Dumb Dogs

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 »

Nidingswerk

Well, it appears that an old friend has taken it upon himself to go hunting a bounty:

After the proprietor at Spiritwaterblood (Many thanks to the faithful Yoeman at the pumps) sets him aright on some of his misconceptions, Sob76 comes back again only to throw about more non-sequiturs.

Obviously, my old friend is still quite confused over the nature of Kinism as well as the nature of my elder board examination.

But this is nothing new. While it is the case that I’ve engaged he and others in protracted discussions of Kinism and its satellite topics, the men in question have never been able to actually interact with the subject matter at all. Most of those discussions took the form of redundant corrections to their off the wall distortions of Kinism. No matter how many times I told them that I believed the Gospel to be pertinent to all peoples, that I did in fact take Blacks to be human beings descended from Adam and Eve, or that one’s race be no credit to a Man before the gaze of the Almighty, they nonetheless would return a fortnight later to level the same strawman arguments and accusations. And so it went– ever they insinuating and indicting, ever me correcting and dispelling.

This was, for a time, rather dismaying to me– the idea that despite my elaborate explanation and expositions from the text, that these otherwise intelligent fellows seemed incapable of actually hearing anything which I had to say of the matter. I suppose that in a certain vanity, I expected my simple, straightforward speech to be received accordingly but I know now that I underestimated the power of cognitive dissonance. These men were, on a gut level, committed to “reading between the lines”. They were not quite so incapable but more precisely, unwilling to see me as advocating anything but genocide. (The irony is that it is they who truly advocate genocide… but that’s beside the point.) All of Sob76’s commentary (hyperlinked above) is just a continuation of that willful distortion.

As for my elder board examination, Sob76 says:

“Ehud didn’t win. His position paper was incomplete… Based upon Ehud’s words you would believe the Elders of our church made a pragmatic decision to appease those of us who dissagreed with him. with this in mind I challenged my Elders as to why they would restrict a member from being and Elder and teaching for pragmatic reasons. This was wholey [sic] unacceptable to me. The answer is they didn’t…it was vague enough that they couldn’t in good conscience excommunicate him with so little knowledge of the position; without a clear understanding that this was truly heresy and unrepentant sin…When presented with a more detailed summary of the Kinist position as presented by Ehud to myself and his friend, their oppossition was much more outspoken.”

First, I never said I ‘won’ anything. I said that they ruled in my favor to the extent that I was found guilty of no theological error or moral sin. Of course the marginalized status in which I was placed was itself a loss, not a win but the ruling was in my favor overall because the designs of the conspirators for me to be brought up on charges and excommunicated were wholly routed.

Secondarily, my position paper was some twenty one pages long. It treated Kinism rather roundly in four separate avenues of discussion: The doctrine of Nations, Race Realism according to scripture, the doctrine of Family and the doctrine of Government. It may be called many things but it certainly was not ‘incomplete’ for the purposes of communicating a general overview of my position. To my knowledge, Sob76 has never read that paper, yet, he and his fellow conspirators declare it to be incomplete. This, Sob76 claims to have remedied by supplying ‘a more detailed summary’ to the elder board based upon our previous discussions– to which, as Sob76 says, ‘their opposition was much more outspoken’. By this I assume he means that they would’ve excommunicated me if only I’d been honest about my views. But the fact is that I was fully forthcoming, demuring not one iota to relay my views as the historic church has understood these matters. All said and done, I leave it for my readers to decide from his posts at the links above whether Sob76 has a grasp enough of Kinism to deliver ‘a more detailed summary’ of that doctrine. To whatever extent he did so, I regard it as done either in ignorance or in the worst case, as lying slander. Either way, it is apparent that Sob76 and company need to repent of their nidingswerk.

