Heir Apparent

Welcome back, folks. Ehud here again.

This is a podcast about Christ’s Kingdom, Kinism, and all things relative thereto. Kinism, of course, being that radical notion that the Great Commission does not abolish the nations, but rather, redeems them.

Today’s topic comes courtesy of an elder brother long since past, the renown “Father of Church History,” bishop of Caesarea, and Church Father, Eusebius.

In his late 3rd century magnum opus, Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius describes Christ’s Advent and its significance in terms that would strike abject horror in the hearts of modern churchmen:

“About the time of our Lord, agreeble to prophecy, those rulers ceased that had formerly governed the nation of the Israelites by regular succession, and Herod was the first foreigner that reigned over them.
At the time that Herod was king, who was the first foreigner that reigned over the Israelite people, the prophecy recorded by Moses received its fulfillment, viz. ‘That a prince should not fail of Judah, nor a ruler from his loins, until [H]e should come for whom it was reserved.’ [cited from the Septuagint] The same, he also shows, would be the expectation of the nations. The prediction was evidently not accomplished, as long as they were at liberty to have their own native rulers, which continued from the time of Moses down to the time of Augustus. Under him, Herod was the first foreigner that obtained the government of the Israelites. Since, as Josephus has written, he was an Idumean by his father’s side, and an Arabian by his mother’s … The government of the Judaeans, therefore, having devolved on such a man, the expectation of the nations was now at hand, according to prophecy; because with him terminated the regular succession of governors and princes, from the time of Moses …
From this time also, the princes and rulers of Judah, i.e., of the Judaean nation, ceasing, by a natural consequence, the priesthood, which had descended from a series of ancestors in the closest succession of kindred, was immediately thrown into confusion. Of this, you have the evidence of Josephus; who shows that when Herod was appointed king by the Romans, he no longer nominated the chief priests from the ancient lineage, but conferred the honour upon certain obscure individuals.”
~Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., ch.6

You hear that? That’s the sound of Joel McDurmon choking on a sixty dollar cohiba.

… continue reading at Faith & Heritage.

LOGAN: A Movie Review

Howdy again, folks. Ehud here.

This is a podcast about Christ’s Kingdom, Kinism, and everything relative thereto. Kinism being that radical notion that the Great Commission does not abolish the nations, but rather, redeems them.

Today’s topic is the movie Logan. And, spoiler alert, I will be divulging some details of the film.

I hadn’t expected to plunge into any movie reviews so soon after starting this podcast, but the story of Logan, a.k.a Wolverine, a.k.a James Howlett, strikes me worthy of exception.

First, let me say, as a very earthy character struggling to uncover his own roots, and hunted on all sides by agents of scientific government, the Wolverine character resonated with my teenage self. Even if I haven’t been a reader of comics for more than two decades, and Marvel has no doubt taken steps to denature the character since, his backstory is still compelling: born sometime in the 1800s in the Northwest wilderness, and always preferring less modernized out-of-the-way places like woodlands, small towns, and country road saloons, Logan walked the modern world a man born out of time …

Continue reading at Faith & Heritage

The White Christ

Hello again, Ehud here.

This is a podcast about Christ’s Kingdom, Kinism, and everything relative thereto. Kinism, of course, is the radical notion that the Great Commission does not abolish the nations, but rather, redeems them.

Today’s subject comes courtesy of all those Alienists who, crossing paths with troglodytes like us, reflexively bark, “Jesus wasn’t White, you know!”, “Jesus was a Brown Palestinian!”, “Jesus was a swarthy Jew,” or just as often, “Jesus was Black, you idiot!” And following close at the heels of this loving encouragement invariably come threats to life and limb and pronouncements of damnation and hellfire.

Remarkably, even if their positions on the matter are mutually exclusive of one another, these evangelists of the multicult seem to have little grievance amongst themselves. The one preaching a brown-Jewish Jesus has little apparent quarrel with the one preaching a Black Jesus, nor much the reverse. And neither seem to take qualm even with one preaching a Canaanite mongrel Jesus; and that despite being the substance of the Pharisees’ accusations against Christ’s claim as Messiah. Regardless, and in spite of these differences, they maintain a tepid ecumenism with respect to all but us. Their animus is principally reserved for one view–the same which happened to obtain throughout Christian history up to the last few years–that Jesus and the people of ancient Israel resembled Europeans. Not that they were Europeans, only that they resembled them. We, after all, have historically understood ourselves to be sons of Japheth rather than Shem.

The Alienists’ outrage at this thought suggests that they aren’t so much concerned with the question of what Israelites truly looked like as they are with the repudiation of what Christendom always believed them to have looked like.

And that realization implies much with respect to their motives as well, does it not? Failing all else, they are centrally committed to purging Whiteness from salvation history. They have come to presuppose Christianity to be at odds with Whiteness. Because, they have been converted from Christianity to the gnostic multicult, which holds Whiteness to be more or less synonymous with sin.

… For the rest of the transcript continue reading at Faith & Heritage.

The Rural Dictionary

RACIST: [REY-sis]

1)Anyone who is against big government, confiscatory taxation, activist judges, voter fraud, or government schools.

2)Anyone who believes in private property, free association, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, national borders, states’ rights, or self-determination.

3)Anyone who uses the Latin term for “black”.

4)Anyone who uses the English word ‘black’ in terms such as “blacklisted”, “black hole”, “black-balled”, “black sheep”, “black guard”, etc.

5)Anyone who acknowledges that Asians are good at mathematics and geometry, that Europeans create and maintain civilization, or that Blacks can run and/or jump well.

6)Anyone who doesn’t care for spicy food.

7)Anyone who speaks proper English, especially if they have a Southern accent.

8)Anyone who opposes social promotion based on race.

9)Anyone who judges a people according to the content of their character.

10)A Taxi driver.

11)A Police Officer.

12)A Fireman.

13)A Small Business owner.

14)Anyone living in rural America.

15)A non-Democrat.

16)Winter and/or water sports.

17)Anyone born before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

18)Anyone who upsets a non-white person.

19)Anyone opposed to the cultural and/or physical genocide of white people.

20)A white person.

Babel

Why doth the nations rage,
And imagine a vain thing?
A query lost upon the sage,
And upon kings;

As spake Noah his decree
O’er Ham, Japheth and Shem –
An oracle of the three,
And they who from them descend:

Shem be blessed:
A separate, holy seed;
To God they would’st attest –
Christ born o’ that breed.

Japheth be enlarged:
A forward and intrepid race;
The tents of Shem their charge
‘Neath the covenant of grace.

Ham no blessing received,
Though father Noah foretold
Servitude were’t the reprieve
O’ the the dusky fold.

Albeit one their source,
Lord Almighty the clans distinguished;
Dispatched He each to their course
That none be extinguished.

This were’t the doctrine handed down
Age upon unfolding age,
Taken by Christendom ’round
Scripture’s teaching page upon page;

But as men are wont to do,
Conspire they to fell God’s order;
Return they to Shinar anew,
for Babel slaying king and warder.

The eagle is plucked from his height,
Exalted are the jackal and rat;
Coveted is darkness, and spurned the light –
Japheth lay in irons with they he begat.

The gate is unhinged,
The breach is passed;
Our colors lay singed,
We suffer the lash.

Of our priests all are become liars:
With the bit and bridle of guilt
They turn us ‘gainst our sons and sires,
And revel in the blood they’ve spilt.

Their heresy were’t born on an Eastern breeze:
“Equality”, whispered the wind;
Japheth be brought to his ruddy knees
For being high-minded and fair-skinned.

No haven may he retain;
Outlawed are his parcel and tract,
Anathema is declared the alban strain
By treason’s red compact.

THE ALIENIST

I’m red, white an’ blue,
Born again through an’ through;
I ain’t fer fightin’ or givin’ sass,
But I’d blast the earth to beaded glass –
If instructed by a Jew.

Now, the Book says we’s all equal:
Blacks an’ Whites, Gals an’ Guys, Hens an’ Eagles;
I know it’s there somewhere,
But askin’ fer chapter an’ verse just ain’t fair;
In fact it’s downright evil!

I know fer a fact that God don’t hate.
If’n you say other I’ll report you to the state.
I’ll bully your employer till he fires yer ass,
I’ll have yer children taken by CPS;
If’n you think I won’t, brother, just you wait.

Worse than Barbarians

The Visigoth, though Barbarians, refused to harm any Christian or Christian churches in the sacking of Rome, yet America needlessly blew up untold numbers of our Christian kinsmen in two world wars along with the two Christian centers of Japan, all of the Christian churches in Iraq, and we aided Muslims in their slaughter of the Serbian defenders.

Moreover, we’re aiding and abetting Israel in their ongoing genocide of Christian Palestinians, and planning to lay waste to the single biggest Christian community in the mideast — Iran.

The Jews who control America are far more hateful of Christendom than the most brutish Hordes of the Rhine.

The Sixth Commandment in the WSC

Question 68 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks:

What is required in the sixth commandment?

