After the unprecedented spending binges of George W. Bush and B. Hussein Obongo, the fearless conservatives in Washington, who like Atlas carry upon their shoulders Truth, Justice, and the American Way, have cut one whole dollar in spending for every 41 dollars in new taxes. “When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.” Remember when this was considered good reason to fire a president?
Notice the headline here: “You’re old, you’re white, you’re history.”
Obama nativity figurines were available for your holiday shopping.
The county voting patterns were unchanged from previous elections:
The blue swath of liberals along the left coast is still there, as is the Boulder to Santa Fe axis of evil, the Mexican border, the Yankees on both sides of the Great Lakes and south Florida, and the Black Belt that moves in an arc down the Eastern Seaboard to Arkansas. The rest of the country is red, but Democrats are having an easier time of winning there because the white population is declining even as more and more “Americans” go on the public dole. It’s the Makers versus the Takers.
At 47.1 million, food stamp dependence is at a new all-time record high.
Food stamp growth is now 75 times greater than job creation.
Two-thirds of jobs went to immigrants during Obama’s first four years.
“It’s extraordinary that most of the employment growth in the last four years has gone to the foreign-born, but what’s even more extraordinary is the issue has not even come up during a presidential election that is so focused on jobs,” said Steven A. Camarota, the center’s research director, who wrote the report along with demographer Karen Zeigler.
This election saw the largest gender gap in recorded history. Closely connected to this is the fact that the birth rate has hit an all-time low. And too many of these babies are not born into families. More than 40% of all babies are now bastards.
The white electorate dropped from 75% to 72% since 2008, which made all the difference in giving diversities the edge in the election. It’s only going to get worse until twenty-something white men and women decide that raising families is more important to them than drinking.
A staggering 98% of black women, aged 18 to 29, voted for Obama.
In 59 Philadelphia voting districts and nine districts in Cleveland, Romney got zero votes.
If only white men could have voted, the whole country would be red except for the Massholes and pot-smokers up in the fringes. Not even California, the land of fruits and nuts, would be among them.
Asshat David Bahnsen sees the writing on the wall: “I see Republican victories here and there in the future, but I see no success in impeding the obvious drift towards statism that our society favors unless there is dramatic, comprehensive cultural change.” Of course, he sees no racial or religious elements to the “culture,” having tried his best to elect a Mormon who was only able to run for president by making the usual promises to an endless array of strangers, and of course to the American Woman who, in the blue states, is typically a cold-blooded killer. Bahnsen continues:
The 2012 election DOES indeed mean that the demographics favor the left for the foreseeable future, and that is true without any consideration of African-Americans, young people, or gays. It is the Hispanic vote, above all else, that should cause you to believe that Republicans are in deep, deep trouble. Obama received 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2008 and 2012. John Kerry received just 55% in 2004. That 15% differential is the difference between a President Romney and a President Obama. This is not just a concern because of political realities; it is a concern because it is such an unforced error by the Right. We have alienated a massive part of the voting bloc (and the fastest-growing one) with a rhetoric, tone, and actual policy that is cartoonishly stupid. A softer and more intelligent perspective on immigration is going to be required, or we will be a permanent minority.
“The American sold his birthright in a continent to solve a labor problem.” ~ Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race
In other words, your average Republican is going to have to cough up even more handouts to anti-whites (yes, the political platforms will be nothing less than anti-white), or as Bahnsen puts it, to “mature as a movement,” or they can forget about ever being taken seriously again. If Bahnsen isn’t taken seriously by the movers and shakers, he’ll just die. You can see why Sam Francis called Republicans the Stupid Party and Beautiful Losers. Democrats vote according to their own racial, religious, and group self-interest, and Republicans think they can convince them to adapt to the aggregate in an empire that is far too large and long past the point of being out of control.
“Be my brother or I’ll kill you,” said satirist Nicolas-Sebastien de Chamfort.
Since Republican political science is a purely ideological regression to the mean, every assault against the treasury and morality is viewed as being guided by ideology, not by real flesh and blood Jews, blacks, mestizos, feminists, fags, etc. Bahnsen writes:
The termites of liberalism, statism, and collectivism have rotted the very foundation of our home.
Dick Morris writes that “votes are predictable based on our race, ethnicity, age, and marital status well before anybody does any campaigning… Demographic voting is the new norm in America.” The advertising doesn’t really matter. Blood and class matter: “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.” I’ll tell you, folks, it’s hard to be a “racist,” knowing that you’re almost always right.
The word “aloof” is racist. It means “uppity” when used to refer to Obama.
The word “Australian” is racist.
The entire English language is racist, according to philosopher Congressman Jim Clyburn. “The whole language, every single word, letter, and apostrophe in it is racist. It’s a fact. If you speak English, you’re a racist.”
To be critical of the school that Neon Deion Sanders founded is to be an “African-American killer,” according to Neon Deion.
There sure is a lot of government involvement and expense required to prevent people from doing the “racist” things that come naturally to them. Nature is racist. There oughta be a law.
“What needs to be said is that American culture is Eurocentric, and it must remain Eurocentric or collapse into meaninglessness. Standards of European and American origin are the only possible standards that can hold our society together and keep us a competent nation.”
~ the late Judge Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah
The new Gerber baby is a spiclet, or something. Being white is so yesterday.
A “white pride” tattoo is “completely different” from a “brown pride” tattoo. If you dare to profess white pride, it “tells us where you’re at.” Redneck! Hillbilly!
Joe Biden says that Obama is considering an executive order to outlaw gun ownership.
Our friend Ari has done his patriotic duty and faxed the following to Capitol Hill:
To Dianne Feinstein: I am deaf and I have myasthenia gravis. I wouldn’t be able to hear it if someone were to break into my house and threaten my family, and my muscles are not what they used to be. In other words, I’m at a double disadvantage. Therefore, I will own and be proficient in the use of the firearms that make up for where I lack. I will brandish and use the firearms that give me a clear advantage over anyone who wants to take advantage of my disabilities to threaten my family. I have that right and duty, and take it seriously. And you have no business telling me what firearms I need and don’t need.
I’m Ari Khazar, and I approved this message, you ugly bitch.
After mass shootings at Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine, politicians have only one idea, which is to sweep the Second Amendment into the memory hole. You know, that’s the amendment that guarantees the right to hunt with no more bullets than it takes to bring down an animal.
People only get serious about jungle life when it affects their own children. This past year, heavily gun-controlled and heavily gang-controlled Chicago had 500 homicides, including more than 440 school-age children. Sixty of these children died from their wounds. Until 2010, Chicagoans couldn’t even keep guns in their homes to defend themselves.
