Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2008

Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines government thusly:

1. Control; restraint. Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.
2. The exercise of authority; direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men in communities, societies or states; the administration of public affairs, according to established constitution, laws and usages, or by arbitrary edicts. Prussia rose to importance under the government of Frederick II.
3. The exercise of authority by a parent or householder. Children are often ruined by a neglect of government in parents.
Let family government be like that of our heavenly Father, mild, gentle and affectionate.

Webster clearly defines government as a concept innately caught up with family and kin-ties. Government is then, at root, a family affair. And as one would then expect, he defines the related term “Protector” as a matter of kin-ties as well:

One that defends or shields from injury, evil or oppression; a defender; a guardian. The king or sovereign is, or ought to be, the protector of the nation; the husband is the protector of his wife, and the father of his children.

But where did Noah Webster acquire such clannish notions of governance? Deut.17: 14-15 reads:

“When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him a king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one from amongst thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

Samuel Rutherford comments on this passage in his magnum opus, Lex, Rex:

“Saul was chosen out of the tribes according to the law of God; Deut. Xvii., They might not choose a stranger;…The law provided one of their own, not a stranger to reign over them; (pg.8) …God hath made them heads of tribes and princes of the people; (pg.120) …Power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven, but a birthright of the people borrowed from them;…The king is a relative.”(pg.123)

Belloc would go on to further Rutherford’s exposition and propound even upon the title of Rutherford’s work:

“Now what is the meaning of that word Rex? It is usually translated by our word “King.” But it does not here mean anything like what our word “King” means when we apply it today…Centuries and centuries before, indeed a thousand years before, the word Rex had meant the Cheiftan…The Rex of, say, Batavian auxiliaries, the commander of the Batavian Corps, would probably be a man of Batavian blood, with hereditary position,…” (pg.80-81) which was extenuated by, “underlying national feelings, older than the Empire, Gallic, Brittanic, Iberian;…” (pg.85) Which is to say that the concept of regency (i.e. federal headship) originates endemically in the context of tribe and family. (Europe and the Faith)

In light of these redoubled definitions drawn ultimately from both the created order and biblical attestation, we are without excuse for even entertaining the notion of promoting a non-White to the highest office in the land—the Presidency. A man such as Barack Obama is wholly unrepresentative of our people and is on such a basis, according to scripture, precluded from office.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution manifests itself as the codification of this principle in American law but the Babelites would have us believe that, “No one knows exactly what the nation’s Founders had in mind when they wrote that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.’” (John W. Dean, legal Columnist and Councilor to the President)

Mr. Dean could not be more mistaken. As proven by the 1986 study at the University of Houston, atleast sixty-four percent of our American Constitution is derived either from the book of Deuteronomy or from commentaries on the book of Deuteronomy. The ‘natural born’ clause was contiguous with the traditional canon and common laws; moreover, it is a mirror reflection of the biblical Law back of them.

But it goes further still: If, as Rutherford says, the King must be a relative, borrowing the parental authority invested by God in a certain people, it is then presupposed that ‘the people’ in question must be of a distinct and identifiable continuum of relation. The biblical Law of regency then necessitates homogeneity. If ‘a people’ be undefined genealogically, no federal authority could be said to accurately or appropriately represent them.

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.” (Augustine~ City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16)

If kin-ties be too dilute or indefinite the chain of authority (individuals in families in communities under their Elder-representatives) is impeded. Such impediments not only obstruct social coherence but also erode claims of lawful jurisdiction. Heterogeneity thus encourages lawlessness both from above and from below. A regent-representative who be of remote blood to the people is by definition a usurper and a tyrant. He can be nothing else.

Even the ‘natural born’ clause was itself to work synergistically with and within the context of the original concept of American citizenship, which was open only to Whites, as the Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) plainly reads:

“That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character…”

Not only is Obama unfit for President, he’s unfit for citizenship. And if unfit for citizenship, how much less is he to be regarded as a fit representative of our people! One such as himself may lawfully attain no status beyond the common law title of “Denizen”—i.e. a foreigner habitually dwelling in our country.