And when I wrote that the elder board marginalized me for ‘pragmatic’ purposes, it was not simply my opinion or some sort of dissembling; those were the words of the Pastor himself. I was told that in their opinion I had supplied a thorough account of my views and it was clear that I simply had another perspective than is popular in that church currently and that it seems to all inspection to comport with confessional orthodoxy, falling therefore into a permissible category. The Pastor told me that the elder board could resolve to deal with me no more strictly than they would if I were of a slightly Baptist persuasion or anything of the like.

However, he said that for “practical and pragmatic purposes” that I ought not teach there because it could lead to greater controversy and maybe even schism. To such possibilities I am quite sensitive and on the basis of practicality I grudgingly agreed with the Pastor because, like the Pastor, I perceived that the level of agitation caused by so few would only tear that congregation apart if it were elevated to a congregation-wide debate. 

Beyond that, if Sob76, et.al. have gone behind me disseminating all sorts of distortions of my views, I can do little about it now (seeing as I’m no longer even living in that accursed state) aside from addressing the matter in this venue as Sob76 has chosen. Although, I think I’m gonna call my one-time-elder down there and ask him to reign in such madness in the future.

Read Full Post »

GIVE US MEN

Well, today’s our moving day– we’re officially taking part in the great Northwest migration. We’re leaving the soured land of California for colder climes and warmer community. As my parting gift I offer this personal favorite, GIVE US MEN. 

Give us Men!
Men– from every rank,
Fresh and free and frank;
Men of thought and reading,
Men of light and leading,
Men of loyal breeding,
The nation’s welfare speeding;
Men of faith and not of fiction,
Men of lofty aim in action;
Give us Men– I say again,
Give us Men!

Give us Men!
Strong and stalwart ones;
Men whom highest hope inspires,
Men whom purest honor fires,
Men who trample self beneath them,
Men who make their country wreathe them
As her noble sons,
Worthy of their sires;
Men who never shame their mothers,
Men who never fail their brothers,
True, however false are others:
Give us Men– I say again,
Give us Men!

Give us Men!
Men who, when the tempest gathers,
Grasp the standard of their fathers
In the thickest fight;
Men who strike for home and altar,
(Let the coward cringe and falter)
God defend the right!
True as truth the lorn and lonely,
Tender, as the brave are only;
Men who tread where saints have trod,
Men for Country, Home– and God:
Give us Men! I say again– again–
Give us Men!

(By Josiah Gilbert Holland)

Read Full Post »

Conspiracy Theories

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 »

A Disclaimer

Well howdy once again folks. Its been too long since I dangled my toes in these here blog waters.

Those of you who know me are aware of the many distractions which have kept me from posting of late; one such distraction had been a series of dialogues into which I was drawn by some fellow congregants in the parochial church. These individuals, after having read my blog and discussing its content with me, insisted that I was quite mistaken not only in my interpretation of scripture regarding the subject of race but also that I was mistaken in thinking that the historic Church ever believed such things either. Of course, one may disagree with me on the former but on the latter issue the opposition’s view is manifestly absurd. The historic Church was monolithically nationalistic, racialist, eurocentric, patriarical, and yes…Kinist. I unequivocally stand by the fact that one cannot survey the religion of Matthew Henry, John Calvin, St. Augustine, and the host of the great biblicists honestly without encountering this truism.

Regardless, the indignation of these individuals built over time and despite being unable to obviate any particular error in my views, they began a letter-writing campaign to my Elder board in hopes of having me brought up on charges for I know not what sin. The Elders then requested a position paper of me and I was honestly quite happy to furnish it because I was eager to see how they interacted with these old ideas. 

To their credit, my Elder board was able to suppress their own egalitarian reflex enough so as to conclude that I was guilty of no particular sin. As I understand it, there was some animated debate over the whole thing but they did, in the end, find in my favor… with certain provisions:

It was established for pragmatic purposes that I could not rise to the level of Elder in that congregation. It was also concluded that I might not officially teach in the church. And lastly, it was requested of me that I post a sort of disclaimer here on my blog– something to the effect that my church (which I have heretofore never named), though finding some level of agreement with me in the matters at issue, does not at this present time officially endorse Kinism as such.