Chicago’s murder rate matches that of failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe. New Orleans is even worse. Chicago is less than one-third white, but 95.5% of murder arrests, and 93.4% of arrests for criminal sexual assault, and 92.2% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 92.7% of arrests for burglary in Chicago are of blacks and mestizos. There is one gun in Switzerland for every two or three people, yet a crime rate that is one-tenth that of America.
What do the worst gang cities have in common?
Our friend Justin Cottrell’s new book, Rise of the Black Serial Killer, is being used as a reference text for Maamodt University’s criminology department, which has the largest serial killing database in the world. Read these fascinating stats on serial murders, which you’ve always heard are committed primarily by white men:
In New Zealand, dogs are learning how to drive cars. In Detroit, only 7% of public-school eighth graders can read, and only 4% know math. The dogs need treats for rewards. The negroids in Detroit are given far more: $11,100 per “student” per year. There’s a far greater return on investment from the dogs.
Negroes are incompatible with life.
Bring back the word “nigger,” says Rev. Manning, just because black people hate it when white people use it, and black people hate white people, and the word describes how black people act. “Why rob society of the best description of behavior?… You need to call a spade a spade.”
Rev. Manning says that black people support Obama not because they love him but because “they hate the hell out of America.” Obama is their champion because they hate the white man, and they hate the white man because they’re unwilling to take responsibility for their own failures. Further, Rev. Manning says that blacks were better off during the Jim Crow era. When segregation ended, black people left their children, went to jail, and stopped building great churches. He mentions rent parties during the 1950s, when neighbors got together every Friday night and raised money to pay someone’s rent. He said buildings were well-maintained, and Harlem was “pulsating” because blacks weren’t allowed to go downtown except to work.
There’s no integrity any more, there’s no honor. They’ve lost Harlem. You’ve got a million black men in jail. Seven out of every ten households are headed by a woman, and in the other three the man is not necessarily the breadwinner. Eight out of every ten babies born in the black community today don’t know the daddies… That didn’t happen when we had colored schools and colored water fountains.
So who really “hates” black people, those who favor segregation, and therefore a black future, or those who favor integration, and therefore black genocide? The answer is as obvious as the grease stains on Al Sharpton’s La-Z-Boy.
“God will hear from heaven and will heal your honorless heart.” Fear wished not to evade as love wished to pursue.
When a “white as the end of year snow on the steeples” Miss France was elected, the creator of the obviously non-racist Miss Black France pageant complained that it “amounts to denying the very existence of French people of African origin.” Of course, Miss Black France can’t be accused of denying the existence of white French, because this would be racist.
Proof has emerged that Nelson Mandela lied for decades when he said that he was never a member of the Communist Party.
Durban Beach, South Africa, 1970:
Here’s the same beach, New Year’s Day, 2012.
In the week after the mob dispersed, nine bodies washed ashore, none of which had been reported missing. Thirty-one children were left behind after everyone had returned home. The beach was so full of defecation that it had to be plowed under.
“Rise up, rise up,” Sir Richard said,
“The hounds of doom are free;
The slayers come to take your head
To hang on the ju-ju tree.
Swift feet press the jungle mud
Where the shadows are grim and stark,
And naked men who pant for blood
Are racing through the dark.”
And Solomon rose and bared his sword,
And swift as tongue could tell,
The dark spewed forth a painted horde
Like shadows out of Hell.
~ R.E. Howard, The Return of Sir Richard Grenville
Henry Morton Stanley’s pioneering and engineering work in Africa, and his rescue of missionary David Livingstone, are legendary. The Africans called him “Bula Matari,” the Breaker of Rocks, for building the first modern road along the Congo River. Sir Richard Francis Burton claimed that “Stanley shoots negroes as if they were monkeys.” The “savage only respects force, power, boldness, and decision,” Stanley wrote in Through the Dark Continent. Prior to his adventures in Africa, something very unusual happened. At the age of 18, he left Wales to seek a new life for himself in America, probably due to the fact that he was born a bastard. He arrived in New Orleans in 1859, just before Lincoln was elected and war broke out. He joined the Confederate Army and fought at Shiloh in 1862. Then he was captured by the Yankees and conscripted into the Union Army. He fell sick a few days later, and eventually joined the Union Navy in 1864. Thus, he became the only man to serve in the Confederate Army, the Union Army, and the Union Navy, and he was a Welshman.
“Diversity” kills, according to the America Journal of Public Health, which has found that elderly blacks and mestizos suffer less cancer and heart disease when they live among their racial or ethnic peers. Race-mixing adds to the cost of health coverage, in addition to many other things.
Students in West Virginia are forced to stand for the Black National Anthem, and young Brits are chained together like the slaves they’ve become.
There was not English armour left,
Nor any English thing,
When Alfred came to Athelney
To be an English king.
~ G.K. Chesterton, Ballad of the White Horse
A friend saw the following gigantic ad from the United Negro College Fund in the pages of the New York Times:
A mind is responsible for the traffic light, the blood bank, ice cream, peanut butter, the doorknob, the microphone, the elevator, clothes dryer, lawn mower, pacemaker, the typewriter, guided missile, mailbox, the air conditioner, automatic transmission, curtain rod, baby carriage, lawn sprinkler, fountain pen, dust pan, the hand stamp, first open-heart surgery, cataract laser, fire extinguisher, doorstop, home security camera, the golf tee, fire escape, potato chip, food preservation, synthesized cortisone, the guitar, railroad telegraphy, envelope seal, printing press, bicycle frame, rocket catapult, insect destroyer gun, ice cream scoop, window cleaner, laser fuels, folding chair, gas mask, mop, refrigerator, pressing comb, urinalysis machine, door lock, electric cutoff switch, telephone transmitter, stair-climbing wheelchair, hairbrush, egg beater, eye protector, electric lamp bulb, biscuit cutter, chamber commode, almanac, horse shoe, lunch pail, motor, lantern, key chain, furniture caster, ironing board, sugar-refining system, lemon squeezer, portable weighing scales, wrench, airplane propeller, ore bucket, steam boiler, spark plug, galoshes, casket-lowering device, clothes wringer, disrail car coupling, riding saddles, and so on and so on. The list is endless. Indeed, it’s time to stop and celebrate the fact that each and every one of the wonderful innovations mentioned here came from the mind. The mind of an African American.
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.
When “mankind lost its best friend,” as sung to toddlers who watched Sesame Street.
Matt Drudge caught a Barrage O’Trauma for running this on his page:
Tarantino responded that he was unfazed by the Drudge “controversy,” and readers should consider the source, meaning Drudge, ironically, not Tarantino himself. He then exonerated himself with the excuse that the Nigger Word was used no more often in his film than it was used in 1858 Mississippi.
Some white men from the Daily Beast took the opportunity to score points by lambasting Matt Drudge for masking the dreaded word with no more than an asterisk. They had no problem with prevalent use of the word in Tarantino’s film, of course.
