Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

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”.


Read Full Post »

This goes out to the folks I know who continue to allege that criticism of the state of Israel and the Jewish Shoah are but a recent phenomenon devoid of pre-1980s precedent. Enjoy.

G.W. Armstrong writing on the subject of Zionism in 1950:

To the President and Congress of the United States
Gentlemen: I respectfully represent:

1. That the Zionists seek to destroy our republican form of
government and to establish a socialist government in place of it;

(2)that they have involved us in two world wars in pursuance of this

(3) that they seek to acquire the fabulous wealth of the Dead Sea estimated at five trillion dollars, and of the Arabian oil fields estimated at six hundred billion dollars;

(4) that this wealth belongs to us and the British Empire by right of conquest;

(5) that the Zionists are traitors and should be punished as such.

(a) I allege that a majority of the immigrants who have entered our country since the First World War are socialists and communists;

(b) I allege upon information and belief that Herbert H. Lehman, Felix Frankfurter and several Congressmen and other officials are Zionist communists and citizens of the State of Israeli.

Geo. W. Armstrong.
April 29, 1950.

Remember, this was written in 1950. 

Read Full Post »

The Prophet Jeremiah called the churchmen of his day “dumb dogs” because they refused to bark when danger was approaching. Nowadays bringing this issue up among elders in the church is liable to result in censure, excommunication or maybe even an IRS audit.

Notice what the puppet-pastor said in the interview? He claimed the whole “Romans 13 obliges us to do whatever Caesar commands” bit. This is an issue with which I’ve had a good deal of experience lately; it seems that even the once-conservative reformed churches have recently embraced the Hegelian idea that “government is god treading on the earth”. Of course, all of historic reformed thought rejects such notions but,  as with the issue of Kinism, the modern church has come about face to deny not only that these things (Kinism and the concepts of ‘consent of the governed’, and the ‘primary right of self-defense’) be biblical ideas but even to deny that anyone… ever believed such things. It boggles my imagination that a concept as historically non-controversial (in reformed thought atleast) as ‘consent of the governed’ is now completely alien to reformed churchmen. Not only is it alien to them, they are innately offended at the idea. Once Obama ascended these men were ‘activated’… like so many sleeper cells no doubt. 

This is an aspect of the subtle shifts going on christian thought; the church still invokes the same language but it is often completely denatured– completely redefined. The modern looks at Romans 13 recognizing only that the language therein is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. That is their mandate. And due to that mandate they will subjugate all biblical ethics to the hermeneutical principle that description can never and in no wise be taken as prescriptive. But of course, to take it that way we immediately encounter the hypocrisy of such a hermeneutic: If Caesar commands that which is evil, it is declared righteous nonetheless… because it comes from the fount of modern judeo-ethics… Caesar. Because, they have ‘no king but Caesar’. (Of course the Jews are now sitting on Caesar’s throne but that’s another matter.) As such, they believe the decree of government actually sanctifies evil itself. But that’s just to say that they call evil, good and good, evil. ‘Dumb dogs’ indeed.

Read Full Post »

Risky Business

Mr. Turner may just have a tiger by the tail. The question is, would the Witness Protection Program help or would that be tantamount to the rabbit hiding in a fox den?

Read Full Post »

This Christmas I stumbled onto a certain conspiracy previously unknown to me; it was a small thing but insidious nonetheless. My daughter and her cousin both received new baby dolls as gifts. The dolls cooed and babbled in that baby sort of way but on the last of their audio sequences the voice suddenly changed and the words, “Islam is the Light” were annunciated distinctly. 

When I told everyone what I’d heard they were incredulous but after having heard it themselves they agreed– I had heard aright, these Fisher Price-produced dolls were promulgating Islam. Hear it for yourself

Now, I understand that random coos and garbled speech can ofttimes sound like a discernible word or patterned phrase but even if the phrase ‘Islam is the Light’ were accidentally created (unlikely as that eventuality might be) the recording still had to be subject to review by numerous people. Or are we to believe that Fisher Price has no quality control staff? Please.