Of course, someone like Mr. Dean or Barack himself would likely invoke the 14th Amendment as the legitimation of non-White citizenship but this is all just smoke and mirrors because the 14th Amendment is nothing but legal fiction top to bottom. It was never ratified by the states as is required in the Constitution itself. And it runs contra the common law biblical principles back of the ‘natural born’ clause. The 14th Amendment, if maintained, not only violates the Constitution but actually invalidates it. You cannot posit any doctrine, legal or otherwise, with the force of law if that principle undermines the broader continuum of the law or the foundational principles thereof. Such a self-refuting addition is in essence, the dissolving of our national covenant.

I conclude this article with God’s declared outcome for all nations which parcel off the birthrights of their children to the lowest bidder, for mere mammon:

“Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength in your hand… So you shall be driven mad because of the sight which your eyes see… You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity… “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. ‘Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.’”
(Deut. 28:32-45)

The very idea that our people are now entertaining the notion of promoting a Denizen such as Obama over us and our posterity is an ominous bell-weather. It means that the course is almost run. This multicult dystopia is nearing its ultimate objective—our destruction.

Nations such as the one we are becoming do not come to any good end. They simply end.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Every night when my boys recite their catechism we end the session with a family catechism all our own:

I ask, “Who are we?”

They respond, “We’re Macleods.” (Pseudonym)

I continue, “And whom do we fear?”

They return, “No man, only God.”

The order of this ritual is essential if admittedly simplistic; in order for us to find objective reference to our identity we must have back of it an absolute and objective Creator who knows us objectively. And in order for us to know the Creator, we must be granted by Him a knowledge of ourselves. The two, knowledge of God and knowledge of self are in this sense simultaneous because the true understanding of self requires relationship with God who knows us perfectly.

Descartes had it wrong then when he said, “Cogito ergo sum.” (I think therefore I am) His formulation should have been, “Aside from God I cannot be, nor could I think but since I am and do, God is and because He is, I too am.” (I’ll skip the Latin on that one.)

And as is necessary in the equation of self-knowledge we are immediately brought to the unavoidable fact that we are not autonomous beings. Our existence is one of dependence—dependence chiefly upon Christ Himself but penultimately upon a vast host of lesser entities in various categories of association—families, tribes, nations in their churches—all under God.

The alternative to this very integrated and organic view of identity is not the individualistic liberation lauded by Seculars and modern Evangelicals; it is sheer Solipsism. For if we opt to cast off all reference of proximity to the lesser authorities (the family), we, like Hansel and Gretel (another family ritual—the bedtime story), lose our bearings as birds eat the trail of breadcrumbs meant to guide us home. Even worse, once the design and order of the trail is lost we tend to wander about in the forest, steered only by the compass of our own whim.

But as the deepening shadows of the wilderness bespeak our rudderless sorrow we wax desperate for the ease and solace of our home…or perhaps any home. Once we lose reference to our trailmarkers we are easily enticed by the isolated and inexplicable gingerbread house which promises an end to worry and an end to our longings for the path home. Our autonomous individualization is completed by the hedonism of the wicked Confectioner’s cup and board.

But as with Hansel and Gretel, we learn that our wanderings, disobedience to our parents and our perishable trailmarkers end not in a superior faith of gumdrop revelries but in the oven of the Witch’s hellfire.

“Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Exo.20:12)

The implications of this Law are manifold:
We must first acknowledge the eternal triune God without which we have no reason to take these words as meaningful.

Second, we must acknowledge our creaturely recipient status and the defining of mankind wholly in terms of the God who made us.

Thirdly, we embrace the authoritative function of familial descent as bearing upon us personally—without which we would lose reference to our place in any biblically coherent social order.

Fifth, our objective blood ties and the honoring thereof correspond directly to our own security in the lands which we inhabit.

Sixth, we acknowledge the implied curse therein should we fail to uphold this Law in all of its previously stated implications.