Samuel L. Jackson urges white people to use the Nigger Word. Okay, Sam, you don’t have to beg.
Tarantino has no business using that word, says “comedian” Katt Williams, who says he has checked with “all of Niggadom” and can’t find where Tarantino got the pass. Williams then threatens to assault him.
Jamie Foxx, star of the aforementioned nigger movie, who calls Obama his “lord and savior,” went on Saturday Night Live to announce: “I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?” This is not considered “vulgar, racist, and obscene,” of course, but any comments left at a news site that are critical of Foxx are all those things. Goes without saying.
When criticized for what he said, Foxx fell back on the ever-elastic trampoline of race. “‘Every single thing in my life is built around race. Cause as black folks we’re always sensitive. As a black person it’s always racial.” Well, I guess it’s okay then. Poor black folks. They really should set the linguistic rules for everyone, seeing as how they’re so sensitive and racial.
“There can be no happier movie,” says actor Donnell Rawlings.
Speaking of happy movies, Wheeler was inspired by Les Miserables to turn Schindler’s List into a musical called Hebes in a Memo, because audiences need comic relief in the midst of tragedy.
I’m sure you enjoyed this movie over the Christmas break: “A slimy, canny, destructive beast drives a certain race out of their ancestral homeland and takes possession of all their gold. This beast wallows in the material wealth, taking the deepest and most perverse pleasure from it. And the only way he can be dislodged and driven out is if a brave band of his enemies come and give battle to him.” But enough about the Rothschilds.
As you were dining on Christmas dinner last month, I’m sure you were wondering what our Alienist friends were eating. They ate the mascot and symbol of their movement, the Turducken:
Or is that a Churkendoose?
They topped off the meal with a dessert of cherpumple pie:
The most pious among them protested these dishes on the grounds that their consituent parts could still be identified, and that only a blender could make the meal truly equal.
We Kinists like to judge restaurants by the content of the cuisine rather than the color of the clientele. Actually, we pass judgment on the clientele too.
Our friend Colby, aka Nanook of the North, wins 300 points for this inspirational holiday poem:
On the first day of Kwanzaa my true love gave to me…
In a tree.
Here’s a story about a 70-year-old man in Saudi Arabia marrying a 15-year-old, allegedly, only to find that the girl returned to her family but did not return the man’s $20,000 dowry. “Human rights” groups are uniformly outraged about the girl being “sold” to the man and about her age. But here’s the question: If this were a consensual arrangement and both parties were Christian, would an Alienist pulpit pirate level any objection whatsoever? Dowries used to be commonplace throughout the world. Alienists claim that Christian faith is the only criterion for marriage. In this case, if the girl’s parents opposed such a union, Alienists would tell them that they are in sin for opposing what is lawful.
At one church in Iowa recently, a study on Kinism concluded that our allegiance to our fellow Europeans, and our belief that this is vital to our survival as a people, and our belief that our people are irreplaceable, is “humanism.” Verses given in support of this Alienist view are Deut. 8:17 (“My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me”), and 1 Cor. 4:7 (“What do you have that you did not receive?”). They never stop lying. We count every blessing in our lives as received directly from the hand of God, including our ancestry and heritage. God ordained that our people should exist and be a great blessing to the world, and this is precisely what has happened. We are now in decline as a people because we have disobeyed God. The daily news is a failproof lesson in reaping what has been sown. We Kinists have affirmed as much over and over again, and our enemies can do nothing but lie about us. Martin Luther would have called them “jugglers of imaginary sins.”
At a site with the ironic name Sola Reformed, more warnings against the “dangerously unbiblical” and “damnable heresy” of Kinism are found. Once again, the author isn’t the least bit embarrassed about the lies he tells. A “quick refutation of Kinism” is promised, which of course never manifests. He attempts to force “kind after kind” upon people, animals, birds, and fish (1 Cor. 15:39), but this would make nonsense of Lev. 19:19, which is far more restrictive. (God did not forbid goats from producing with dogs, because it could not have happened. The law against mixture was given for varieties that could reproduce.) He writes: “The descendants of Canaan were infamous for their idolatry and sexual perversion. Nothing to do with race.” Yet repeatedly in Scripture, what does God command? “You shall not intermarry with them unless they can individually testify under oath that they are as committed to the Lord as you.” No, it doesn’t say that. It says “you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.” Yes, this is because “they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods.” It’s absolutely true that the goal in view was to protect true worship. All the same, most people miss the prescription: Stay away from those people, period, without exception, because they’re not going to act as rootless individuals; they’re going to act as a people.
“And it shall be,
In the day of the Lord’s sacrifice,
That I will punish the princes and the king’s children,
And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel.”
It’s true that resident aliens in Israel were to be protected by law, but this did not make them equal to the Israelites. They did not share in the inheritance of the tribes. Foreign slaves were not released in the Jubilee. Laws against usury varied, depending on the borrower. All by God’s own command. So what does the Alienist do? He pretends that there was widespread intermarriage with surrounding nations, contrary to the law. Therefore, Uriah must have been a Hittite by blood, and Ruth must have been a Moabitess by blood. You simply can’t make this work as a rule. As our friend Justin points out, Laban is called a Syrian in Genesis 25:20 and 31:20 and 31:24. But having descended from Abraham’s brother Nahor, Laban is clearly a Syrian by geography, not by blood. Likewise, in Deut. 26:5, the Israelite is to recite that his Hebrew father was Aramean (Syrian). Where’s the honesty among these race-mixing exegetes?
“Rebekah is also said to be the sister to Laban the Syrian, the son of Bethuel, who are both called Syrians, because they now lived in Syria: otherwise they were originally Chaldees, being descended from Nahor the brother of Abraham, who both were of Ur of the Chaldees; so Jacob is called a Syrian, because he lived long in the same place, Deuteronomy 26:5.” ~ Gill’s Exposition, commentary on Gen. 25:20
“[Hosea's] surname was Ben-Beeri, or the son of Beeri. As with us now, so with them then, some had their surname from their place, as Micah the Morashite, Nahum the Elkoshite: others from their parents, as Joel the son of Bethuel, and here Hosea the son of Beeri.” ~ Matthew Henry, commentary on Hosea 1
There’s so much folly in the article above that the author would never be heard from again if he had any shame.
The expansion of the people of God is through the means of bringing the gospel to the nations (Matthew 28). This involves mixing with people of other cultures. Kinism completely undermines the spread of the gospel.
He has just indicted the vast majority of Christendom, including some of the greatest missionaries in history, as having undermined the gospel.
Kinism replaces union with Christ with genetics (Galatians 3:28).
This is like saying that anti-feminists have replaced Christian unity with sexual roles, and Galatians 3:28 somehow proves it.