So, there you have it– my obligation is fulfilled and I hope to resume regular posting here shortly. Many thanks to all for your prayers and support. The fight goes on.

Read Full Post »

The White Man’s Heresy

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 »

A Tale of Two Cities: My Jeremiad

My early years were largely spent divided between two southern California cities: Paramount and Porterville. Paramount lies inside of Los Angeles County while Porterville sits amid the endless stretches of farmland of the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare County. Despite their historic differences they quite inexplicably fell into the same patterns of entropy and consequently died the same death. Nowadays folks just click their tongues and shake their heads at the mere mention of either place because everyone who knew those areas before remember just what’s been lost. They recall the close-knit safety and innocence of both cities some twenty-five years ago and they realize that they will never again see such days in either place. They’ve become a byword, a roost for the birds of the air and a haunt of jackals. Perhaps it wasn’t so inexplicable…

Paramount was established by the Dutch Dairymen, who, with their thoroughly Protestant work ethic, drew forth a full yield from the earth. Their cultivation of the land drew more settlers, Portuguese and Irish. These groups all flourished alongside one another.

The Dutch church services were all led in the midland tongue of their fatherland and the Portuguese likewise held services in their own language. The Irish attended English services. The inclinations of each group made them worthy compliments to one another: Where the Dutch were Farmers, the Portuguese were Merchants and Shopkeeps. The Irish tended toward a number of professions—Law Enforcement, Journalism and any number of technical specialties. They lived amongst one another in peace. Their obvious diversity worked in the context of a presupposed unity—a Christian unity, a European unity.

Non-Whites were candidly acknowledged as outsiders—Indian, Mexican or what have you. Even the Japanese, who came in significant numbers, and were decent folk, were well-understood to be a breed apart from our European peoples.

Thus the area was maintained—children and old folks were relatively safe under these conditions.

As a young child I was free to roam the little woodland thickets which marbleized the neighborhood like patchwork. Great expeditions were a regular fare to the imagination of a young boy with room to explore.

But unbeknownst to me there were malevolent forces at work beyond the dragons which I stalked. The 105 freeway had been a public works project for some thirty years. The government had claimed the fictitious right of ‘Eminent Domain’ over miles and miles of privately held property sometime in the fifties. Left to lie fallow was a vast uninterrupted network of land and abandoned houses. These remained until the eighties and became a part of the greater playgrounds of my early childhood. It was here that all the dangers conjured in a boy’s mind for the sake of adventure would begin to cross over into reality.

This conduit running through the land acted as the path of least resistance for the pressurized current of Mexican Immigrants. Many of those abandoned houses, over time, provided haven to the worst elements imaginable. But by the time that it was recognized as a real problem for the community it was too late. The Police considered it a no-go zone if not for the danger, then for the jurisdictional nightmare that such a contiguous trans-city network represented.

As crime began to rise property values fell, allowing for the second wave of invasion to make its inroad. In a span of roughly six years my street had gone from all White to all Mexican, minus my family.

At this point my family opted to send me away to live on my grandparents’ farm in Porterville.

Porterville was regarded as the very last horizon of the Western frontier in the mid to latter half of the nineteenth century. It was settled originally by Irish Cattlemen; later by Dutch and German Farmers. It was a land of rugged folk. They had to be rugged because the Indian tribes of that region remained extremely hostile to the White Man.

Later, the descendants of those rugged Frontiersmen would sign up and die in both the Korean and Vietnam wars by greater proportion per capita than those in any other American town. Of course, this casting of the lives of their sons to the wind decimated the town one generation following another.

I spent my time there mostly in the late eighties and early nineties; it was mostly wooded farmland then and there were only a couple of paved roads in the entire town. It was a wonderland to me where, after chores were done, a child could wile away his days fishing, frogging and hunting crawdads down at Chuck’s hidden lakes or rabbit up in the hills, all of which were regarded as safe pastimes for young boys. It was as if I’d found all the good things of Paramount’s early days transported to this remote corner of the world. Once I’d found them again I was sure that this time they wouldn’t vanish as before.