Under such presumed circumstance one can only conclude that it has an element of intentionality in it; that is, It was purposeful. It would actually be much more far-fetched to believe the alternative so I count this as no conspiracy theory only but conspiracy fact

But this brings up a great question: Why, in modern America, is the postulation of a conspiracy theory as the remedy for any set of otherwise irreconcilable bits of data considered self-negating? If the ‘official story’ (i.e., government and media disseminated) cannot account for the facts of the matter, it naturally behooves any party interested in the truth of a thing to consider alternate explanations. And it isn’t as if the ‘official story’ isn’t in the same boat as that espoused by your average ‘well-manicured internet assassin’ (wink) either; for instance, both the government and the 911 Truthers posit certain theories of conspiracy to explain the ongoings of September eleventh. Both groups have imperfect data collection and personal biases subject to their own respective realms of cognitive dissonance. Therefore, the dismissal of one interpretation pejoratively as a ‘nothing but wild conspiracy theory’ is only to beg the question. That question is, which version better accounts for all the perceived data? But the hypocrisy of our anti-Christ foes necessitates their employ of such propaganda because bringing such matters to the light of day, for them, is ruin. 

As frustrating as such propaganda may be it is more disconcerting by far to witness ‘conservative Christians’ opting for the same interpretation of events and the same Critical Theory-inspired propaganda tactics. Insodoing our modern churches actually deny the entirety of the Christian religion because the Christian religion is inherently conspiratorial. Think of it: The scripture teaches that Satan and his angels conspired and still do conspire to thwart God’s plan for the cosmos. Likewise, it teaches that Mankind conspired and in large part, still does conspire against God. The Jews conspired against God’s Prophets, conspired to have Christ crucified and later still, engaged in a conspiracy to cover the fact of the resurrection, claiming, in their characteristically hypocritical fashion, that it was the Christians themselves who were acting as conspirators to trick the world into belief in the risen Christ! They, of course, would offer a whole different set of interpretations of these events but God has testified Himself, in His Word, as to whose ‘conspiracy theory’ is true. 

Yet the Jews persist in the same international conspiracy as they have from the first; they lie, bribe, and pervert in all venues inwhich they have access. And this, according to their own words, they consciously do in opposition to all Christian ethics. They proudly claim to oppose the ‘Edomite Goyim’ (as they call us) in all things. This, even the modern Church seems to wink at when they chide anyone with the gall to point such things out as anti-Semitic! Which, I might add, is now, as of very recent times, one of the worst things a fellow can be…or so I’m told.

But when we find, as in the case of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, that even when on their most Nicodemian and philo-christian behavior, the underlying ethic is still with ultimate regard to the question of what is best for the Jews, we realize that they don’t even qualify as fair-weather friends to God’s people because that primary commitment on their part precludes the option of Christianity and Christendom with it. 

Just as they resolved two millennia ago, they consider that which serves their interests best is to conspire against God and execute His scapegoat, Jesus. This is because they regard themselves as God’s scapegoat. And this is why they have cast that which happened in WWII Germany as a ‘Holocaust’. A holocaust is, by definition, a spotless burnt offering to God for the propitiation of the nation. It is their Golgotha, Calvary– their lowest depth and their highest height. It is their self-atonement. 

No matter what a Christian resolves to believe transpired in those camps, he ought to denounce the Jewish interpretation in the strongest terms because it amounts to nothing less than Luciferianism. 

So too ought a Christian to denounce the farcical trial to which the German leaders were subjected at Nuremberg. Afterall, the method of those proceedings flew in the face of all biblical Law and Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence: The Judges, the Prosecution and the Defense all fell into a status of what the law calls ‘unclean hands’. They were all comprised of the Germans’ political and ideological enemies– the Soviets and their allies. And the Germans were actually prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution! Moreover, anyone showing up as witnesses for the Defense were arrested and tried as Nazi conspirators as well. These tactics effectively stripped the Germans of rights which all Western law had regarded as inviolable for a millennia or more. 

Oh yes, and let us not forget that the autopsies demonstrated that those lynched by the kangaroo court of Nuremberg had all been tortured terribly by their Allied captors. This would explain (and not to mention invalidate) their self-contradictory and generally incoherent confessions. But prior to the issue of the substance of such confessions is the fact that Cotton Mather drafted in the 1690’s what became the first canon of American law, prohibiting torture as a means of extracting information on the basis that it was unchristian to cause a man to incriminate himself under duress as such testimonies were inherently unreliable and it was unjust to punish a man for something which he had not yet been proven to have done. Western law had, since Mather’s time, taken these precepts for granted and yet the Germans were given no such quarter. 

No one is supposed to say that Nuremberg was a sham because no one is supposed to care whether those men were afforded a fair trial. That’s the conspiracy. The propaganda machine in place at the time was controlled by Bolshevik Jews in America, England and the Soviet Union. Public opinion was prepackaged by this media complex and the complete apathy for the question of justice in the Nuremberg trials was its result despite the fact that those proceedings represented the inverse of all Christian nomology.