Kinism is a practical denial of the Work of Christ, where he tore down the dividing wall between nations, so made people of all nations in covenant with God fellow citizens. Ephesians 2:11-22.
Silly me. I thought that the temple veil tearing during the crucifixion had everything to do with the work of the church officers which followed, which was to bring Gentiles into the better covenant. Who knew that it was really to erase nationhood from the globe? You learn something new every day.
Paul referred to Himself as teacher of the Gentiles (Acts 26:4, 1 Timothy 2:7), which could not be the case if Paul was a Kinist.
Right, because if you recognize your nation as a tribe of blood and faith and want it to survive, it means that you hate all other tribes and don’t want to teach them anything.
As you know, Bojidar Marinov is another neo-Christian maniac whose hatred of Kinism has finally sent him over the brink of sanity. Just read this nonsense:
The extended family, even if it’s beneficial economically or relationally, has no covenantal significance, and therefore has no cultural significance. We love our grandparents and uncles and cousins; but as far as the Biblical culture is involved, their significance is only marginal. Faith is what matters ultimately; and as far as the institutional arrangement of that faith culture is involved, our spouses and our underage children are all we need. And the church…
The nuclear family is oriented toward the future; the extended family is oriented toward the past. When the family is defined as only a man and a woman and their underage children, the purpose of the family and the whole life of the family is naturally focused on bringing up these children and making them independent of their parents…
Since the Biblical culture requires nuclear families as over against extended families, we should expect it to be focused on parents teaching their young children for the future, not on grown up adults trying to conserve the past by hanging around with their relatives.
Let’s just say that Marinov is not on speaking terms with reality. I hear that a docudrama of Marinov’s life is planned called It Came from Uranus.
Imagine with me, if you can, a culture where you are surrounded with people who know and love you. There are parents, uncles and aunts, cousins, grandparents and even on occasion great-grandparents. Living, working, playing and worshiping with these loved-ones creates a wonderful sense of security and stability. You know who you are, to a great extent, because of your relationships with those of your surrounding family. Family can serve as a fixed reference point, linking you to geography and to the past in a way that no other friendship or community can.
Absolutely not. The only fixed reference point is the faith in God… The Biblical family is always the nuclear family.
This is Alienism on heroin, folks. He means that the nuclear family is the only family, and extended family is not to be considered as family. Obviously, if Alienists were to open the door here, it would allow many implications for ethnicity and race that would appall them. Not even adult children are to be considered part of the nuclear family, according to Marinov.
[In Proverbs, the] son’s independence and his leaving the family and going into a foreign, spiritually dangerous environment are taken for granted. In fact, without such assumption, the whole Book of Proverbs becomes meaningless for a young man.
The motive of preserving the past was dominant in all pagan societies; the future had to be fended off by any means. The idea of progress originated with Christianity; pagans had no such idea…
[F]amily/folk culture has been defeated in our modern times exactly because by its very nature, it is powerless to foresee or prepare for the future. It will die out naturally because it is not a Biblical culture.
You have to realize that Marinov is belly-flopping into the cesspool of absurdity because of his hatred of Kinism and his routine condemnation of Kinists as heretical scum. Apparently, the truth doesn’t only set us free. It also confuses the hell out of our enemies.
Don’t miss the part where Marinov asserts that the Industrial Revolution “gave [the Christian family] a boost stronger than any other social factor since the 1st century AD.”
Or where he claims that the Jubilee law encouraged nuclear families to leave extended families! As Opperman shows, this law kept families bound to their ancestral property and their people by preventing their displacement by poverty. You can’t get much more wrong than Marinov, which is why he avoids any mention of Numbers 36, nor Ezra 2:59-62, where the children of priests could not prove their Levitical descent from the genealogies; “therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood,” regardless of faith.
“Kinism is a term of admittedly recent manufacture, but the principles thereof have been with mankind from the beginning. The same continuum of concept has alternately been called familism, tribal theocracy, theonomic nationalism, or simply, traditional Christianity… [C]alling God our Father, fellow Christians our brothers, and the Church our mother means that we rely upon the concepts of kinship, gender, and hierarchy as the framework for understanding our interaction with God and man. If my physical brother is seen as no special relation to myself, then the concept of spiritual brotherhood loses all significance.” ~ Ehud Would
“You do not know the genius of that man’s country, sir; discretion, prudence, and foresight, are their leading qualities; these are only modified by a narrow-spirited, but yet ardent patriotism, which forms as it were the outmost of the concentric bulwarks with which a Scotchman fortifies himself against all the attacks of a generous philanthropical principle. Surmount this mound, you find an inner and still dearer barrier – the love of his province, his village, or, most probably, his clan; storm this second obstacle, you have a third – his attachment to his own family – his father, mother, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, and cousins, to the ninth generation. It is within these limits that a Scotchman’s social affection expands itself, never reaching those which are outermost, till all means of discharging itself in the interior circles have been exhausted. It is within these circles that his heart throbs, each pulsation being fainter and fainter, till, beyond the widest boundary, it is almost unfelt.” ~ Sir Walter Scott, a giant among Christians, on the Scottish character
“Mark Twain, author of one good novel and countless heaps of trash, quite correctly, from a liberal standpoint, condemned Walter Scott as the most pernicious, insidiously evil influence of his time. To a Satanist like Twain, a man like Walter Scott, the soul of honor and the foremost champion of the code, was a dangerous lunatic.” ~ CWNY
“Tribal behavior is what makes human beings human. Take it away from ‘man’ or ‘humankind’ and what you get is not ‘pure man’ or ‘liberated man’ but dehumanization.” ~ Sam Francis
”You have nothing to be apologetic about if you are interested in your family tree. God indicates that this is a very healthy interest. The Bible stresses genealogy. By contrast the modern world stresses rootlessness.” ~ Rousas John Rushdoony
“We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization, and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us.” ~ Russell Kirk
For a very helpful antidote to Alienist venom, read the Rushdoony quotes in Opperman’s articles. I’ll add a few more from Rush, and notice how what you read here is exactly the opposite of what Marinov is squeezing through his practiced sphincter:
Carle C. Zimmerman has pointed out that there are three types of families in history: the trustee, the domestic [nuclear], and the atomistic families. The trustee family has central authority in a society: it is the basic power and institution, and most government is in its hands…
It is called the trustee family because its living members see themselves as trustees of the family blood, rights, property, name, and position for their lifetime. They have an inheritance from the past to be preserved and developed for the future…
“The Biblical view of property will be discussed later, but, for the present, the case of Naboth can be cited (1 Kings 21:1-14). For Naboth, the land was not his to sell. Everything he had, land and vineyard, was an inheritance from the past as a trust for the future. Naboth as a good steward had no doubt increased the value of that inheritance, but this did not make any of it his own. As head of the family, he had an inheritance as a trust, not as a means of self-indulgence, and therefore his basic obligation was to the future. In China, by means of ancestor worship, the trustee family was bound to the past. In Biblical faith, because of the creation mandate, the trustee family was geared to the future. The modern family, because of its atomistic humanism, is geared to the present and is thus destructive of both the past and the future…
The domestic [nuclear] family is a weakening of the family’s powers, with the state as gainer. It is a transition stage to the atomistic family, when the totalitarian state is the on-going life and power, the main heir and the controller of inheritance, and the source of direction for a society.