That is, if we do not pay the honor due our parents, we will be divested, disinherited and every bit as misled as Hansel and Gretel. The end of that autonomous path may offer all the sweet carnality of the Witch’s cottage but the transgression of our proscribed bounds leads ultimately to the maw of the hellish furnace.

What do you say we just push the Witch in and go home?

Read Full Post »

In 1946 Dr. Elton Trueblood wrote:

“…The reason for this is rooted deeply in human nature. We naturally form into groups and find our best life in reasonably small fellowships. Like-minded fellowships in different committees strengthen one another in conscious loyalty to a heritage…we do it in everything…

It is very curious, indeed, that a man who takes for granted the existence of separate organizations…should profess to be shocked by the fact that Christians are organized in a similar way…

Perhaps the most beneficent effect of sectarian ties arises from the way in which denominational religion may help people to glory in their own heritage. In short, it helps them to honor their fathers and mothers. Personally, I have always been greatly strengthened by the fact that my people on both sides have been Quakers for more than two centuries. This has never tempted me to despise non-Quakers or to suppose that other heritages are less honorable, and it has not hindered my loyalty to the Church Universal any more than my loyalty to my state has hindered my loyalty to my nation. What helps me is participation in a tradition and a noble tradition. Since I did not choose it, I am not free to let it down. I have a heavy responsibility to see to it that the torch shall not fall from my hands, before I pass it on to those who come after me…

It is widely agreed that character is formed, not primarily by overt moral teaching, but far more by the sense of belonging. People grow by virtue of social membership…Conscious membership is the most powerful single stimulus in all human behavior. The mere notion of sharing in the life of a particular family may be a great incentive to better living. There are many who remember all their lives the special standards of their families, so that they can say, when a crisis arises, ‘Browns don’t do that.’…

Charles Morgan speaks for many of his age when he writes, with powerful tenderness, of the village church of his boyhood:

‘…Left to oneself, one might have chosen the garden, not the sermon, and yet, when the decision was made and the little procession had set out, the power of ritual asserted itself—not yet the ritual of the Church, but that of the fields, the bells, the angle of the sun, of other figures approaching down the convergent lanes of the hill opposite. In the churchyard, if the five minute bell had not yet begun, there was a pause for neighborly conversation, and it was possible to wander among the graves and read again an inscription which, long ago, had been learned by heart. Inside the church itself was a mingling of daylight and lamplight, a pallor of glass which would presently darken, a low gleam of stone and wood; and all these things bespoke the hour and the month, and were part of the order of the seasons.’

There are many, slightly younger than we are, who, unfortunately, never had such experiences. Some of them were victims of the awful heresy that children are fit only for Sunday School and are not able to profit by participation in grown-up peoples’ services, with the attendant sense of belonging. Some were the victims of secularization of our whole society. Many are the children of parents who have despised their own heritage, supposing it too narrow and cramping…The parents, being a bit ashamed of the narrow minded churches of their own youth, have given their children none.”
(pgs.55-59, Foundations of Reconstruction, chapter entitled, Respect for Inheritance)

No matter how often I read this passage I’m floored every time. Tribalism: Filial as much as ecclesiastic—his words are laden with a sense of identity and its resultant custodial responsibilities of the covenant.

He even attends to the shared experience of localist folk rites and the way in which such continuums of experience incline the affections of a people to the land and to their ancestors. When we maintain our traditions and preserve our past we surely engender a greater sense of connectedness with and a greater love for our mothers and fathers. And it is not then surprising to realize that it also cuts back the other direction—in order to honor our mothers and fathers we find ourselves obligated to promote the very state of affairs which will incline our hearts toward our ancestors. And what better to stoke those fires of familial love and honor than to share in their experiences, seeing the world through their eyes, thinking their thoughts and feeling what they felt?

