Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2008

This weekend past I attended a birthday party for the son of an old friend. I knew the boy’s parents from an Orange County church which I frequented while in High School and College. While the ecclesiastic liberalism of that congregation drove me elsewhere more than a decade ago, I always took their social moors as fairly conservative but this get-together bludgeoned such thoughts from my head.

At our entrance of the party I recognized many familiar faces but they had since married and expectedly, they brought spouses in-tow. Out of the twelve couples present only three were homogenous unions. This was more than a little surprising since their home congregation was as lily white as they come; in order for such a demographic shift to have occurred, all of those young Republicans had to go a-bridegrooming amongst Democrats, spurning not just those of their own race, but their own families, culture, traditions, politics and those of weddable age in their own church. There had to have been a purposeful seeking of those unlike themselves. (Atleast four other white men were in attendance but all appeared to be homosexuals.)

But I tried to put aside my sociological musings so as to enjoy the party. No sooner had I done this than I noticed one young white woman with her Arab boyfriend—she had a moon and crescent tattooed on her neck. She had apparently been subdued to the religion of her Ishmaelite paramour. My spirit groaned within me and my teeth hurt from the unconscious flexing of my jaw.

This too I eventually shook off.

I then settled into conversation with some familiar faces, catching up on the whens and hows. As the subject rolled around to the topic of children I learned that while all of the mixed unions were birthing their own, two of the three homogenous white couples had chosen to adopt. Both said that they made a point of requesting only Non-White babies. One woman even sneered with disgust as if the words tasted bad in her mouth, “We were hoping for some beautiful South American or African babies, y’know, like a little United Nations family. The last thing we wanted was some little white babies.” The last words were accompanied by a grimace and an awkward gesticulation of her hands to further communicate her revulsion at the unclean thing; and another white woman standing near nodded her head sympathetically. A friend who knows my sentiments in such matters quickly filled the space in the conversation because he knew that I would not let such words pass idly. But the woman went on to explain that the adoption agency placed two toe-headed white children in her care instead of the rainbow family for which she’d hoped. She was manifestly disappointed. And my anger quickly turned to sorrow for those children who would grow up in the shadow of their mother’s disgust at their identity.

But really, as invested as I may be in the matter of Japhetic continuance, I would have been just as appalled were a black woman to say that ‘the last thing [she] wanted was little [black] babies’. And in that circumstance I daresay everyone would have shared my outrage because everyone would’ve seen it as a hateful pledge against the woman’s own…but it’s a different story when it comes to white children. As Sam Dickson has pointed out, White people in every White country around the world hold tens of thousands of meetings in organized committees every single day to figure out how to help Non-Whites; while conversely, no such meetings are organized anywhere by Non-Whites out of concerns for the rapidly declining numbers of white people, who singularly represent the philanthropic impulse in the world. In short, European philanthropy and self-effacement are actually working toward the extinction of such attitudes via their self-sterilization, mixed-marriages, and overall Marxist-inured hatred of their own kind. The modern “Judeo-Christianity”, in its fusion of non-congenial philosophies, has been swayed to a resolution of self-extinction through amalgam. The more successful they are, the less of them there will be and the less of them there are the less philanthropy there will be as well.

This world-wide self-expungement is the result of a pernicious heresy; and this particular heresy is unique to Whites: In its secular manifestation it proposes that the Bourgeois status of the European is gross inequality which the white man has a responsibility to equalize through all manner redistributive social and economic fusions with non-congenial groups.

In the religious milieu this initiative is spurred by a self-sacrificial Christ complex which overtly maximizes duties to those remote to us at the expense of those closest to us. Even Emerson, that great Transcendental Abolitionist, has recognized this strange impulse when he says “Your great love afar is spite at home.”

But nowadays the church embraces even the Secular-Marxist drive as contiguous with the Christological one, as if they composed a greater coherence in tandem than apart. But of course, such is not the case—the two are wholly insoluble with the Christian Faith.

But this is all caught up with a basic Perspectivalism in which Whites presuppose their own superiority by virtue of their seemingly innate status as “the blessed of the earth”. Their dual association of Christ with the conquering hero and suffering servant manifests in their social aims as a personal masochism animated by a Crusader’s spirit.