Isn’t sound biblical doctrine refreshing, like cold water on a parched tongue? You can see that what Rushdoony writes above resonates with how normal people actually live their lives, whereas Marinov’s doctrine is a perversion that can only appeal to gnostics. He’s like the modern “Christian” who visualizes himself in the afterlife as a ghost flitting about in the ether of heaven rather than a corporeal being whose flesh has been resurrected for the renewed earth, who follows the king of his nation into the material city, the New Jerusalem, to pour out material treasure before the material throne. God save us from Alienist lies.
Some Alienists are now trying to push 1 Cor. 15:39 as an anti-Kinist proof text:
All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
Notice that the sentence begins with a glorious inequality; flesh is not merely matter, but rather is designed for a purpose. The verse is intended to be an answer to the questions of 1 Cor. 15:35: “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” We will be substantially human in the resurrection, not with the properties of animals, but our eternal bodies will differ from our temporal bodies as the butterfly differs from the caterpillar, and as the tree differs from the seed. This means that God will raise us from the dead in our own flesh. To borrow from the oldest creeds: “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” Job affirmed: “In my flesh I will see God; I myself will see Him with my own eyes; I, and not another” (Job 19:26-27). Tertullian called the resurrection of the flesh the Church’s “rule of faith.”
Kinists affirm that the races of men are humankind. But if the Alienist is going to attempt to use 1 Cor. 15:39 to refute Kinism, he can’t ignore Lev. 19:19, where animals are recognized as having different flesh that ought not to be mixed. While cows are of one kind in the abstract (the “race” of cows), the law commands that various kinds of cows are to remain distinct. They are not to cross-breed. The breeding of mules was outlawed as well. No one attempted to argue with God, asking Him why He has outlawed that which He has made physically possible, as we often hear from race-mixers concerning white-black unions. The reason for this is that God loves diversity, properly understood. He hates miscegenation.
St. Augustine, in City of God, explained that God confounded speech at Babel because “they are all one race and of one language.”
“Therefore it must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality… In natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than are the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these one species is more perfect than others. Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality. For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.” ~ Thomas Aquinas
“But today, because the principle of the lowest common denominator prevails, there is a move to equalize everything down to that lowest common denominator. Which means that something has to give, and this has to be us, we are told. We have to be integrated downward. All have to be the same, all have to be equalized, so that quality is sacrificed to quantity, thrift to profligacy, virtue to vice. This means that all vice is vindicated. Minority rights means human rights for homosexuals, criminals, and ultimately the triumph of evil. This is inescapable in any humanistic society, in any society which does not recognize the primacy of God, because then it places man not under law but over law, and this is the death of the culture.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, from the sermon Godly and Ungodly Mercy
“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
It’s very refreshing to see this take on Kinism. The writer, Steve Griffin, denies that Kinists are “heretics” and “cancers,” for “ALL Christians, before the 1950′s and 60′s, espoused views on race similar to Kinists… [I]t seems to me that the Kinists are closer to our Christian forebears on race issues than most of us.” He recognizes that there was no great advance in biblical understanding in the fifties and sixties. And so what was the basis for the Christian Church’s 180 on race if it was not politically expedient?
“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.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Law and Equality
“The dream of universal brotherhood, because it rests on the sentimental fiction that men and women are all the same, cannot survive the discovery that they differ.” ~ Christopher Lasch
”The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.” ~ Abraham Kuyper
“Men of both races may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.” ~ President Warren Harding
“They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.” ~ Edmund Burke
”The term ‘folk’ has for its primary meaning a group of kindred people, forming a tribe or nation; a people bound together by ties of race, language, religion, custom, tradition, and history. Such a common tie we call folkways. A folk thus possesses a sense of solidarity and is quite different from a conglomerate mass of people. It has most if not all of the characteristics of nationalism. Indeed, it may be contended with much force that there can be no true nationalism where the population does not constitute a folk.” ~ Frank L. Owsley, Plain Folk of the Old South
Have you beheld the anti-Confederate flag in the twilight’s last gleaming?
A lesson on secession from Walter Williams.
Indians are never guilty of racism for trying to protect their nationhood and borders from business interests. But in Corsica, the French are guilty of racism when Arabs, North Africans, or Paki Muslims commit murder, just as Serbians are guilty of racism when Albanian Muslims usurp Kosovo. Nationalism is racism, but only white nationalism.
“The corporations that boast of being transnational rather than American could not exist without the American economy, American workers, American consumers, and the American culture and legal system that creates them in the first place. The United Nations and similar transnational organizations could not exist without the funds supplied by American taxpayers. The Glorious Multicultural America that twinkles in the mind’s eye of the advocates of open borders and the abolition of national boundaries could not exist without the old, mono-cultural America, based on its British and European inheritances and populations. Globalism, just as much as the ‘struggle for the world’ against communism, is an illusion, and it can become a reality only when it has destroyed the reality of nation, race, culture on which it rests.” ~ Sam Francis
A friend found this “racist” comment from C.S. Lewis (The Allegory of Love, 1936, p. 117) that was written when Lewis was reading a play by Aldous Huxley called “Happy Families.” The play is an allegory in which Huxley represents Lust as a “very fleshly negro.” Lewis writes:
[In the play,] a man and a girl are talking in a conservatory. Instead of representing their conversation directly, the author has chosen to distribute it among a number of attendants whom he allots to each. The attendants represent the various selves, or facets of personality, whom the two lovers contain. [W]hen they begin to talk…they use two little dolls which represent their conventional and “social” selves. The humans pull the strings and the dolls say whatever politeness demands… Among the attendants of the young man [is] the very fleshly negro who looks over his shoulder and kisses the girl, greatly to the astonishment of the young man’s other attendants, and with disagreeable results. [The poet] Guillaume would have called the negro Vilanie, and would have left him outside the conservatory.
Timeless words from Dr. Clarence Edward Noble Macartney on Love, Courtship, and Marriage:
The care which Abraham gave to the marriage of Isaac is to be commended to fathers and mothers today. He charges the one who is to arrange for this marriage that the woman chosen is to be of the same religion, the same race, and the same general family and social standing. Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experience demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and a Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a foreigner, has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion.