Throughout the era of Southern Reconstruction we see one of the greatest examples of communal solidarity ever recorded—a people beaten down but not beaten, integrally united against a sea of enemies. John S. Williams comments:

“…in all soberness and candor, to ask yourselves how and why we escaped the evils which befell others from identical causes, under similar, though not identical, conditions? What prevented the Africanization of the South? We escaped, but those of you, even no older than I am, will remember by what a slender thread we held to safety. You will remember the ten long years of so-called reconstruction which made the four long years of war itself seem tolerable by comparison, the ten long years during every day and every night of which Southern womanhood was menaced and Southern manhood humiliated… The brethren of our own race, in our own country – the country whose pen had been Jefferson, whose tongue had been Patrick Henry, and whose sword had been Washington – were against not only us but the race itself – its past, its future – were seemingly bent only on two things – our humiliation as a race in the present, our subordination as a race in the future… There is no grander, no more superb spectacle than that of the white men of the South standing from ’65 to ’74 quietly, determinedly, solidly, shoulder to shoulder in phalanx, as if the entire race were one man, unintimidated by defeat in war, unawed by adverse power, unbribed by patronage, unbought by the prospect of present material prosperity, waiting and hoping and praying for the opportunity which, in the providence of God, must come to overthrow the supremacy of “veneered savages,” superficially “Americanized Africans” – waiting to reassert politically and socially the supremacy of the civilization of the English-speaking white race.”

It is rightly observed that if not for the strong communal identity and shared faith of the South they would’ve inevitably met the same fate as had the Europeans in Haiti—death by evisceration, bludgeoning and emolation. But when the right of self-preservation was denied them they did not demure themselves; though stripped of any access to the courts or institutional powers of civil redress they arose in unison, a nation of Samsons, Shamgars and Ehuds, saying as John Knox had before them:

“If Princes will not wield the sword justly, we shall pick it up in their stead.”

And wield it they did. “But how?”, asks the modern—how did they who were so deprived and disenfranchised of the general state function maintain Christian order? They had about them the virtue of Christian self-governance—that’s how.

Rev. Alexander Gregg writes of whom Dr. Palmer called the “virtuous and exceedingly clannish” Welsh settlers of the Carolinas:

“Such was the scene presented by this infant band of brothers in the early days of their history, with no court of justice in their midst to which conflicting claims and angry disputes might be referred, and no frowning gaol for the reception of the criminal. Nor were they needed…the voice of society, though newly formed in this southern home, was potent enough to silence the voice of the blasphemer, and make the evil-minded man pause in his ways. Simplicity of character seems to have been one of the most marked traits of the people; a virtue which has been transmitted through succeeding times to their descendants…these virtues were strongly impressed upon the community they established,…

The Welsh brought with them to a new country those marked features for which their ancestors were known long before.” (Gregg, History of the Old Cheraws)

So then, it is clear that closer proximity of relation and continuity of experience among a Christian people further incline them to neighborly sympathies, social coherence and the assumption of responsibility for the community at large.

Like the early American Puritans before them, they settled upon a Theonomy at Common Law in which God’s Law was upheld and sentences declared by representative Elders of the community with appointed juries of one’s peers after the tradition of Magna Charta.

Nowadays of course, “a jury of one’s peers” has been stood upon its head to mean “impartial witness” but its original and traditional meaning was “a group with vested interest”. ‘A jury of one’s peers’ was by definition a group composed of relatives and neighbors of the accused. A community thereby would accept the inevitable consequences of their own rulings; if they exonerated a murderer they would still have to live next door to that individual and they would be subject to possible indictment themselves. In this way, those responsible for any possible subversion of justice would be directly impacted by their own malfeasance.

Conversely, if the community dispensed a death sentence where none was warranted, they could be convicted of murder themselves or at minimum, suffer the preservation and emboldening of Murderers and Pedophiles amongst them.

And really, there’s no such thing as an ‘impartial witness’ this side of heaven anyway; everyone has their biases. Atleast in the old localist jury concept the bias was with an aim to preserve one’s own territory and one’s own children.

