustly affirme, I neuer found yet a constant biding by me in all my straites, by any that were of perfite aage in my parents dayes, but onely by such as constantly bode by them; I meane specially by them that serued the Queene my mother: for so that I discharge my conscience to you, my Sonne, in reuealing to you the trewth, I care not, what any traitour or treason-allower thinke of it.” ~ King James VI & I to his son, Henry IX, Prince of Wales, teaching him that the love of parents extends to posterity, government, and race
And just like that, the American empire decrees that nationality has nothing to do with blood. (Preachers everywhere applaud vigorously.) Negroes are henceforth Cherokee Indians. An Indian, or an American for that matter, is whosoever or whatsoever the government declares him to be. So let it be written, so let it be done. David Yeagley writes: “No human beings on earth will ever be allowed to deny the Negro anything – even the fact that he’s not Indian… The Negro is aggressive, arrogant, and will not be denied, or threatened. All must bow to him. No race is without the Negro. No nation can deny the Negro. The Negro rules.”
“The color of a man’s skin is part of his essential soul; if he must deny that soul in order to exist he will pine away and die.” ~ CWNY
The best definition of the word “racist” that you’ll see.
Barbara Walters is a racist. And the worst part of it is that she doesn’t even understand why she’s a racist. We here at SWB are appalled by her pronunciation of the word “nigger.” It’s inexcusable.
Black men like their women the way they like their toilet paper: soft, white, and strong.
“The word ‘Niggerhead’ allegedly appeared on a rock that sat on a piece of land owned by the family of Rick Perry back in the early 1980s.” And Jesus wept.
Well, this is an unfortunate audio malfunction.
Dee Troof Gon’ Make U Free. I’m going to buy one of those suits, as sho’ as you’s born. Look at the armbands! Fantastic. I had no idea that Haitians are Levites.
“They smashed our window, ripped the plasma TVs off our walls, took all our jackets and rucksacks. I saw them go into Claire’s Accessories, break into NatWest, liberate our neighbours, Toni & Guy, of hair products. They carted off iPods from Currys, clothes from Debenhams, mobile phones from Carphone Warehouse. I was horrified. But Waterstone’s [bookstore], directly opposite us, was untouched. For the looters it was as if it did not exist.” Like kryptonite.
According to Interactive One, there are only three good black men for every 100 black women, with “good” defined as: high school diploma, employed with a modest income, has never been to jail or prison, no illegitimate children, and not aggressively pursuing white women. This reminds me of a Chris Rock joke in which the punchline is the black man who expects accolades for doing what he’s supposed to do. “I take care of my kids!”
Elizabeth Wright remembers a better time.
Part of Elizabeth Wright’s website was lost, and this appears to be the latest cache. This is what she calls Martin Delany’s ignored admonition, taken from the anthology, African-American Social & Political Thought 1850-1920:
White men are producers – we are consumers. They build houses, and we rent them. They raise produce, and we consume it. They manufacture clothes and wares, and we garnish ourselves with them. They build coaches, vessels, cars, hotels, saloons, and other vehicles and places of accommodation, and we deliberately wait until they have got them in readiness, then walk in, and contend with as much assurance for a “right,” as though the whole thing was bought by, paid for, and belonged to us…
Until we are determined to change the condition of things, and raise ourselves above the position in which we are now prostrated, we must hang our heads in sorrow and hide our faces in shame. It is enough to know that these things are so; the causes we care little about. Those we have been examining, complaining about, and moralizing over, all our life time. This we are weary of.
What we desire to learn now is, how to effect a remedy; this we have endeavored to point out. Our elevation must be the result of self-efforts, and work of our own hands. No other human power can accomplish it. If we but determine it shall be so, it will be so. Let each one make the case his own, and endeavor to rival his neighbor, in honorable competition.
These are the proper and only means of elevating ourselves and attaining equality in this country or any other, and it is useless, utterly futile, to think about going anywhere, except we are determined to use these as the necessary means of developing our manhood. The means are at hand, within our reach. Are we willing to try them?
Sage but unheeded advice.
The do-gooder author of The Help is being sued by the black maid she portrayed, and is being called a racist to boot. Well, I’ll declare, as my grandfather used to say.
White liberals are the strangest people you’ll ever come across. The sickest, too; even bestiality appeals to them.
The Four Reformers by Robert Louis Stevenson might cause you to think of the unwashed Occupy Wall Street mob, for as long as you can stand it.
Four reformers met under a bramble bush. They were all agreed the world must be changed.
“We must abolish property,” said one.
“We must abolish marriage,” said the second.
“We must abolish God,” said the third.
“I wish we could abolish work,” said the fourth.
“Do not let us get beyond practical politics,” said the first. “The first thing is to reduce men to a common level.”
“The first thing,” said the second, “is to give freedom to the sexes.”
“The first thing,” said the third, “is to find out how to do it.”
“The first step,” said the first, “is to abolish the Bible.”
“The first thing,” said the second, “is to abolish the laws.”