Really, most people can’t believe it when I tell them that my Grandmother’s best friend, in her mid-sixties, had never ridden in an automobile before 1989. And I knew many people there in their thirties, forties and fifties who had never eaten in a restraunt. It was truly an insular place where many people still traveled by horseback and ate supper by the light of kerosene lamps. Some of the older folks could even recall coming to California in covered wagons.

But as with Paramount, Porterville began to change. No, change isn’t the right word—it began to metamorphosize into something alien and entirely unrecognizable. The American cliché had finally caught up with Porterville as the family farms were either eaten up by corporate entities or forced under by the expansion of conflicting property codes imposed both by county and state which no one could harmonize. Anytime the small Farmer was in conformity to the county codes it put him at variance with state codes and vice versa. Thus, California effectively outlawed their way of life.

And of course, the corporate farms exclusively employed migrant Mexicans. This rapidly flooded the area with Non-Whites. The streets are all paved now, graffiti and garbage are everywhere, more and more of the signs are in Spanish and crime is rampant. The government eventually prohibited any entrance to the lakes because they became a haven for squatters and drug-dealers; and the hills are now paved over with track homes to accommodate all the alien service workers. Porterville is no more. Its complete erasure took no more than a decade.

There’s even talk of tearing down the little Porterville historical and agricultural museum because nobody goes there anymore. The new populace couldn’t care less about the history of the Gringos.

Not even the graveyard escapes the radical expungement of all things European; the oldest grave-markers, some dating as far back as the 1850s, are regularly destroyed by honorless Mexican vandals. They single out the Gringo names of course.

And though the little farming community had sustained two bookstores and a library prior to the Mexican invasion, the many times more dense population there now cannot sustain a single bookstore; moreover, if you care to visit you’ll find that one now has the library to himself most days.

I’ve witnessed in my short years on this earth the complete decimation of the only two places I ever considered home as a child. But neither Paramount nor Porterville are unique in this; this scene has been acted out in town after town across this state for the last quarter century.

And the chaos will continue to advance. It will continue because our brethren have been so thoroughly indoctrinated against their own. They’ve had Critical Theory crammed down their throats for the last fifty years, and against the will of the earlier generations I might add. Expectedly, the ringing of a pavlovian bell makes them salivate. Their nurture has been pitted against their nature. One need not even bother with the question of which inclination will ultimately win out because the presence of this kind of internal conflict is itself a resolution to suicide. Such an elemental conflict in a man is in fact a willingness to war against his own life. It is both masochistic and suicidal.

It is this ingrained reflexive commitment to the incoherence of Social Marxism that leads White Liberals to sneer at our fond recollections of places like Paramount, Porterville, Dallas or Memphis. They are slave to the conviction that White self-preservation is hateful and evil. But as I’ve argued many times before, that just means that they are, even if unconsciously, committed to our destruction. Once this is pointed out to them they are forced to entirely redefine “hate” and “evil” so as to exclude their genocidal ambitions.

So when I relay my eye witness testimonials or even the official statistics of our tragic losses in California and beyond some of my White brothers and sisters sneer with contempt. These are unequivocally our enemies. They long only to see relics like us ushered off to the company of our ancestors whom we love so much.

But more often, I see reflected in the eyes of the majority, a true inner turmoil; though they may have been weaned on the bilge pumps of the modern Multicult, they aren’t without certain filial affections. The problem for them is that the reflexive guilt with which they are stricken is quite visceral. And like the neurotoxin of a rattlesnake bite, that guilt brings the onset of paralysis. This paralysis is a purposeful ambivalence, as if they default to some wishful neutrality in the matter. They do this because all alternatives seem to them as extremes and it’s well known that extremism, i.e. conviction, is a bad thing.

But all is not lost on this group. Many of them can and do come around to clearer thinking but unfortunately, this usually doesn’t occur without personally incurring losses to the Multicult madness. Such lessons are painful ones.