The revamped theory of jurisprudence on the other hand moves any trial for a Black out of a White area because it is assumed that the Black could never receive a fair hearing before a White jury but it is that very assumption which will incline the hundred-mile-removed jury (cherry-picked for their multicult sympathies) to dismiss the charges against said Black! And after the court has deemed all of the Murderer’s neighbors to be racists bent on entrapment, the exonerated butcher returns to the same neighborhood to wreak even more havoc. This is disaster by design.

But from the days of the early Church forward Christians have in certain seasons of necessity, set up their own courts as a matter of self-defense against Tyrants and their minions. This is such a season.

And the nature of the resistance which we take up is not a Libertine one, as so many allege, it is rather a Theocentric one prosecuted in a republican manner (by duly appointed or naturally representative men of the community) in acknowledgement of the charge lain upon them by almighty God to protect hearth, home and blood. This mantle does not rest lightly—as Dr. Thornwell said, “We can but tremble when we realize that the blood of the wicked is required by our hand.” (The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell by Dr. Palmer)

But if we maintain faithfully, in governance of ourselves individually, familially and communally, we will be prepared to say with Louis Beam in The Last Trench:

“…we are here! We fight for the principals of our forefathers — justice, liberty and freedom from oppression. We see the brutal power of the foe, the guns, black boots, badges of federal tyranny… They stand to our front, once again gloating in their power, strength and numbers. But know, reader, they are weak miserable cowardly men – dogs, fit only to lick the boots of our ancestors. We fear them not. In all their strength and might they have not the power to make us quit the trench of liberty.
Today’s servants of federal tyrants cannot crush the spirit that resides in our soul from a thousand previous generations. It is a spirit that cries out for freedom for our children and liberty for our people. While today’s minions of evil may rule from ocean to ocean, they will never rule our minds and hearts. For we are in the last trench and will not yield to the hated foe. For unlike them, we are prepared to give the last full measure for the principals of our fathers…
Let then the foe close upon us. Come! We await thee! Look into our faces and see the defiance that greets you. And know; know with all your miserable cowardly fear — that we will fight to the last desperate breath. Many there shall be among you who will join better men than yourselves before the Throne of Judgment.
We look across the distance now and see our enemies. And lo! As we look down this trench that we have dug with our lives, we see others! We are not alone! Others, like us, now look at the foe of liberty with grim determination. Stout hearts there are many, and they beat in strength with ours. From the mountains, the valleys, from shore to shore, the folk will once again send its sons to fight for freedom. The last trench this time is filled with Northern patriot, Southern Rebel, Western Farmer and American Red Bloods from the heartland. Each in his own mind has sworn: “Liberty or Death —Live Free or Die!”…
To each and every foe of freedom and liberty in the federal government, let this message soak to your miserable bones: Your threats, your mistreatment, your unceasing attempts at intimidation, your arrogant abuse and slander of all that is holy, your raw brutality upon the helpless, your vulgar use of armed might upon the weak, your shedding of innocent blood, your rushing to a new world order of old world tyranny, none of this will save you from the justice you so richly deserve. Understand — you miserable pestilence upon mankind — that we shall do our duty as our ancestors before us. Know that we realize that we are now in the last trench. So step forward! Come! Our Colours await you — you need but take them from us…
Blood, honour, soil, faith and folk. Know ye then, enemies of liberty, that the last trench insures eternal memory and glory to those who stand in it. While granting to those who attack it only a miserable empty death for filthy lucre’s sake.
Come now our enemies before us! Drink of this cup we have prepared for you! And as you in your brutish force move toward us — understand that while we are in the last trench — you are in your last moments. Victory or Death — Live free or Die!”