Answer:

The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

And question 69 asks:

What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?

Answer:

The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.

Racial integration, Multiculturalism, Imperialism, and Propositional Nation Theory all clearly violate the Sixth Commandment.

Hebrews 12:7-16

Today’s reading is from Hebrews chapter 12:

7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

In verse 8 the word translated as ‘bastards’ is the Greek, nothos (Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon agrees with the Liddell & Scott Lexicon as they define it, “baseborn, adulterated, cross-bred”).

In the Old Latin Text A this word is rendered nothus (which the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary and Leverett’s Latin Dictionary define as, “of mixed-breed, a mongrel”).

The Old Latin Text J renders it as adulterinus (this, the Oxford Latin Dictionary defines as “Not thorough-bred, not full-blooded”).

And Old Latin Texts I and D use the term adulter (Oxford Latin Dictionary defines this as, “mixed, cross-bred”).

So it is that Thomas Holyoke’s Large Dictionary says that the Greek nothos and the Latin nothus are synonyms with the Hebrew word Mamzir and the Greek word moichikos. All of these words mean “mongrel”.

Luther therefore, being well aware of this, translated the word nothos in Hebrews 12:8 with the German word, bastarde and according to the English-Deutches, Deutsch-Englisches Worterbuch (1956), bastarde denotes “mongrels”.

Of course, as our modern English texts have conspicuously replaced the politically incorrect terms mongrel and bastard with the word illegitimate, the modern Luther bible has likewise replaced bastarde with the denatured term, Ausgestobene, meaning, “outcasts”.

Beyond the lexical matter however is the contextual reality that verse 9 appeals to an a fortiori argument from “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”. The author, arguing from lesser to greater, is substantiating the good of the lesser category, even if it is subservient to the greater category.

And the employ of such an argument is an obvious reference to and endorsement of the case Law of Deuteronomy 23:2. Far from nullifying or abrogating the prohibition against Bastards (mamzer/nothos/nothus/mischling/bastarde), the author calls upon it to justify his broader argument for purity in matters spiritual.

In short, the author of Hebrews presupposes the continuity of the national prohibition on bastards (mongrels) into the New Testament age as well as the reader’s responsibility to assume the same.

And Paul presupposes the same principle in II Corinthians chapter 2:

17For we are not as many, which corrupt [literally, adulterate] the word of God: but as of sincerity [literally, purely generated], but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

… and in II Corinthians chapter 6:

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And when one employs an a fortiori argument saying, “if A, how much more so B(?)”, this requires the reader to assume the validity of A first. Without that assumption, the a fortiori argument cannot work.

Which is to say that the New Testament Christians presupposed the continuing equity of the Old Testament Laws contra unequal yoking, ethnic adulteration, and racial mongrels.

And the author of Hebrews again undergirds this point as he continues (Heb.12):

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness [literally, separateness], without which no man shall see the Lord:15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled [literally, made impure]; 16Lest there be any fornicator[literally, sexually immoral] , or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

For what cause is Esau called a profane fornicator? Genesis 26 yields the answer:

34And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
 35Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

Of this, the footnote commentary of the Reformation Study Bible reads:

The story of the stolen blessing is framed by Esau’s marriage to Hittite women, and his parents’ resulting displeasure (27:46). Profane Esau showed his disregard for the covenant blessings by marrying daughters of the land …

So then, when we look back to the words of the author of Hebrews on the matter, it is clear that the entirety of the writer’s argument rests upon the assumption of the abiding equity and righteousness of the Old Testament prohibitions contra Miscegenation.
Hat-tip: the Lexical work of John Herrell was especially helpful to me in this study.

Leviticus 19:19

Today’s reading is from Leviticus 19.

19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Of this, Henry says:

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

Notice that he quotes Jesus (Mark 10:9) on the topic of human marriage as the corollary passage. And recall that St. Paul tells us that the laws regarding cattle haven’t chiefly to do with cattle, but with human relations (1 Cor. 9:9-10).

Sir William Blackstone informs us of the definition of the word ‘Monster’ as it is employed by Henry to refer to the offspring of diversely gendered unions:

“A monster … hath no heritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage … But our law will not admit a birth of this kind to be such an issue as shall entitle the husband to be tenant by the courtesy; because it is not capable of inheriting. And therefore, if there appears no other heir than such a prodigious birth, the land shall escheat to the lord.” ~Sir William Blackstone’s Comm. on the Law, Vol.II, Chpt.XV

As with the category of a ‘Bastard’, Blackstone tells us that Monsters are, legally speaking, “nullius filius, kin to nobody”.