“The first thing,” said the third, “is to abolish mankind.”
And progressivism marches on.
Even liberals are no longer pretending that miscegenation has become normal. Instead, they bellyache about the “enduring norms” that prevent adulterers from feeling comfortable in their own frankenfamilies. It’s an implicit admission that miscegenation is not normal and never will be.
Only 2.9% of the population identifies as multiracial, but that’s a 32% increase in ten years.
Good fences make good neighbors. It seems obvious to us, but this team of researchers is just discovering that peace prevails when political boundaries are ethnic boundaries. When they are not, violence abounds.
Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
To paraphrase George Wallace: Separation now, separation tomorrow, separation forever.
Here’s a funny little graphic that Matt Parrott put together:
Announcing Amren 2012! It’s no exaggeration to say that Sam Dickson alone is worth the price of admission. He’s always the last to speak because Jared saves the best for last. With the safeguards now in place, terrorists won’t be shutting this one down. It’s in Nashville this time, which is one of the best big cities in the country. Lots to see, lots to do.
“It’s hard to even find much along these lines in ancient writings, but here is a relevant quote from Maximos the Confessor, who is revered as an Eastern Church father: … This sounds more like Buddhism than Christianity.”
It is a sad historical fact that EO mystical theology has become, via people like Maximus the Confessor, seriously contaminated with Neoplatonism – which, as you may know, is a systematically matter-despising worldview.
As far as I can tell, Maximus’ theology was pretty much “baptized” Origenism – he seems to have at least toyed with its telltale trademark, the heresy of universal salvation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor#Theology
“Regarding salvation, Maximus has been described as a proponent of apocatastasis or universal reconciliation, the idea that all rational souls will eventually be redeemed, like Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa.[20] While this claim has been disputed,[21] others have argued that Maximus shared this belief in universal reconciliation with his most spiritually mature students.[22]”
Maximus was also a key player in making the forged Neoplatonic writings of “Pseudo-Dionysius” a great medieval authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite
“Dionysius was initially used by monophysites to back up parts of their arguments, but his writings were eventually adopted by other church theologians as well, primarily due to the work of John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor in producing an orthodox interpretation.[6]”
Here is a most thorough demolition of Eastern Orthodox mystical theology (from a Reformed perspective) that I seen; and it seems to agree with you that Maximus’ ideas have a “Buddhist” tendency:
http://reformedorthodoxy.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/reformation-within-e-orthodoxy9.pdf
pp. 35-36
Maximus’ view of salvation looks like Nirvana in the analysis below
“A more pressing danger is implicit in the systematic theology of Maximus himself: the loss of individual personhood through union with God. We have seen how the final goal of salvation, for Maximus, is the transformation of the soul into a receptacle of God involving, as Thunberg summarized, the substitution of the human ego with the divine presence. Indeed, as Maximus clearly states in his Chapters on Knowledge, in salvation “only God shines forth through the body and soul when their natural features are transcended in overwhelming glory” (2.88, tr. Berthold). Such a statement implies that the redeemed soul is stripped of its nature and of any defining characteristics qualifying it as a distinct, autonomous being, a person – or, in the words of Pseudo-Dionysius, “neither oneself nor someone else”. A younger contemporary of Maximus, Anastasius of Sinai, recognized the implications of this conclusion, and regarded it as ultimately fatal to the authentic Christian view of God and humanity as mutual co-operators – a view that Maximus himself seems to espouse in so many parts of his voluminous writings, but clearly contradicts at the highest speculative levels of his thought.”
Here is an informative recent piece, written by a mainstream academic scholar, on the attitudes of various religions to slavery and servitude:
Religions and the abolition of slavery – a comparative approach
I find it interesting how this guy promptly admits that it was the heretical Quaker sect – direct continuators of the “radical reformation” – that really got militant abolitionism started within Christendom, and that this was done by performing a brazen switcheroo on the traditional Christian opinion concerning the relationship of sin and slavery:
“The millenarian and mystical Quakers initiated a radical attack in Pennsylvania in 1688. Valuing works and intuition as much as faith, they believed that the ‘internal light’ of Jesus could override the letter of scripture, and that all wars were illegitimate. John Woolman (1720-72), an early environmentalist and evangelist of Native Americans, launched an uncompromising onslaught from the 1750s.79 The Quakers proclaimed that owning slaves was sinful, citing Matthew 25:40, ‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ From this they deduced that ‘to enslave a “Negro” was to enslave Christ.’80
Shamed by Quaker activism, most Protestants shifted their perception from sin as slavery to slavery as sin, and preached this new gospel with fervour.81″
“Only Portugal made the mistake of intermarriage. And it was a mistake, because within three generations Portugal ceased to be a first-class power.”
You should know that the Portuguese do not appreciate this Nordicist version of their history one bit:
http://racialreality.110mb.com/portuguese.html
I myself find such notion too a genetic-reductionist explanation for Portugal’s fall from greatness; there were surely other big factors. The neighboring Spain fell into similar decrepitude about the same time as Portugal without any considerable slave-mixture happening in its European territory. Even Italy fell at the same time from its Renaissance splendor to mediocrity.