Read Full Post »

There’s a boy I know; his mother claims to know precisely who his father is but the paternity tests say otherwise. Though the child had no hand in wrongdoing himself, we haven’t any terms for someone like him which aren’t negative —“Illegitimate”, “Fatherless”, “Bastard”, etc. Before such an individual even had the chance do to good or ill in his life his very existence was and remains still to the detriment of society. The birth of such an individual is a sign of infidelity to God and the result of familial treason; like ripples in a pond the boy’s illegitimacy carries its caustic effect to the broader society. His fractured heritage abbreviates his psychological connections to siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents and even the confirmed consanguity of his mother. His disconnect from one parent leads to disconnect from the other. Thus the curse laid upon the boy by his mother eventually returns to her. Through the ruptured loyalty of his mother toward her family, his loyalties are likewise naturally diminished. Family becomes in them a term without definition— wholly meaningless aside from the pain that it doubtlessly evokes.

But as much as exists an innate social impediment in the mind of the child himself, there exists the same dissociative impulse on the part of the family—everyone knows the boy is not one of them—not fully. Blood calls to blood and despite the most charitable efforts and self-rebuke the family all well feel the impact of the boy’s illicit status. Even if they determine to pretend otherwise, they know he is not a legitimate heir. While they love and pity the child they still regard those children born not of any “spurious issue” as more representative of their family, their people. And how not? There was no consecration of the union from which the boy sprang. The family gave not their blessing to the man who mixed himself so intimately with them. They knew not even what sort of folk they were embracing in the reception of the child.

So it is that some children, through no fault of their own, become a curse to community, corrosive to family, as they ultimately are not of said community nor are they consecrated heirs.

But beyond the subject—or more accurately, expanding on the subject—all of the dissociative effects which follow such a scenario apply equally to the offspring of mixed-race unions. Someone may ask, “What possible threat could so and so’s half-breed children pose? I mean really, his wife is ‘one of the good ones’ (a seeming exception—a non-white who meshes well with Whites on a social level) so the whole issue is moot isn’t it?”

First, for a White man or woman to give the best of their strength away to another people is itself an act of infidelity, familial treason (in violation of both the fifth and seventh commandments). It destroys the inheritance which we are entrusted and commissioned to hold sacred. This principle applies as much in the scenario of the ‘good ones’ as to the rest. To claim immunity to this principle on the basis that the rare exception “really likes” Whites is to deny the principle in every occasion because all miscegenated unions must find some meager continuum of compatibility (on a libidinous level atleast) between individuals inorder for them to have married in the first place. Really, the argument for ‘the exception’ only begs the question and if granted, dissolves the principle in every instance, exceptional or otherwise because it declares all mixed unions to be ‘the exception’. It is an example of an is/ ought fallacy: What is be what ought be.

Second, mixed-race children suffer in every instance from divided loyalties. Such a bifurcation of identity in the psychology of an individual never leaves them with an equal investment in both cultures—rather, it forces them to choose between the two. This is not some vain assertion; we have the testimony of history and our own observation in this matter. Mulattos see themselves as Black, and upper class Black at that. They are categorically inclined to their Black parentage whether or not they knew the Black parent at all! The reasons for this phenomenon may be no more complex than the observable morphology of the child: Since Black genes are what we call “dominant genes” they self-express more than the White “recessive genes” in the appearance of the mulatto therefore such children self-identify in keeping with the prerogative of the “dominant genes”. Moreover, there would also be certain racial habits of thought and behavior passed in those same irrepressible genes also leading to a strong sense of self-identification in their Black parentage. But it is not the Mulatto only who considers them black; everyone does because they are obviously not White.

But, someone will say, “That’s stupid. If you raise a child right, they’ll share your culture and your ethics; they’ll have the same heroes, they’ll read the same books, they’ll sing the same songs and love the things you love. They will be one of your people.” But this is just naïveté or perhaps some form of cognitive dissonance—either way, it isn’t realistic. Statistics uniformly prove the antithesis. Mixed children of every society demonstrate themselves from an early age to be the inordinate representatives of every pathology known. Some studies even suggest that their antisocial bent surpasses that of homogenous Blacks—and that is saying something.