This is quite different than the inclination of Negroes and others to see Christ strictly as the suffering servant-Revolutionary. Where Whites are inclined to masochistic self-crucifixion (i.e. self-atonement), Non-Whites are disposed to a Sadistic torture of their white benefactors (a sacrificial atonement by proxy). Where the Liberal White’s self-deification seeks to redefine justice, the Non-white rages at their white demigods for failing to save them. Though pathologically distinct, the impulse toward self-atonement exists as much in one as in the other.

But as much as Whites may be inclined to their own perspectival sins, we did not always capitulate to these morose inclinations. We once monolithically denounced such attitudes as deluded Jacobinism and Marxist Utopianism. As Rev. Wayne Rogers has said:

“The ministers to our forefathers had the bible but not socialism; and for them segregation was compatible with Christianity. The only difference is Socialism. The Bible hasn’t changed; and if socialism is omitted, segregation and Christianity are still compatible.”

Rev. Rogers rightly sees the modern social theory as having seduced us from the biblical concept of responsibility relative to familial proximity as espoused by the Apostle:
“If anyone does not take care of his own, especially those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. …” (I Tim 5:8)

Even the proposing of this verse as a call to tribal Patriotism draws many an Evangelical near to a renunciation of the Faith but they generally demand some proof external to that verse to validate the perspicuity of ‘his own’ as extending to ‘his people’ rather than just ‘aunts, uncles and cousins’ or ‘Believers’. Needless to say, there is no hint in the Apostle’s writing at resticting this principle to cousins; but to further the point I refer by analogia de fide, to John the Theologue, who says: “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” (John 1:11) At which point I ask, since John is using the same idiom in the same manner as Paul, is he saying that Jesus’ ‘aunts, uncles and cousins’ rejected Him? No, because Elizabeth and John (the Baptist) embraced Him. Is John then saying that ‘Beleivers’ rejected Him? No, that would make nonsense of the whole thing—He is clearly speaking of Jesus’ people, His “Kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:11) over whom Paul would lament.

And if one’s ‘own’ extends to one’s people (and how could it not?), we have a duty toward the physical and religious preservation of our race as contiguous to the call of familial consanguity. Your race is your extended family and the neglect of it is a violation of the fifth and seventh commandments which propound our duties toward family. This is what Rushdoony calls the Trustee Family. It was the Christian world order for the first 1,950 years of the Church.

So then, if Paul says that any who take no care of their own people are worse than unbelievers, John has supplied us with a living example in the Jews who denied the just and rightful King of their people—Jesus. In this way we see exactly how the Jews’ denial of ‘[their] own’ was an obstruction to any true form of Patriotism; afterall, the term ‘Patriotism’ is etymologically derived from the Latin Patris, meaning “fathers”. True Patriotism is a yoke of affinity for our fathers, uniting a people of common descent—one’s Nation (Lat. Nasci; Grk. Ethne, i.e. “line of descent, ethnicity”). This principle is evident in the American founding via the preamble to our Constitution which defines our government to be an instrument for the preservation of “us and our posterity”. Which Jefferson contextualized, saying, “We are the people of Israel led through the wilderness by Hengist and Horst”. And as always bears repeating, the first American laws regarding Immigration and Citizenship declare this as a nation of “free Whites” only (the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat 103-104).

It was in the assumption of these basic Christian principles of Patriotism as a concentric outgrowth of the family that Dr. Thornwell pitched his resistance against the Socialist machinations of the Yankees, who sought to remodel all principles, institutions and definitions which Christendom had held sacred from the beginning:

“The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists, and Slaveholdes; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is a battleground – Christianity and atheism are the combatants and the progress of humanity is at stake.” (The Collected Writings of J.H. Thornwell, IV, ed. pp.405-6)

Indeed, the good Doctor perceived well the fact that ‘the progress of humanity’ was on the line. Now we few who yet remember bear witness the dissolution of our people for those spiteful Yankee sentiments of Franco-Enlightenment state-craft conjoined with the Marxist atomization of the family by way of that great egalitarian artifice—the secular sin of ethnic solidarity, ‘racism’. Trotsky’s neologism is perhaps one of the most successful bits of propaganda ever devised. ‘Racism’, as a concept, has become the promontory of Critical Theory’s deconstruction of Occidental Christendom.