I too wondered why Rushdoony singled out Portugal, because Spain mixed itself in the same way in the Americas. I don’t know if there were non-racial factors involved in their demise, but it was common for these empires, including the British and French, to grant conquered peoples easy access to the white homeland.
“Halbrook has a lot in common with the Indian Guru Satya Sai Baba:
There is only one RACE
The race of humankind
There is only one religion
The religion of LOVE
There is only ONE language
The language of the HEART”
Hinduism is indeed best known for its rigid caste system, but what is less known is that has also had its share of egalitarian “dissenters” in the form of levelling mystical cults:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75097&page=2&highlight=saTURNALIA
“The leader of these orgies was a Vishnavite Brahmin, and several Sudras were initiated into the mysterious iniquities which were carried on there. They drank and ate to excess everything that is forbidden to a Hindu, not excepting even the flesh of the cow, and the abominations practised on these occasions are too disgusting to be described.
…
When they are all completely intoxicated, men and women no longer keep apart, but pass the rest of the night together, giving themselves up without restraint to the grossest immorality without any risk of disagreeable consequences. A husband who sees his wife in another man’s arms cannot recall her, nor has he the right to complain; for at those times every woman becomes common property. Perfect equality exists among all castes, and the Brahmin is not of higher caste than the Pariah.”
“Everyone knows how the Hindus abhor the slaughter of animals; how the adoration of the cow is an essential part of their religion, which has been again and again emphasised, especially by Gandhi himself. The Shakta, however, eats meat and drinks wine during his worship of the Goddess Shakti. He feels himself spiritually above this custom. As in his view everything is She–the Goddess–there can be made no exception with regard to the offerings to Her.
…
Nothing is wrong or forbidden according to Sakthism, if it is done with a pure heart and spiritual feeling.”
St Maximos the Confessor is not “contaminated” with neo-Platonism or anything else.
The Wiki Jews have run quite a number on St Maximos the Confessor c 580 whose feast is August 13 on the Gregorian Calendar of the West.
St Maximos is a one of the great resources for Kinism. Those who want to oppose the reality of race and nation within the Katolicum of Christian nations have quite an adversary in St Maximos.
Because we are “in Christ”, heresies that deform the Person of Christ are going to affect us as persons in our human nature and identity.
St Maximos defended Chalcedon against the Monophysites who believed that Christ had only one nature.
St Maximos argued against the Monothelites. These wanted to reconcile the Monophysites with Chalcedon by saying that Christ had only one will.
People who think these debates are irrelevant – think again. St Maximos was tortured and exiled for his Christological position.
With Chalcedon, St Maximos maintained that Christ had both a human nature and a Divine nature. He maintained against the Monothelites that a human nature without a human will is an abstraction.
What is seen in Christ our Saviour is a human will that is genuinely free (because not subject to sin) yet his human will is in complete obedience to his Divine will (always in union with His Father’s will).
The Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople vindicated St Maximos against the heresies of his era and ours.
A human nature and identity is not an abstraction. Our race, nation, tribe, patronym, gender, our capabilities both personally and racially all belong to our human nature.
Human nature is deformed by sin not by incapacities to do one thing or another. My friends often joke to me that I am technically retarded. And it is true I prefer to live a very simple life with few gadgets. I am not going to confess that as a sin. Rather, I enjoy it as a great freedom from a lot of bother.
Regeneration of our human nature in Christ begins with faith and follows through baptism. In the Church we undergo the process of sanctification through penance and confirmation in the faith, through communion in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ – the second Adam and the Lord from Heaven.
The end of this process is theosis.
None of this oblates the human identity and nature. For the goal of our faith is theosis “that we might become partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Peter 1:4) and share in His eternity so that we might become like Him (1 John 3:2)
Our Lord in his human nature certainly has not lost his race (of Shem) or his nation and tribe (Judah) – in his resurrection He is the Lion of his tribe.
It is the saints who model for us the powers of the regeneration in Christ and the partaking of his Divine nature. A saint should be a model for his or her nation – not an obliteration of it.
The “sex with animals” video was taken out of context. It wasn’t literal.
Vintage Hoffman posted today on “Bishop Williamson contra mundum” tackles ‘anti-semitism’ head on.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/10/bishop-williamson-contra-mundum.htm.
I have found proof that modern “Kinist” accusation against race-denying egalitarians for showing Gnostic or Manichean mentality is not without precedents – here’s how an Anglican cleric J.N. Figgis attacked dogmatic pacifism back in the days of First World War.
One does not need to agree with the particular political opinions of Figgis to see that his main principles are sound, and may be easily applied against dogmatic “anti-racism” as well:
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/jnfiggis/defects1917/13.html
“Much sentiment is now prevailing to the effect that all war as such is wrong. This is not Christianity, it is nothing but Tolstoyism. Tolstoyism with its over-emphasis on mere passivity has led by reaction to Nietzschean ethics, with their apotheosis of savagery. Yet many people seem to take it for granted (1) that war is the worst of human evils; (2) that all war is wrong, and that no Christian approves any given war except through hypocrisy. I do not believe either of these propositions, and I will say why.
…
This brings me to the second point, the notion that all war is wrong. That notion rests on the presupposition best expressed by the great Quaker orator, “Force is no remedy.” The ground is different from that discussed above, and in some respects inconsistent with it. The former rests on materialistic arguments; this, on the contrary, is a perverted spiritualism. So far as I can understand it the claim that force is no remedy involves the notion that, since realities are spiritual, all attempts at achieving ends by material means are doomed to failure. This argument, then, rests on the idea of the godlessness of all the world of Nature; ultimately it is Manichean, seeking spirituality purely in abstraction, logically destructive of the Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Body. The reverse of this is the truth that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; it is expressed most fully in the Sacramental idea, and is denied implicitly by those who would substitute the immortality of the soul for the resurrection of the body.”
In my opinion, Christians should try to approach the complex interactions of spiritual and material phenomena in a “Chalcedonian” manner: without separation and without confusion – it’s admittedly a hard task, but something that must be done.
For example, one should not turn race into a fetish (idolatrous CONFUSION, like presumptiously identifying the cause of Whites with the cause of God) but also not pretend that ethnic issues do not genuinely and legitimately exist (that would imply Gnostic SEPARATION of spirit and flesh).
Same principle would apply to sexual issues, economic issues, etc.
Speaking of the WW I, I have also found proof that even though the term “racism” may have been popularized by Magnus Hirschfeld or Trotsky, the actual idea conveyed by that word was well known before them – the expression “race hatred” was for example used in 1914 by pope Benedict XV in his encyclical against war:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html
“But in reality never was there less brotherly activity amongst men than at the present moment. Race hatred has reached its climax; peoples are more divided by jealousies than by frontiers; within one and the same nation, within the same city there rages the burning envy of class against class; and amongst individuals it is self-love which is the supreme law over-ruling everything.”
Petr, I’d like to ask a serious question.
How old are you?
Why do you ask?
I thought it would be obvious: because I want to know. You spend quite a bit of time on the comments section of this blog, sharing all sorts of things from your reading. I didn’t think it would be an outrageous request to ask your age.
I am roughly quarter of a century old.
Wow, I would have taken you for someone much older, considering how well-read you are.
Thank you for your answer, Petr.
Um… Niche-read. There is a difference.
You are flattering me.
But to return yet a bit more to my earlier topic, I find the study of ancient religions like Manicheanism fascinating because there are you can see the idea of the unholiness of natural world taken to its ultimate logical conclusions.
Like a transvestite might feel himself “a woman trapped inside a man’s body”, Manicheans felt themselves as spirits imprisoned inside rotten physical bodies -bodies that had been given to them by demonic forces. Nesta Webster observes:
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Nesta.H.Webster/Secret.Societies.and.Subversive.Movements.htm#fna123
“Thus, according to the doctrine of Manes, all matter is absolute evil, the principle of evil is eternal, humanity itself is of Satanic origin, and the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are represented as the offspring of devils.124″
Wikipedia confirms her claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Cosmogony
“Great demons (called archons in bar-Khonai’s account) are hung out over the heavens, and then the Father of Greatness begins the Third Creation. Light is recovered from out of the material bodies of the male and female evil beings and demons, by causing them to become sexually aroused in greed, towards beautiful images of the beings of light, such as the Third Messenger and the Virgins of Light. However, as soon as the light is expelled from their bodies and falls to the earth (some in the form of abortions – the source of fallen angels in the Manichaean myth), the evil beings continue to swallow up as much of it as they can to keep the light inside of them. This results eventually in the evil beings swallowing huge quantities of light, copulating, and producing Adam and Eve.
The Father of Greatness then sends the Radiant Jesus to awaken Adam, and to enlighten him to the true source of the light that is trapped in his material body. Adam and Eve, however, eventually copulate, and produce more human beings, trapping the light in bodies of mankind throughout human history.”
But there has always been certain method in the madness of Gnostics and Manicheans that has made their freaky ideas strangely appealing to many fallen humans.
Like this one non-Christian poster IMO correctly observed (althoughly mixing up Christian and Gnostic viewpoints that I corrected him upon):
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1002632&highlight=godhead#post1002632
“Darwinism is perfectly compatible with a Gnostic theism. Darwinism is only incompatible with the image of the benevolent creator of Judaism or Islam who “saw that all was good,” but it is compatible with the Christian (or Buddhist or Hindu) vision that the material world is the realm of the kingdom of darkness, created to trap man in a cycle of suffering and meaninglessness.”
See also this interesting article that deals further with the connections between Gnosticism and Evolutionism:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/infra-dig-what-goes-around-comes-around.html
“It was reasonable for Darwin to argue that God would not be personally involved in the swallow’s attack on the gnat and then leverage his theological principle to conclude that all of biology arose on its own. Evolution is the right conclusion given a gnostic starting point. God and matter don’t mix, so life wasn’t created.”
This sounds like something out of R.A. Lafferty.
In “Been a Long, Long Time” the newly created universe is manifestly purposeful but the activities of a feckless immortal called Boschel introduce randomness.
Boschel’s punishment is to test the theory that a team of monkeys typing at random could in real time eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.
So Boschel has to get cracking on his test. The archangel Michael comes along and provides him with a clock – a stone cube with dimensions in light years.
“You don’t have to wind it, you don’t have to do a thing to it, Bosch” St Michael explains. “A small bird will come every millenium and sharpen its beak on the stone. You can tell the passing of the time by the diminishing of the stone. It’s a good clock and it has only one moving part, the bird.”
After the stone has worn away enough to accomodate a small solar system, Boshel is still applying himself to his task.
In due course, the Bard himself is born, takes to boards, writes and produces his plays, writes his poetry, dies and Boschel is still at it by the random method.
In his short stories and novels, Lafferty goes right into subjects like the futility of being a demon and the depressions suffered by monsters.
A great appreciator of Divine comedy and admirer of St Joseph’s circular staircase, Lafferty believed that technical progress resulted from people too dumb and too lazy to do the job by hand.
He thought Darwinism was “a lot of strong talk with the horns and hooves still on it.”
Essentially the major problem that evolutionary thinking runs into with the Bible is that it advocates an ideology exactly contrary to the Bible. Death in evolutionary thought is the means of progress and is a good thing. Indeed, death is both the creator (by destroying some forms of matter that others may receive energy), the shaper (the means of advancement by killing off the weak), and the upholder of life. Death itself was birthed from meaningless chaos. Now, seeing what comes out of that ultra nihilist mindset, one can see that everything is essentially subjective truth when you boil everything down. Everything can be a lie for power and who is to say that one is not right because there is only man’s mind who examines the order of the universe, and he has some ability to alter that. If that is the fundamental basis of progress biologically in society, then one can justify any number of social ills from that theory in the name of “progress” which is a fancy word for power.
The nature of natural selection according to evolution is one of blood, tooth, and claw. The race that is the most vicious against its competitors while maintaining its own social cohesion will triumph in the end. All morality in such a view is to be regarded as changing and unfixed. That which advances ones own genetic self interests or the interests of the highest species is regarded as righteous. It is thus fully possible to treat other species and other races without thought to morality should it benefit the most powerful race. The only sin possible in this system is a sin against one personally, a sin against the most powerful elements of society. The most powerful have the greatest right to advance and thus the elements of advancement; the natural resources will be theirs by default. Thus, the ego and ones own benefit and will are exalted as the highest end of this system. There is not really any conception of self sacrifice in evolution, there is only bloody triumph. Death truly is the god of evolution for it is death that advances a species and the entire ideology of evolution is the death of the weaker to make place for the strong to advance.
One essentially has the promethean flame all over again where the clever titan steals the fire from Zeus, but perhaps Zeus knows something about the fire that our clever titan does not. The liberal types tend to laude the promethean flame (same thing as the pentagram which is all about social manipulation as the luciferian morning star) as great and noble while everyone else can see the ills of so called “progress”. While the Bible says that death is an evil aberration upon reality, evolutionary thought must claim the exact opposite. These two forces are best represented by the materialist banker elite who killed Christ contrasted to Christ Himself. The entire bankster ideology was founded upon robbing everyone around them in order for them to gain power. There is no notion of self sacrifice here, there is only power, raw power. Contrast this to Christ who sacrificially embraced the most powerful weapon that the materialists could throw at him (death) and made a mockery of it in his resurrection and crucifixion by which he destroyed death forever. Thus, the ideology of death represented by such forces as materialism and evolutionary thought was defeated by Christianity. There you have it, the materialist ideology against the Christian ideology.
“We at SWB take great pride in having been the first to introduce Cambria Will Not Yield to the world.”
I might mention that I am not quite so enamored with CWNY as you are. In my opinion, this writer sometimes skirts dangerously close to that idolatrous “Confusion” I talked about – identifying the cause of Whites with the cause of God – and strongly implies that Europeans have had some sort of special relationship with God that other peoples could not possibly share.
Frankly I find the very notion that true Christian faith could not survive the disappearance of White peoples (which I of course do not desire) as “implicitly idolatrous”, as if God could not manage without Whites. This is way self-adoring Talmudists view the Jewish people, that they are indispensable to God. But as John the Baptist put it, Lord could raise for Himself new peoples from stones if necessary.
Moreover, he deals with race issues in a naive, literally Black-and-White manner, acting as if these two were the only races existing in the world, with nothing in-between them (like the Chinese or Turks for example). This is an annoying Americo-centric worldview that I have seen in both racialist and anti-racialist Americans. One does not have be a relativist to see that sometimes the concept of “Whiteness” can be a difficult thing to define.
I also get sometimes a bit nauseous at CWNY’s sugary-romantic views of the past as well. By comparison, the OT usually depicted the life of the chosen people with harsh realism. Well, here endeth my constructively-intended criticism.
I would agree with you if that were the case, but at the risk of speaking for CWNY, I think he’s trying to say not that the cause of Europeans always and forever is identical to the cause of God but that historically it has been, and in Acts 16 the Holy Spirit makes it so. But our race certainly has fallen away, and we are reaping the fruits of disobedience as we are whittled away. If this doesn’t end in repentance, it will surely end in destruction.
And it’s not that other people CAN’T share in this special relationship, but rather, we see no evidence that they ever have or ever will. If Asians or Africans were now showing that they are, to a large degree, stepping into the place of standard-bearer once held by whites, it would be a different story. But based on the evidence alone, we have no reason to believe that the passing of the white race will do anything for the world but submerge it in total darkness.
Lastly, whites and blacks are not the only two races, but they do serve the purpose of drawing the starkest contrast. The differences are so great that our American founding fathers didn’t believe that the two races could ever occupy the same government as equals, and they were correct. There is some advantage in focusing on whites and blacks only for illustrative purposes.
Here ends my attempt at speaking for him.
Of course this “idolatrous confusion” I talked about can be seen in other things besides the race-issue as well – like when liberation-theologians identify the cause of wretched masses with the cause of God, when White-hating leftists identify the cause of coloreds with that of God, when flag-waving patriotards identify the cause of America (or any other country) with that of God, etc.
I believe that God MIGHT potentially indeed back some earthly causes against other ones, but the implicit idolatry lies in the presumption that it must be “necessarily” so, that God is automatically going to back us up and we can take His sympathies for granted.
Anti-kinists are certainly capable of such idolatrous confusion as well – thinking that God is somehow automatically on the side of those peoples that are being “discriminated against”, and are materially less well off than more intelligent and self-disciplined peoples. Here we can indeed see that sort of “worship of Black man” that CWNY often (a bit too often IMHO) talks about.
Why would CWNY mix-up his pitches when they can’t hit his fastball? That would be counter-productive vanity. Are we in a world-historical crisis or not?
We don’t need flitting, theological dilettantes. There are enough of these teaching at any seminary.
When someone suggests that Christianity can be anything other than what it has been in history, I feel like they’re playing the part of a neighborhood kid who rides up on his bike and announces that my father would dump me in a minute and take him into the house and give him my bedroom instead.
“You’ll be watching me through the window as I play with all your cool toys!”
The people who buy into the liberal propaganda tend to have some idolatrous notions about non whites (or the “black God” as CWNY calls the notion). The guys who create the propaganda… not so much.
I don’ think that one could historically deny that it was the case that Christianity was by and large confined to the borders of Europe after the Islamic conquest of North Africa and the Middle East. The only other large exception that I can think of was Ethiopia (which was originally a Coptic mission that ended up spreading to the Ethiopians). Because Europeans have embraced Christianity to a degree that no other race has, it is not at all unreasonable to say that historically, European = Christian. This has been explained in any number of ways by Christians over the centuries ranging from Japheth’s descendants succeeding Israel (via the noahic promise), Absorption of Israel, to Anglo Israelism. Personally, I tend to see the boundaries of Christendom as following along noahic lines (original Middle East –Semitic, Western Europe – Japheth / Semitic, Eastern Europe Japheth / Semitic, North Africa – Hamitic), but there are a lot of other perspectives on the subject that are advocated. While many evangelicals have some funny ideas about Christendom shifting to Africa, South America, or Asia (which I don’t see happening), I don’t see why they take such glee in the west falling, now have others evidenced that Christianity (of a solid kind) will be anything but a minority religion in their nations. I wish the best for other Christians, but I don’t see that Christianity will have the holding power in other nations that is has had in Europe.
Because the borders of Christendom have been essentially Europe, one can apply a unique identification of Christ to his reign in Europe (this is not to mention that Christ is also white, so he identifies himself racially that way with Europe). Matthew 25 demonstrates quite adequately how forceful Christ’s identification with his sheep is. I don’t see at all why an attack upon the descendants of his covenantal identified people would not be conceived of as an attack upon Christ himself. It isn’t as if a covenant is somehow erased because a single generation of people apostatized. It is over for that generation, but give it time and God will be faithful to his promises of old. If this is true of apostasy conceived by the people, how much truer is it of hardcore ideological subversion that steals the minds of men? Thus, if you attempt to pervert and corrupt the people of Christendom, you are attacking God himself. The Bible and racial/faith covenants work that way. There is a reason why it is European Christians who are subverted and propagandized rather than South American Christians or Ethiopian Christians. If you look at the activities of the beast and mystery Babylon, you will see that racial wars of subversion are religious in nature. The enemy knows it; I just wish that we knew it.
Modern Christian views on race are pretty much the same views advocated by every single influential liberal group today simply clouded in spiritual sounding language. You can line up the statements from the UN and the EU and compare them with the comparative Christian denominational statement, and they will be exactly the same. I did this recently in an article series which ended up being enlightening in many ways because for all the Christian talk about being different and separate, they are absolutely the same as the secularists on the question of race. The UN says that all humans are essentially the same; Christians say that everyone is essentially the same. The EU says that race doesn’t exist; Christians say that race doesn’t exist. The Soviet Union decries any sort of racial discrimination or nationalism; Christians decry any sort of racial discrimination or nationalism. The Roman Catholics have basically taken up their ancient claim that the pope reigns over the kings of the earth and can decide the destiny of nations. The same papal arrogance that lead the pope to believe he could give the Normans the right to invade England and Ireland leads the current pope to believe that he can condone illegal immigration into the USA. The mini popes of the different protestant denominations also apparently believe that they control the fates of nations and can integrate them at will. Both believe that they have the power to excommunicate anyone who does not buy into their ex cathedra decrees on race. With friends and leaders such as these, who needs enemies?
Oli,
Soon as I get my Photoshop fired up, I’d love to make a comparable table of the outlooks on race between the entities you mentioned.
Sounds good shotgun, that would be appreciated.
The compendium of secular statements is here:
http://christandkin.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/the-secular-humanist-view-of-race-aka-the-elite-agenda/
The compendium of christian statements is here:
http://christandkin.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/liberal-and-conservative-christian-statements-on-race/
I’ve put together a lot of other modern christian racial viewpoint links here:
http://christandkin.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/%ef%bb%bfappendix-i-additional-modern-christian-resources-on-racial-matters/
Here are a couple sample secular statements on race:
The EU
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin
“(6) The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races. The use of the term “racial origin” in this Directive does not imply an acceptance of such theories.”
The UN
UN DECLARATION ON RACE AND RACIAL PREJUDICE
“Convinced that the essential unity of the human race and consequently the fundamental equality of all human beings and all peoples, recognized in the loftiest expressions of philosophy, morality and religion, reflect an ideal towards which ethics and science are converging today,”
“1. All human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock. They are born equal in dignity and rights and all form an integral part of humanity.
5. The differences between the achievements of the different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors. Such differences can in no case serve as a pretext for any rank-ordered classification of nations or peoples.”
2. Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalized practices resulting in racial inequality as well as the fallacious notion that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and scientifically justifiable; it is reflected in discriminatory provisions in legislation or regulations and discriminatory practices as well as in anti-social beliefs and acts; it hinders the development of its victims, perverts those who practise it, divides nations internally, impedes international cooperation and gives rise to political tensions between peoples; it is contrary to the fundamental principles of international law and, consequently, seriously disturbs international peace and security.
Humanist Manifesto II
“ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts – the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts – for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.”
“We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.”
“TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person’s future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.”
The 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union (article 123)
“ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.”
The ’cause’ of the reigning Christ is his Kingdom – the City of God, founded upon Himself, the Apostles and the prophets upon earth. There is no other.
This Kingdom is established and its Evangel is extended to all nations – pan ethne.
The nations that did receive baptism as nations formed the historic Christendom. And these nations were the nations of the White Race. Because of this fact, the White Race in its nations historically became the Christ Bearing race.
You can not expect an entire race to commune in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the God man for over a millenia and nothing to come of it, despite the presnt reality that this race is being deracinated by apostasy from the holy faith and by every corruption.
The Kingdom of God was once the Christendom, a Katolicum of nations.
This statement does not mean the historic Christendom was fully realized as a Katolicum. It does not mean it was without fault – for the Kingdom is composed of sinners who are being regenerated in the Second Adam.
But through the communion of saints the affairs of its nations was ordered from Heaven.
The Kingdom is an order and the nations which accepted its rule created the culture and civilization of the historic Christendom.
The best forms of government that it created like Constitutional monarchy, Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath and the Bretton Parliament were created within the Christ bearing nations for the rule of Christian peoples.
This is now overturned by the Judaic invasions and Revolutions.
The Christian East fell to the sword of Islam. The Christian West began to undergo Revolution during the ‘Renaissance’.
At this time, the Christendom is in defeat. And the Christian rule and culture of those nations which once comprised the Christendom is now debased and corrupted.
Those who hold to the holy faith of the Apostles are scattered, divided and leaderless.
The Revolution has (in the words of Albert Pike) overturned the throne and altar of all Catholic nations upon the tomb of Jacques de Molay. The nations of the Reformation were appropriated by the House of Rothschild and bricked as foundational structures into the rising Babylon of the Judaic Imperium and its world government.
Thus have the enemies of Christ, our God, our Saviour and our King ‘uncrowned’ Him.
In short, the Judaic Imperium in the revolutions of heresies, infiltration of the European aristocracy and execution of the remnant, its Banksterism, Republicanism / Liberalism, Socialism, Racism, Bolshevism, Feminism, Faggotism, Atheism, Zionism, Communism have overthrown the foundations of human identity in the Christendom and deracinated the White Race.
The de-racination of the enemies of Christ have struck at the holy faith,
the nation state – its clans and kinship,
customary law, government,economy, culture
the human sexual identity and the family – every aspect of the human identity.
And over these prostrate nations is erected the law of the four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance.
There is now, no Christendom to guarantee the Christian home, its ways and its customs. These last defenses are now being overthrown in the nations of the former Christendom by open invasion / immigration of peoples who proclaim themselves the enemies of White people on the basis of racialism in its crudest form.
In Europe this is Muslim and African invasion – as the agents of the Judaic Imperium open all borders of the European nations – also in America.
It is easy for deracinated Whites who have bought the ideologies of the Judaic Imperium to see this as a racial conflict and begin to invent racial ideologies (based on the Talmud) for the deracinated Whites to believe in.
In the fights for survival staged by the Judaic Imperium for the race wars, these ideologies will come to fore.
However, the one, true and great cause of the hour is very different. This is Omnia Instaurare in Christo through the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
From the infinite merit of the union of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts are now pouring out the graces and mercies for those who will hold to the holy faith given to the Saints and take up the cause of Christ the King.
At the darkest hour for both the Kingdom and humanity, those who will lead this cause of the reigning King to victory will come from the shadows in ways that are now unlooked for, completely mysterious and unforseen.
As mysterious and unforseen as when our Lord appeared to St Vincent Ferrer in the fourteenth century and said: “Arise, my Vincent.”
From the ashes the fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be blade that was broken
The crownless again shall be king.
“Now all roads were running together to the East to meet the coming of war and the onset of the Shadow…And so without horn or harp or minstrelsy of the hall, the great ride into the East began…” The Muster of Rohan. The Return of the King
J.R.R. Tolkien
The Chalcedon link for the following quote brings up an error message. The source doesn’t seem to exist on their website.
“Scott: We are undertaking a series of experiments in this country that have never worked in the history of the world. Now, that’s a long time. And it takes an awful lot of arrogance to fly in the face of the history of all humanity and say we are going to do something that has never been done before. We are going to make all people believe that race, ethnicity, class, background, size, and all other differences are going to be totally irrelevant.”
The Lord of the Rings Symphony – Rohan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NldBUqL1AY0
They seem to have pulled it from their own site. Here the old link shows up in a search:
http://chalcedon.edu/search/?query=the+put
I almost expected this to happen. I’m sure Mark Rushdoony is having major heartburn from all the links and quotes being posted here.
I was afraid that might be the case. If Chalcedon is censoring its own founder we stand to lose access to many valuable resources.
I don’t agree with you guys in large part, but one thing I do think we should do in this country – end affirmative action.
Also, my parents came to the US from India. When I was in high school, we had an Indian Culture Club. We celebrated Indian culture. Of course, anyone could come and we did have a few white, Chinese, etc., people who came to our meetings, but it was basically a celebration of Indian culture.
In my high school we also had a Chinese culture club, a Korean one, etc.
However, I did not see any clubs celebrating various white ethnicities except for a French club. And I would not have been offended in the least if they had some white clubs – why not? If I am proud of my heritage, why shouldn’t a Scots or an Italian be proud of theirs?
That is what I find disturbing about all this multiculturalism. It’s not so much that Asians or blacks are encouraged to be proud of their heritage, but that whites are not allowed to be proud of theirs. That isn’t fair.
If we have a United Negro College Fund, why can’t we have a fund for white kids? Or specifically for Armenians or Greeks or Turks?
It seems in our society all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. So, for example, you are not allowed to say “Merry Christmas” but no one is offended if you say “Happy Hanukkah”.
But, when my parents came here, they were never offended by people saying “Merry Christmas”. They got the fact that they were a minority in a country that was culturally Christian. They knew that when they came here. They never expected the majority of Americans to throw aside their traditions and they learned English. If a white American moved to India, the person would be expected to deal with the traditions of India. So why would an Indian moving here not be expected to do the same for American traditions?
I think it’s a darn shame that the tradition of Welsh churches died. What harm were they doing?
I am totally against racism, but the problem that I see today is that the government is imposing a sort of reverse-racism, and that actually makes real racism more likely. People who feel attacked and who feel that they are not respected are more likely to be hostile.
The reality is that there are many unique things about America. Some of these are philosophical, such as the principles behind the Constitution. Others are more subtle and traditional. My thought is – why would someone move to America and then want to change what made America so attractive? This is like a man marrying a beautiful woman and then refusing her access to the things she needs to maintain her beauty.
At any rate, while I disagree with quite a bit of what your site says, I think we can disagree politely, and I do agree that white people (or Irish, or French) should have the SAME rights of assembly, etc., that any other group does. Anything else is actually racism.
I missed it earlier, but Vanishing American has a good post about the CWNY-related comments here:
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2011/11/loving-what-we-defend.html