Neither is the Youngian emphasis on psycho-environmental conditioning a Christian sentiment: It is a clear expression of the Behaviorist theories promulgated in the assumption that people are the sum product of their environment, without any innate proclivities, good or ill. Such an assertion is the denial of the divinely revealed composition of man in scripture; in its denial of original sin as a heritable trait. It is Gnostic and in large measure, Atheistic.

By contrast, the traditional and biblical Faith has always positively affirmed the reality of both components, nature and nurture, without contradiction.

But someone will object, saying, “Yes, but the nurture of which Christians speak is the supernatural sort and as such the gospel overthrows any and all natural predispositions.” The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is actually an endorsement of Sinless Perfectionism, an absurd, if somewhat persistent heresy redundantly shown to be at variance with scripture. Even if interpreted as generously as possible we would take them to mean that though different races and mixed-raced folk admittedly have different innate levels of criminal pathology, the gospel would kinda’ level everyone out, so to speak(But no one really believes that.). At best then, they embrace the obvious lie of Social Marxism as being a result of the gospel. But if the sum of our sanctification is Egalitarianism, we are still just talking about Sinless Perfectionism because in a system where no individual can be said to be more culpable than another, all are either declared equally innocent or equally guilty; and clearly, Christians will not, in light of Christ’s propitiation, regard themselves’ as guilty so neither can they regard the worst African savage as guilty. But that’s just to say that they often lapse into calling evil good and good evil. Its hanging or firing squad, they can take their pick.

Nomatter what alternative rationalizations modern churchmen propose inorder to retain their multicult ethos, they always wind up uttering heresy in defense. That’s because multiculturalism is a Humanist Ashera pole to which the modern church has tethered itself. Accordingly, they cannot posit such a revolutionary cosmology without committing one of any number of the seminal historic heresies. But depite this obvious fact, any who approach without speaking the sanctioned shibboleths is condemned—condemned for not sharing in Jeroboam’s philanthropy. In this sense then, egalitarianism is declared to be the summation of God’s Law whether or not the Law itself bears any resemblance to such things, bringing us back to the granddaddy of all heresies, Pharisaism. Pharisaism is the forerunner of all heresy because its sublimation of the Law was really the attempt by a lesser agent to be more moral than God and that is precisely what Egalitarian social theory proposes..

Though the subjects of the Bastard and the Mullato seem at first blush separate, the Bible treats them as only minor variations from one another—both encompassed by the English word “Illegitimate” (Mamzer, Deut.23) defined in Strong’s Concordance as “One alienated; a mongrel: Bastard”.

The NIV terms it “One born of a forbidden marriage”.

The two scenarios (Bastard & Mulatto) overlap in both the preceding motives and the effects which follow. Both originate with the rebellious denial of boundaries, national, communal and familial. And both ultimately bear their bitter fruit of declension, disassociation, estrangement and disinheritance. For this reason, the term, “Mamzer”, regards both the Bastard and the Mulatto as equally illegitimate. And so too is it the reason that most mullatos are born to unwed mothers; where one boundary is expendable so too is the other.

On the subject of the family Rushdoony has accordingly said:

The trustee family has the most power and scope. 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 trustee family is the basic social power … The head of the family is not the head in any personal sense but as family head and as a trustee of powers.3

Our blood, as a matter of lineage, is so intimate a matter of inheritance as to cast the deepest shadows over any baubles or even the most cherished heirlooms. Nothing handed down to us is so personal or so essential to our identities as the blood covenant entrusted to us by our forebears.

To honor our Mothers and Fathers is a keeping of the Faith and rebellion against one is a rebellion against the other.

All that said, whether one has certain issues with my exegesis or the rhetorical arguments woven throughout, I can say confidently that any honest and lucid individual knows that mixed-race parentage puts additional stumbling blocks before the resultant offspring. Everyone knows this. On the assumption of this one fact alone it is clear that mixed marriage is sin because subjecting your children to such emotional, social and psychological hardships of identity unnecessarily is selfish in the extreme. Everyone knows this on an intuitive level because the Law is written upon the hearts of men.

Read Full Post »