Ultimately though, conspiracy theories follow a deductive line of reasoning, from top down, contextualizing particulars in light of a greater set of assumptions. Despite the fact that the modern mush-mind calls such an approach ‘nutty’, deductive reasoning is a logical process as much as is inductive reasoning. And mind you, its generally regarded by logicians to be the superior method of the two. 

So the next time some smug Evangelical scoffs at these things just remind him that everybody believes in conspiracy theories– its just a matter of which ones– especially for us Christians, ‘cause the bible is, as I’ve said, inherently conspiratorial in nature. 

And the answer to the question, ‘why is the postulation of a conspiracy theory self-negating in modern America (?)’, is that modern Americans, and supposed Christians foremost among them, consider the government-media complex as the absolute arbiters of truth. That is to say that they bow their intellect before an anti-Christ idol and that idol is the self-same one crafted in the shadow of Mt. Sinai and you can call me meshugga but I think it was crafted by the same hands. 

Read Full Post »

Ireland is one of the signal European countries awakening to the reality of the Faustian compact which the European Union truly represents. God save Ireland indeed.

Read Full Post »

I am an American. My ancestors hail from various ports of the old world: On my mother’s side all sprang from the black forest of Germany. On my father’s side the pedigree is forged between the fens of Denmark and the cobbles of Ulster and it is by way of Ulster whence my family acquires its name.

Naturally, I feel a certain affinity, or some would say sentimentality, toward all things Germanic and Celtic. But it does not make me a German-Dane or a Scotsman. I mean really, just imagine if I went to one of those little postcard hamlets in Denmark and simply declared myself a Dane. As sweet-natured as the Danes are, the women would likely snicker at my cowboy accent and the men would glare with furrowed brows and chide me with all the stoicism which northmen command. The Danes would appreciate the continuum of my commonality with them to be sure but they would never confess me one of them, a Dane proper.

The question then is, ought I to take offense at such exclusion? Certainly not. It is their right and their duty to preserve themselves with all the unique characteristics which make them who they are. And really, I wouldn’t have it any other way because if they lost definition of who they are, I, as an offshoot of that people, would lose reference to my own ancestors. If Africans, Arabs and Mongols might be declared ‘Danes’, being Danish loses all definition. If it means everything in general, it means nothing in particular.

No, I want Denmark for the Danes, Scotland for Scots and Germany for Germans. Could anyone imagine delftware porcelain bedecked with pictures of Nubians rather than the toe-headed Dutch? Holland wouldn’t be Holland without the Dutch. We Yanks might often consider the distinctions between all those kindred nations of Europe to be minor but if you want to know the differences between Swedes and Danes just ask one. They will happily delineate what are to them, profound differences.

Yet here in America the British came and founded a nation for ‘the White Man and his posterity forever’, meaning, men of European descent generically. Modern Deconstructionists typically conjure from this that our founders were proto-Marxists taking the first evolutionary step toward total egalitarianism. They take the American fusion of the tribes of Europe as proof that ethnicity be naught but ‘a social construct’, i.e., a figment of the imagination. Thus they extrapolate that as went ethnicity, so goes race—if Germans and Italians might be brought together under the banner of a single nationality, what’s to preclude the Mongol and Negro races from the same corporation?

First, it’s clear that whatever the assumptions of the Founders were, they certainly never intended for it to lead to racial amalgam. By their own testimony they reviled the very notion. They, like the Pilgrims, universally understood racial amalgam as one of the greatest curses which could befall their posterity.

Second, it must be acknowledge that the American doctrine of generic “White” identity over against any particular European ethnicity was uniquely crafted by those who by providence were Englishmen. As such, they had in their mother country the unique distinction of being the signal composite nation of Europe: England was originally peopled by the Bretons, a Celtic folk, but it sustained successive invasions by Angles from Denmark, Saxons from Germany and Romans from Italy. Thus comes the term Anglo-Saxon. Though they acknowledged themselves as contiguous with Roman civilization to some degree, and they honored their Celtic heritage, they expressed their identity by its foremost components—Angles and Saxons. But G. K. Chesterton and Abraham Kuyper have both said that Europe really has only three tribes: The Germanic, the Celtic and the Romanic (Italic) in their various communities. (C. S. Lewis agreed with this as well.)