Now that Christians have drank so deeply of the cup of Marxist thought they seem incapable of even perceiving the dire ramifications of their ersatz cosmology. But the pre-1950s Church perceived these things in crystal clarity: They knew that miscegenation would lead to greater Liberalism in all spheres, as it required an estrangement of close relation, in preference to the alien. This could only be achieved through burgeoning statism and require yet ever increasing levels of government usurpation in perpetuity to maintain the atomized polyglot. They understood that their white children would become socially, legally and religiously subservient to Non-Whites. In short, they believed the admonition of Deuteronomy 28, which is to say that such lawlessness would either see their grandchildren enslaved bodily, socially and spiritually or that they would be eradicated entirely. We are now midway between both of these eventualities but modern Christians still deny what is plainly before there eyes. That means that things must get worse before they get better. But how much worse must it get before our folk recognize this anti-White and anti-Christian order for the death sentence that it is?

We know that with our integrated minority population America has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world but without them, we would be on par with the crimes rates of Iceland! And Iceland has the lowest per capita crime rates in the world. Who would dare argue that 40,000 Black on White rapes in 2007 be a good thing? Well, we can solve it overnight with Segregation.

Who would argue against cutting the murder rate by 80%? Segregation is the answer.

Who wouldn’t prefer to keep exotic disease, parasites, and infections—fungal and viral at bay while simultaneously fixing our hospitals and the ‘health care insurance crisis’? Then close the border and deport our third world populations.

Want to get rid of gangs and all the maladies which accompany them? Deportation and Segregation will out-perform all of your community workshops and social programs hands down.

Want to help Non-Whites? Banish from their minds the idea that we owe them education, welfare or even citizenship. We don’t. And it is nothing less than a satanic yoke upon both groups to suggest that we must be their “surety” (Prov. 11:15). Segregation benefits them too because it puts our enabling to an end. Without our pandering they just might be forced to deal with their own issues. Let Christ be their surety, not us (Heb. 7:22).

Do we Christians want to live in a more God-fearing, Theonomic and Conservative country with smaller, less intrusive government and safer communities? Guess what? The answer is still the same. Segregation achieves all of these ambitions better than any other approach.

Until Christians shake the cobwebs from between their ears and start conversing with the reality of these things our children are going to suffer for our cowardice and self-deception. Any hope for a Theonomic nation must first secure and define its own national identity (ethnicity); without this basic bedrock Theonomy will ever be a more and more ephemeralized abstraction which devolves ultimately into pietistic irrelevance. In fact, if we neglect this matter we fail to meet the minimum standard set by St. Paul—to take care of ‘our own’—we then reject all precondition to the establishment of God’s Law in our land, following after the example of the Deicides who rejected the reign of the true King in favor of the one-world governance of an Imperial Caesar. God forbid.

Read Full Post »

“No great change takes place in human institutions without involving amongst its causes the law of inheritance…”

Tocqueville well-grasped the tumult of his day and its dire implications. He saw what was at stake back of the Abolitionist movement—our civil government, our communities, our institutions, our families—even our children.

“[T]he destiny of the negroes is in some measure interwoven with that of the Europeans…The most formidable of all the ills which threaten the future of the Union arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of the present embarrassments or of the future dangers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to consider this as a primary fact…”

Though he was himself inclined to both New England Unitarianism and Abolition, Tocqueville was nonetheless a candid Race Realist. He thought that the very presence of Negroes in America represented ‘the most formidable of all the ills which threaten[ed] the future’ of our nation. This he considered a ‘primary fact’ of America’s future.

Condoleeza Rice has recently spoken of Negro inequality as America’s “Birth Defect” but Tocqueville considered the Negro presence in America to be the nation’s true ‘Birth Defect’.

“[T]he settlers, who all belonged to the same European race, had the same civilization, the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremely slight…”

This is an echoe of John Jay’s words in Federalist #2, “…that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” And it was by this rationale that the very first act of the Continental Congress regarding immigration and citizenship was to restrict the right of citizenship to “Free Whites” alone. America was founded as a distinctly European ethnicity.

“You may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European…His physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes…

If it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed which seem to be based upon the immutable laws of Nature herself?…”

Evident to him was the reality of innate inequalities between the European and the African. So too did he surmise the impossibility of social parity between these races.