“All mixed races are violent, incoherent, incapable of national government, revolutionary, and are on the down grade of civilization. If this statement is correct we must conclude that miscegenation is a sin against God and a violation of the laws of nature.” ~ Edwin Henderson Randle, Characteristics of the Southern Negro, 1910
An anti-Christ catigates a white race-mixer who has second thoughts about spawning mongrels. He is deemed guilty of the evil racism that was characteristic of pre-1950 America. “Beyond the Pale” is the clever title, and it means something which is unacceptable or beyond the standards of decency. Catherine the Great created the ”Pale of Settlement” in Russia as the place where Jews were to live, which had the purpose of containing their lecherous practices. There was also a “Pale of Dublin” in Ireland and a “Pale of Calais” in France. All European countries used to recognize that anti-Christs were harmful influences on Christians.
Pro-lifers are just “trying to build up the [white] race,” said a CBS talking negrohead. ”There’s always eugenics associated with these questions,” added the host.
Tim Keller of the PCA with a classic double standard: “And so, yeah, I would love to see a multi-ethnic future church, but I realize the ethnic churches have a lot to lose, so I’m careful when I say that. I don’t want to make them feel that somehow they’re doing wrong to stay more mono-ethnic. I still see a role for that. I don’t see much of a role for a purely white church anymore, but I do see a role for the ethnic churches.”
There are “Christians” who are already adopting transhumanism. Legalize miscegenation, and watch the dominoes fall.
Meanwhile, a judge in NC has deemed the “Choose Life” license plate to be unconstitutional.
Tracts where a majority of single-parent homes exist, and also tracts where 90% of the homes have both parents.
“When the family shall no longer have a head, and the great foundation for the subordination of children in the mother’s example is gone; when the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustings [politics]; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone, it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men. In the hands of such a bastard progeny, without discipline, without homes, without a God, the last remains of social order will speedily perish, and society will be overwhelmed in savage anarchy.…[T]he very traits which fit her to be the angel of a virtuous home unfit her to meet the agitations of political life, even as safely as does the more rugged man. The hot glare of publicity and passion will speedily deflower her delicacy and sweetness. Those temptations, which her Maker did not form her to bear, will debauch her heart, developing a character as much more repulsive than that of the debauched man as the fall has been greater. The politicating woman, unsexed and denaturalized, shorn of the true glory of her femininity, will appear to men as a feeble hybrid manikin dwarf, with all the defects and none of the strength of the male. Instead of being the dear object of his chivalrous affection, she becomes his importunate rival, despised without being feared!” ~ R.L. Dabney
The idolatrous National Cathedral, the boil on the ass of America, is now a venue for sodomatrimony.
Doug Wilson has posted 11 theses on natural law that I find very agreeable. But notice his point 11:
The current test case for all theologies of natural law is homosexual marriage. If they allow for it, they are contradicting, in ascending order of importance, what the Lord God has said in the Milky Way, in the human conscience, in the law of Moses, and in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As he writes in a follow-up, I agree that “Scripture…teaches us what we should have been getting from natural revelation… Scripture provides an answer key so that we can cross-check some of our conclusions from natural law.” Faggotry “is a good test case for our approach to natural law,” but why wouldn’t the same be said of racial miscegenation? Romans 1 refers to “things which are not convenient [conventional]” committed by those who are “disobedient to parents” and with “vile passions,” “without natural affection.” Scripture is replete with examples of how kind joins to kind, and tribes are formed based on common faith and heritage. Nature confirms every word of it. But we have in our perverted age “Christians” who say that we should ignore nature and concern ourselves only with belief where marriage is concerned, as though belief is the sum total of a person. These “Christians” ignore the natural law in the same way that the reprobates listed in Romans 1 suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Faggotry is now the test case for theologies of natural law, as Wilson says, but only because it was made possible from racial miscegenation being legalized because feckless “Christians” loved their careers more than the truth.
Wilson eats Christopher Hitchens’s lunch in this short video. You can almost see sweat forming on the Hitch’s brow. He hopes that his sophisticated British accent will mask his suppression of the truth.
R2K nutbar Michael Horton teaches that Jesus reigns in the Church, and the secular government is under a different law. While Christians, making sure only to get involved in politics outside the church, can call the State to righteousness, the Church can say nothing to the State, except in the matter of slavery and “civil rights.”
Leave it to Doug Phillips to sell a $76 toy gun to gullible homeschoolers.
Would it be anti-Semitic to refer to Jews as Chupacabra-Americans?
Have you taken your Jew pills?
The author of this piece in the Wall Street Jew states that there is no Israel lobby, because Jews can’t be considered a monolithic voting body, yet Sen. Chuck Hagel had better apologize for recognizing the Jewish lobby, or else the “6,100 Jewish Nebraskans” will vote him out of office. You can’t make this stuff up. He regards it as unconscionable that Hagel would insinuate dual loyalty on the part of Jews. Yeah, how could anyone suggest such a thing of those who are allowed dual citizenship? And how dare anyone think that the vast amount of money given to Jewish and Israeli political concerns could be intimidating for senators, as Hagel says?
The evil Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews with lime and chlorine, and only after this failed were Jews sent to the gas chambers. It’s comedy fact!
Watch this fascinating documentary to learn things you may not even know about what Germany faced prior to the rise of Hitler. It’s impossible to even imagine what it was like, with inflation having obliterated wealth, the Weimar government riding high for a short while on credit from their conquerers, and then businesses pressuring Chancellor Hindenburg to relinquish his office to Hitler because they, the business class, considered it far better for the unemployed to become Nazis rather than Communists. The army essentially agreed, saying that they were too weak to control both the Communists and the Nationalists, so it would be better to side with the Nazis because at least they were Germans and not Jews being led by hostile foreign interests. The Commies believed that they could control Hitler. The Commies were dead wrong, with emphasis on the word dead.
Why the rise of Hitler was “inevitable, and even reasonable in view of the depredations.”
Rather than thinking that the Germans “started WW2” because they wanted to take over the world, it would be more accurate to say that Britain started it in order to preserve their complete domination of it.
There are only 22 countries in the world that the bloody Brits haven’t invaded. That’s almost 90% of the globe, and some of the countries that they didn’t invade are either very small or Vatican City. The American empire is now trying to best the record. But you know what’s unspeakably evil? Nazis! And whatever is hidden in their nasty little pocketses.
Don’t miss the latest Tribal Theocrat interview of one of the authors of First Word, a man who is very knowledgeable about Germany and the conditions that led to the development of the Third Reich, and much else besides. The question of theonomic libertarianism arises at 30:50, and there is some important discussion about the RPCUS (one of the split-p denominations). If a girl wants to marry outside of her race and her father says no, what should she do? The theonomic libertarian answers that the father is no more than a Bible Answer Man for his family, and he has less authority in the lives of his children than the family’s pastor. Just as the pastors want it.
Points three and eight of the 25 point program of the National Socialist Labour Party of Germany (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1920-1945):
3. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
In Israel, the Law of Return was passed in 1950, granting immediate citizenship to those who are Jewish or who have a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother (after revision in 1970). Non-Jews cannot become citizens apart from “Naturalization,” which requires a person to reside in Israel for more than 3 years, and even then, it’s at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior to grant citizenship. Do you think Jews will be denounced for establishing a Nazi-like regime?
Anti-miscegenation laws in Israel today. Almost as strict as the Nuremberg Laws.
Someone in Cleveland is an artist:
Some friends recently heard historian David Irving speak. Irving said that the gas chamber at Auschwitz has a very small plaque low on a side wall which read: “Constructed in 1948.” It is considered a crime in most of Europe today to publicize this fact. Meanwhile, the most ludicrous fiction is promoted as fact.
When Tom Fleming recently wrote that he couldn’t care less what Jews think of Christmas, and they should “Stick to Hanukkah—which, by the way, commemorates the killing of Gentiles,” and that we should not buy Christmas presents from stores owned by non-Christians, Lawrence Auster flipped. More entertaining volleys here and here.
Please say a prayer for Mr. Auster today.
Listen to all of the Tribal Theocrat interviews, including the excellent interview of Bobbi Lee Swagger. A lot of ground on homeschooling is covered. Listen at 22:30, in particular, for questions to ask Christians about the system of state education. Kinist matters are covered around the 52:00 mark.
Here’s a talk show host with the standard liberal line that all whites are collectively culpable for alleged atrocities that took place centuries ago, and all blacks have a collective claim on white property because of it. Moreover, because some of our white colonial ancestors had the nerve to settle land on which there was no legal claim, white genocide throughout the world must go unmourned, for Caucasians are “the ultimate predators,” and their culture is “destroying the planet.” Moreover, the refusal to recognize Jews as being like any other white person and with the same interests is shocking evidence of “supremacism.”
Kerry Bolton has written a couple of outstanding articles on the great T.S. Eliot (part 1, part 2). We highly recommend them. Eliot’s critique of Romanticism and Rousseau continues to be a very good description of liberalism in our own time: “exaltation of the personal and individual above the typical, emphasis upon feeling rather than thought…belief in the fundamental goodness of human nature, deprecation of form in art, and glorification of spontaneity.” Such people are marked by “vague emotionality and the apotheosis of science,” by “excess in any direction” rather than the authority of Church and State. The difference, said Eliot, is that the Christian classicist and traditionalist believes in Original Sin. Liberalism relaxes rather than fortifies, he said.
It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards, something definite; and the destination is likely to present a very different picture when arrived at, from the vaguer image formed in imagination. By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified, by fostering a notion of getting on to which the alternative is a hopeless apathy, Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanized or brutalized control, which is a desperate remedy for its chaos.
Since the liberal is rootless, he has no standard by which to know what is art and what is junk. The Christian classicist, on the other hand, has one foot firmly planted in the past.
The historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order…
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead…
[W]e shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of [a poet's] work, may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously…
Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature, will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past.
Traditionalists like Eliot turned out to be great innovators, while the liberals turned anything and everything into “art,” which only succeeded in making nothing they did artistic.
When Eliot traveled to the University of Virginia and delivered his “After Strange Gods” speech, he did not believe that America would recover from Lincoln’s War, “which was a victory of plutocracy and industrialism against tradition and ruralism.” But he told his Southern audience that “the chances for the re-establishment of a native culture are perhaps better here than in New England. You are farther away from New York; you have been less industrialized and less invaded by foreign races; and you have a more opulent soil.” He praised the Southern agrarians for adopting a worthy cause against “the whole current of economic determinism” and usury.
During the same speech, he warned of the perfidious Jew:
Where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large numbers of free-thinking Jews undesirable. There must be a proper balance between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural development. And a spirit of excessive tolerance is to be deprecated.
He saw that land is intimately connected to race, so that the health of one depends on the other. The New Englander was spiritually debauched in large part because he lived in “half-dead mill towns.”
It is not necessarily those lands which are the most fertile or most favoured in climate that seem to me the happiest, but those in which a long struggle of adaptation between man and his environment has brought out the best qualities of both; in which the landscape has been moulded by numerous generations of one race, and in which the landscape in turn has modified the race to its own character.
So a sense of place is as important as purity of race in establishing traditions that can be passed to future generations.
What I mean by tradition involves all those habitual actions, habits, and customs, from the most significant religious rite to our conventional way of greeting a stranger, which represent the blood kinship of the same people living in the same place.
As Bolton puts it, industrialism and cosmopolitanism undermine culture by breaking the chain of tradition. It’s flabbergasting that Judeochristian impastors today believe that a generically “Christian” culture will suffice, when it never has at any time in history.
If Asia were converted to Christianity tomorrow, it would not thereby become a part of Europe.
Eliot knew that right political philosophy depends on right theology, and right economics depends on right ethics. We have none of this remaining in the world of horrors that the “Christians” have wrought. The new “citizens of the world” have become the slaves of the global capitalists.
Nations were important to Eliot because they allow for the stability of local, permanent communities, which are extended families, connected through the generations. Eliot observed that “the consciousness of ‘the nation’ as the social unit is a very recent and contingent experience.” This is not “genuine patriotism,” which exists only in a society “in which people have local attachments to their small domain and small community, and remain, generation after generation, in the same place.”
To have the right frame of mind…it is necessary that the greater part of the population, of all classes (so long as we have classes) should be settled in the country and be dependent upon it.
This is a description of the parish, a “unitary community” of a “religious-social” character. A parish, wrote Eliot, is “a small and mostly self-contained group attached to the soil and having its interests centred in a particular place, with a kind of unity which may be designed, but which also has to grow through generations. It is the idea, or ideal, of a community small enough to consist of a nexus of direct personal relationships, in which all iniquities and turpitudes will take the simple and easily appreciable form of wrong relations between one persona and another.”
Eliot did not share with his friend Ezra Pound a confidence in the cold machinery of Fascism to defend kith and kin from the Soviets. Nothing so republican and centralist could tame itself after saving farm, cottage, and church from the ravages of war. Eliot believed that only a return to Christ could “compel changes in our organization of industry and commerce and financial credit.” Whereas usury is a sin in the parish, democracy is simply “financial oligarchy.” The egalitarianism of democracy is “oppressive for the conscientious and licentious for the rest.” How prophetic! In 1945, he foresaw “centuries of barbarism,” with technology as its vehicle. Even at that early date, he knew that the “spiritual possessions” of Greater Europa, cultivated for thousands of years, were in “imminent peril.” He foresaw “the ideal of a world state in which there will, in the end, be only one universal world culture.”
My house is a decayed house,
And the jew squats on the window sill, the owner,
Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp,
Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London.
“Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue, tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil.” ~ Hutton Gibson (Mel’s father)
As corrupt as white people are, they appear to be the least corrupt in the world.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
“No, I can’t see my way to selling out to the new vested interests, Mr. Jorkin. I’ll have to be loyal to the old ways and die out with them if needs must.” ~ Mr. Fezziwig from A Christmas Carol
Watch this very interesting documentary about Walt Disney, unfortunately told from the perspective of America Lasters. “He was as bigoted a person as I’ve ever encountered,” says Bill Melendez of the Charlie Brown cartoons. Yes, Bill, he was a great man.
George W. Bush’s legacy is that Christianity is now almost extinct in the Middle East. Truman is credited with almost entirely wiping it out in Japan.
Fifty-seven percent of wetbacks are on welfare…I mean, the American Dream.
“I bring quadruple diversity to the Senate,” says the first she-coolie senator from Hawaii. “I’m a woman. I’ll be the first Asian woman ever to be elected to the U.S. Senate. I am an immigrant. I am a Buddhist. When I said this at one of my gatherings, they said, ‘Yes, but are you gay?’ and I said, ‘Nobody’s perfect.’”
Congressman Jim Summerville wrote, “I don’t give a rat’s ass what the black caucus thinks,” and was removed as chairman of the higher education subcommittee.
Glenn Beck is such a gasbag that he makes Rush Limbaugh sound like Solomon.
Speaking of Beck, the history of Neanderthals remains vague. Non-African populations now have what appears to be a one to four percent genetic contribution from Neanderthals, while African groups have no contribution whatsoever. But it’s very possible that humans and Nenderthals did not interbreed at all, and Neanderthals went extinct before humankind appeared. Last year, researchers from Great Britain and Russia demonstrated that Neanderthals were already extinct before humans made their way into Europe. If very limited miscegenation did occur, it was in the eastern portion of the Middle East, just as white people (Japhethites?) began to explore the world. Some are saying that Neanderthals introduced genes that have contributed to our immune systems, but this would be strange since we know that they could not have contributed light skin pigmentation, which allows northern-dwelling peoples to produce vitamin D.
The Knoxville Horror continues after all these years, as a judge allowed Vanessa Coleman to be visited by a local hairdresser so she could have a new look ahead of her trial. “It’s the first order of its kind I’ve seen,” said the sheriff. How are these animals still breathing?
Corey Olsen, the Tolkien Professor, has been recording podcasts on the works of Tolkien for several years, and his site is a gold mine. One very good place to start is his discussion on masters and servants. Dr. Olsen observes that there is no hint in Tolkien of the modern prejudice of equality. Because of this, Tolkien employs a very useful word that has become derisive in our time: condescension. Today it means arrogance and haughtiness, but it used to mean affability. Thus, Frodo condescends to treat Samwise as a trusted friend rather than merely a servant, even though the Gamgees were not from the same social class as the Bagginses, Tooks, and Brandybucks. (Christ’s calling of 12 disciples is a similar condescension to brothers rather than merely servants.) Because of inequality, Frodo demonstrates the benevolent love of a master, and Sam demonstrates the steadfast loyalty of a servant. As Dr. Olsen says, this is biblical: Of all races in Middle Earth, the hobbits are the least, and the least of the hobbits is Sam. But he became the greatest of all, in line with what the Bible says; the greatest among you shall be a servant. If Sam had lost his title as servant and had been recognized as merely another friend, it would have robbed him of the significance of his self-sacrifice. “I can’t carry the Ring, Mr. Frodo, but I can carry you.” Great works of literature must be rooted in biblical concepts that are now scorned in our benighted age. Tolkien shares with the medievals and even the ancients like Homer a hatred for “progress.” Instead, there is the recognition of entropy, which fits well with the reality of sin. But at the same time, throughout Tolkien’s works, there is the guiding hand of predestination. Even when events don’t play out as expected, they always ultimately result in good. Read what Iluvatar says to Ulmo to console him in his despair over the devil’s cacophony. Compare to Romans 8:28.
An important point that Dr. Olsen draws out in his college course on Tolkien is that the world of Faerie depicted in fantasy stories is not supernatural. Rather, those beings are to view us in the real-life world as supernatural, for we have the connection to God. We are higher beings than Tolkien’s elves. The world of Faerie gives us a frame of reference for what we can’t afford to lose in our own world. “Some things that should not have been forgotten were lost.” Or as Tolkien puts it in Mythopoeia, his classic rebuke of C.S. Lewis prior to Lewis accepting the value of myth and changing the literary world because of it: “of Evil this alone is deadly certain: Evil is.”
The fairy tale reveals truths that are otherwise too easily taken for granted. If we cease to believe in Faerie and replace it with Science, the most vital part of us dies, our imagination, and the world loses its magic. It loses everything that makes life real to us. The first act of the first man was an act of imagination, the naming of animals. Richard Dawkins and the Darwinists who square their jaws and boldly pretend that we are meaningless blobs of tissue in a cold, impersonal universe, without love, beauty, myth, or hope, have not made the world more real or themselves more wise. They are not brave; they are cowards who want to hide from the Light because it comforts them to cover their sins in darkness.
Tolkien answers the Darwinists in Mythopoeia:
I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends
if by God’s mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
The difference between Faerie and so-called Science (“If we don’t know it, it doesn’t exist”) is the same vast difference between the True God who compares Himself to the wind and the gods of the copybook headings. Christ came with parables, not equations.
Religion trains us to understand that nature is inscrutable, as the Twelve Southerners wrote. If we view nature as a rival to be neutered, we “lose the sense of nature as something mysterious and contingent. The God of nature under these conditions is merely an amiable expression, a superfluity…” You can see how this relates to Kinism and the doctrine that our bodies, our material beings and relationships, are not temporary; and that the heavenly state is not a new creation but a renewed creation.
Then looking on the Blessed Land ’twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Tolkien illustrates this very well in his story Leaf by Niggle, where two friends find that their flawed arts in one life are fully realized in the next, and that they need each other in community to realize what they could only strive fruitlessly to achieve on their own. Their art in the hereafter does not become something entirely new but rather is fulfilled, as the tree is to the leaf. Looking back, they conclude: “Things could have been different, but they could not have been better.”
According to the cult of Progress, we are better than our parents and know far more. Since the cultists equate wisdom with the storage of information, they find it very easy to dismiss what their parents and grandparents believed about everything.