Of course, I, myself have been told by the more aggressive lot that it is “only my personal experiences” which have “distorted” my thinking in these matters but that’s just a tautological ruse because everyone’s experience effects their perception. No one’s perception is perfect, save God’s.

But it is this very egomaniacal tendency of Liberalism to usurp the heavenly throne which leads to a remaking of the world in its own muddled image. The results thereof are rapine and carnage but they still call it progress.

“The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Prov.12:10)

Read Full Post »

A Sleeper Story

This has surprisingly remained a sleeper story:

Three men stand accused of burning down a Mosque. They are apparently Christian Identity adherents following the prerogatives of the Phineas Priesthood.

I may not be a member of the Christian Identity movement but neither do I consign them to a de facto heretic status. Many of them simply have their biblical anthropology mixed up a bit. Albeit, they definitely have more to recommend them theologically than does popular Evangelicalism.

But the Identity folk aren’t my focus here; what caught my attention is the fact that
“…a church offered its support and raised $1000 for the mosque, and offering up space for worship on Fridays at First Presbyterian Church.”

What in creation would posses this gaggle of Presbyterians to favor the preservation of Islamic aliens in their community? Not only are they sustaining the Mohammedan encroachment, they are trying to establish a syncretism between their congregation and they whom the Augsburg Confession call, “…the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion…” That is to say that historic Christianity recognizes Islam and the people who practice it as enemies of both our faith and our blood. But the Presbyterians in question are apparently quite enthusiastic about acting as the supply line for the enemies of their own children.

So the question is—who ought be considered the criminals in this matter? The Identity men, who stepped up, in the absence of a sane Magistrate, to exercise their lawful duty to family, community and nation or the Presbyterians, acting contra all such responsibility?

Far from being a rhetorical question, the answer presents itself obvious and it deserves a response from Evangelicals. If polled, how would they adjudicate such a matter?

The Presbyterians in question evidence themselves not as emissaries of Christ but of the state. Their collusion with the lawlessness of our current government marks them as wolves in sheep’s clothing intent upon the annihilation of their own people. Sadly, I think they are, at present, in conformity to the broader opinion of American churches. Though they’d happily melt the entirety of the mid-east into beaded glass, they’d dare not show the slightest disapproval of Muslims in our country.

Perhaps this is the reason for the media suppression of the story—though they’d gleefully smear the Identity men for their thoroughly Christian action, they find the Presbyterian’s response problematic to their aims against Christendom. It’s hard to argue that Christianity is the main problem when you have Christian churches (atleast in name) doing precisely as the misanthropic establishment commands.

If, on the other hand, the community praised the actions of the three Identity men and followed their example by shunning the Muslims, that would make headlines around the world. Or better yet, instead of shunning, the local churches could’ve simply gathered funds to pay for return plane tickets to the Mohammedans’ countries of origin. Hey, we could even witness to them as we ushered them to the terminal. But the sociopathic society which we’ve cultivated seems now never to miss an opportunity to do the wrong thing.

On a related point, I’ve recently witnessed first-hand the cultivation of another such collusion between local government and Islam here in California. The city of Anaheim (an old German settlement) has not only allowed the construction of an enormous “Islamic Studies Center” but has opted to surround the facility with blocks of government “project” housing. Like the castle of some medieval Amir or Sultan with its minarets stabbing heaven, the facility has been granted its army courtesy of Uncle Sam.

It is an awesome and horrifying spectacle to see all those mixed Mexican, African and Arab children teeming out of every doorway and window in the shadow of those gilded minarets from which are broadcast the ritual calls to prayer.

Perhaps the government sees an opportunity to do away with their false-flag operations by creating touch-points for real acts of terrorism? Or, who’s to know, it could just be a serendipitous accident in their eyes. Either way, it is one more ignition point for the coming conflagration.

And Christians [sic] couldn’t be happier about it. Despicable.

Read Full Post »

God, Catechism & Fairy Tales

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 »

Inheritance

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 »