“I despair of seeing an aristocracy disappear which is founded upon visible and indelible signs. Those who hope that the Europeans will ever mix with the negroes, appear to me to delude themselves;…”

Despite his Abolitionism, he lamented the passing of the social hierarchy of the Old South because he took it for an ill-omen of things to come.

“[T]he prejudices of the Whites against the Blacks seem to increase in proportion as slavery is abolished…

[W]herever the whites have been the most powerful, they have maintained the blacks in a subordinate or servile position; wherever the negroes have been strongest they have destroyed the whites…

[T]hey very justly look upon the states in which the proportion of the negroes equals or exceeds that of the whites, as exposed to very great dangers;…”

It’s hard to fathom that his pen-hand was not seized by paroxysms as he hypocritically referred to the Whites’ resolution to self-defense as ‘prejudices’. Nonetheless, he concedes the fact that all historical manifestations of Negro liberation have resulted in the genocide of Whites; be it North Africa, the Belgian Congo, the West Indies, Haiti, Rhodesia, or modern South Africa, the results of Negro integration have played out the exact same way in every circumstance—an unrestrained descent into barbarism in which the European population is consumed by feral rape, and cannibalistic murder. He therefore knew that the Southern Whites were without alternative—slavery, or at the very lest, social subordination of the Negro, must persist atleast until some equitable means of relocation presented itself. Any alternative is a hellish proposition.

“In the South, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less carefully kept apart;…although the legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate…In the North the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier which separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the negro with the more pertinacity, since he fears lest they should some day be confounded together…”

And of course, being wholly unfamiliar with the modern Manichean mythos of an enlightened pluralistic North against the clannish dogmatism of the Southern Bible-Belt, he notes the genial and even paternal attitude of Southern Whites toward their Negro subjects as superior to the ostracism of Northern Abolition.

Where law maintains the requisite boundaries Whites and Blacks live at greater ease with one another; where such legal bounds are lacking, it falls to the people to maintain the separation necessary for their safety. This was, in large part, the policy divide between North and South in regard to the Negro.

“[T]he South might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery; but how should it rid its territory of the black population?…”

Like Jefferson before him, he considered the optimum result of any emancipation to be a total relocation of all Blacks to some outlying territory beyond the reach of mixture.

“It is evident that the most Southern States of the Union cannot abolish slavery without incurring very great dangers, which the North had no reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population…

[T]hey have no means of perceptibly diminishing the black population,…

It is more easy for them to admit slavery, than to allow several millions of citizens to exist under a load of eternal infamy and hereditary wretchedness…”

In radical tension with his own espoused Abolitionism, Tocqueville sympathizes with the Planters’ situation. He knows they have little recourse.

“[T]here are but two alternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle. I have already expressed the conviction which I entertain as to the latter event. I do not imagine that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon equal footing…A despot who should subject the Americans and their former slaves to the same yoke, might perhaps succeed in commingling their races; but as long as the American democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will undertake so difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the white population of the United States becomes, the more isolated will it remain…”

Only a Despot would attempt the amalgam of the races because free Christian Whites would strictly be inclined to segregation. A free America is a segregated America and integration is a tyranny which undermines what Blackstone called “the primary right of self-defense”. Integration, to the extent that it has occurred, has been against the will of the people as they have generally considered such to be ‘unequal yoking’.

“The pride of origin, which is natural to the English, is singularly augmented by the personal pride which democratic liberty fosters amongst the Americans: the white citizen of the United States is proud of his race and proud of himself…”

Our folk have long had about them a mimetic deference to our ancestors—a sense of honor for our fathers and mothers as proscribed in the fifth commandment. And the distillation of conservative thought which founded the American colonies also vested us with a certain sense of mission—this great Dominionist ambition was perceptible as much in the individual as in the corporate body. A Christian man felt his connectedness with, and even a certain responsibility for, his own people; this tribal solidarity is the stuff of ‘Manifest Destiny’ and the right of self-determination back of it.

“If I were called upon to predict what will probably occur at some future time, I should say, that the abolition of slavery in the South will, in the common course of things, increase the repugnance of the white population for men of color…”

Tocqueville’s Abolitionist sentiments are belied in his sheepishness; he demures here from validating the foment of White antipathy toward fourteenth amendment citizens [sic] and the palpable threat which they posed to all white men, women and children alike.

“[I]t is impossible to foresee a time at which the whites and the blacks will be so intermingled as to derive the same benefits from society; must it not be inferred that the blacks and whites will, sooner or later, come to open strife in the Southern States of the Union?…

The fate of the white population of the Southern States will, perhaps, be similar to that of the Moors in Spain. After having occupied the land for centuries, it will perhaps be forced to retire to the country whence its ancestors came, and to abandon to the negroes the possession of a territory…

The danger of a conflict between the white and black inhabitants of the Southern States of the Union—a danger which, however remote it may be, is inevitable—perpetually haunts the imagination of the Americans. The inhabitants of the North make it a common topic of conversation, although they have no direct injury to fear from the struggle [as Negroes were largely illegal in those parts]; but they vainly endeavor to devise some means of obviating the misfortunes which they foresee. In the Southern States the subject is not discussed: the Planter does not allude to the future in conversing with strangers; the citizen does not communicate his apprehensions to his friends; he seeks to conceal them from himself; but there is something more alarming in the tacit forebodings of the South, than in the clamorous fears of the Northern States…

When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can only discover two alternatives which may be adopted by the white inhabitants of those States; viz., either to emancipate the negroes, and to intermingle with them; or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state of slavery as long as possible. All intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, and perhaps in the extirpation of one or other of the two races. Such is the view which the Americans of the South take of the question, and they act consistently with it. As they are determined not to mingle with the negroes, they refuse to emancipate them…

[C]an they allow their slaves to become free without compromising their own security? And if they are obliged to keep that race in bondage in order to save their own families, may they not be excused for availing themselves of the means best adapted to that end?…”

What is Tocqueville’s forecast for America? Race war. He considered this eventuality ‘inevitable’. Like ripples in the sea, he considered the early transport of Negroes to these shores to have set in motion a chain of events which would eventually culminate with the swell of a tidal wave, the destructive capability of which might sweep away all that was.

As he says, he was not alone in this opinion—Americans, North and South, were all quite cognizant of the societal apocalypse on the horizon. But they were radically at odds as to how to mitigate such circumstances. As Dr. Thornwell said in 1862: “They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested, until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.” If Tocqueville was prescient, Thornwell was prophetic.

“[I]f they [Negroes] are once raised to the level of free men, they will soon revolt at being deprived of all their civil rights; and as they cannot become the equals of the whites, they will speedily declare themselves as enemies…

The negro race will never leave those shores of the American continent,… and it will not disappear from the New World as long as it continues to exist. The inhabitants of the United States may retard the calamities which they apprehend but they cannot now destroy their efficient cause…

If liberty be refused to the negroes of the South, they will in the end seize it for themselves by force; if it be given, they will abuse it ere long.”

Whether or not they were to be emancipated, Tocqueville was certain that they would ever consider themselves the enemies of our blood; and no remedial social engineering would put matters aright between these two peoples while we yet share this continent. He perceived that the more the Negro might be given, the more he would believe himself due. Such is and ever has been the nature of the black man in every country which he is found throughout history.

But Tocqueville’s Fatalism seems to border upon morbidity. While candidly appraising the Southern position as the best apparatus for staving off the coming blood feud which he believes may result in the annihilation of one or the other race, he still outrageously maintains his Abolitionism!

Now, considering the fact that he be not a man of meager intellect, one is left with few options as to how his cognitive dissonance is to be understood: Since he considers the conflagration ‘inevitable’, and that the Southern position impedes this eventuality more so than that of the North, one is left with scant clues as to why he would resolve himself to the cause of Abolition. Abolition, as such, seems, even from Tocqueville’s writing, like a compact with Death itself. So what would have inclined this otherwise prodigious white man to opt for the most misanthropic and Malthusian of all available choices? No matter how one might deconstruct Tocqueville’s position, one word is sufficient for it—that word is Madness.

This virulent mania is a hydra, which, in its more contemporary manifestations would not spare the candid Race Realism of Tocqueville (schizophrenic as it be) any more than the Segregationist philosophy of the Old South. It’s an all-consuming death sentence for the white race; and in this lies its only logical consistency—it will not treat even its dutiful white converts preferentially because in the end, egalitarianism is something found only in the bone yard.

Again, the sagely Dr. Thornwell stands as an oracle as much today as in 1862:

“They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested, until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.”

Read Full Post »