Expectedly then, when the English Puritans struck ground in America, extending the English nation, they intended it to be a continuation of English civilization, which was itself a composite of all three of the tribes of Europe. They insisted of course upon maintaining a balanced immigration policy, with clear favoritism shown to the European nations with whom they shared closest relation. The American policy of “favored nation status” was most partial to the north and west of Europe but they admitted a trickle from the east and the south of the continent as well. This was the conservative approach, maintaining equilibrium of demographics with its attendant affections, sensitivities and culture which had long ago forged the country of their nativity.

But they admitted no immigration from alien races aside from the purposes of labor. They, being devout Biblicists, understood such precedent to exist as a practice of old Israel who had used foreign labor while keeping such people distinct from their own.

Irish Catholics were brought to these shores as slaves of the Englishmen; after serving the seven year term of their bonditure they were remitted to the status of free men who, if converted to Protestantism, could own property, and if maintaining their membership in good standing of a Christian church could even vote at the age of twenty-one. They were citizens, Americans, brothers. The prevailing theory of suffrage was of the “free-hold” sort via English common law (this was seen as consistent with and ultimately emanating from biblical Law) and it accepted all the tribes of the European race as assimilable because Britain had long been the generic representative of all the Japhetic peoples living cohesively subject to the Christian Lord.

This was not unlike the commonwealth of old Israel which would allow limited assimilation of outlying Hebrew-Semite tribes but was forbad from admitting those of dissimilar race.

And so it was that the Puritan slave trade of Africans and Indians was quite distinguished from their trade of Irish Catholics; though the Indians were allowed, not entirely unlike the Irish, to be freed and even buy land (in designated areas) after the passage of a seven year servitude, they could never vote or be considered American citizens.

But Africans were from 1632 forward accepted by law as “perpetual servants” without any right of release; which is not to say that they couldn’t be released, just that they had no right to it. Leviticus 25:39-55 was the justification for this practice, allowing for foreign (i.e., racially alien) slaves bought with money to be kept in perpetuity along with any children which they might bear. This seemed by the estimation of the Puritans and the British Crown to be the most equitable treatment of social stratification for the African as long as he was to reside among white men. Any lesser degree of Paternalism would leave the African destitute, unable to provide for himself and it would simultaneously be to admit great danger to all of American society. Moreover, the matter of possibly granting the African suffrage and citizenship were out of the question. One might as well declare oneself a poached egg as declare Africans to be Americans.

In their various appeals to the Crown the Colonists invoked no political corporation, no matters of economic expediency, nor any political idealism; they demanded their rights by way of primogeniture, on the basis of descent from Englishmen and their consanguity with Englishmen. The last such invocation was the Declaration of Rights of 1765 in which they claimed all the rights of “natural born Englishmen”. None but white men had any stake in such a claim.

It was with just such a sense of the matter that the Founding Fathers would reflect on the question as well. For them, America was an extension of England and as such, home to the European type generally, under English language, institutions and law. Therefore, when they set about the formation of our federal government in 1787 they claimed it to be “for the preservation of us and our posterity forever”. And they quoted from the earlier Declaration of rights (1765) in limiting the office of president to “a natural born citizen”. And contiguous with earlier Puritan law, the very first convention of the Congress of the United States of America declared that citizenship was open only to “free Whites” of good character residing in America for two or more years.

Despite the assertions of modern Liberals, America always knew what, or more precisely, who it intended to be. Our forefathers purposefully controlled immigration in favor of Europeans, especially of the north and the west of the continent and they always regarded it as impossibility for non-whites to be American citizens. They found this position in keeping with their own ethnic and historic identity in England and they found the scripture in support of such nationalism, as had the Church from the first century forward. This was so taken for granted that the alternative to it would have struck them as unabashed godlessness.

The ‘Americanism’ of our founding was based not upon a government structure or economic theory but upon the nation which formed it. That nation existed prior to the United States and as such, their chief concern lay not in the principles of a government but in the preservation of ‘[them]selves and [their] posterity forever.’ It was a matter of self-determination and self-defense of a people—the English-speaking White Race. Their Christian faith taught them that this was their primary civic responsibility and their government was subsequently formed to that end.

In summation, I, an American of Germano-Celtic extraction, speaking this German dialect known as ‘English’, feel a great sense of kinship with the various northwestern nations of Europe but I am yet distinct from them. And in the new world we members of the White race be one expanded Anglophile nation in our lesser tribes throughout. We are who we are; let us cherish that identity and safeguard it as our fathers who went before us. And let us think ill of no other people for doing likewise.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »