Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Rhetorical’ Category

Question 68 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks:

What is required in the sixth commandment?

Answer:

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

And question 69 asks:

What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?

Answer:

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

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

Advertisements

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 »


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 »

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 »

In the introduction of this subject I defer to my better, the good Rushdoony:

“St Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization… (Deut.22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?’ Unequal-yoking plainly means mixed-marriages between believers and unbelievers are clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference and as a case law, but also unequal-yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen.1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (I Cor.11:1-12; Gen.2:18, 21-23). ‘Help-meet’ means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal-yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.” (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, pg.256-257)

This interpretation seems the natural and harmonious reading of Moses and Paul so long as we take Paul’s treatment of the matter as being anything other than an abrogation of the case-law in question; and it seems apparent that Paul’s only intent is to make a fresh application rather than an abrogation-redefinition of the law as there is no hint of negation in Paul’s writing regarding the foregoing principle of unequal yoking generally. (Rushdoony’s take of the Mosaic Law will be treated below)
Of course, someone will still insist that “The only requirements for a Christian marriage be ‘one Christian man and one Christian woman’.”
The problem is that no one really believes this. Not even the most strident advocates are willing to be consistent with such an egalitarian definition of marriage because if a man took the requirements for marriage as spiritual in nature only, such a fellow would have no legitimate basis for opposing the union of his eighteen year old (or sixteen, if you’re in Texas) Christian son to a fifty year old Christian woman (or any other such vulgarities). Regardless of the man’s professed egalitarianism, he would reflexively find himself either discouraging or outright forbidding his son from proceeding with such a marriage. Such a man would quite hypocritically argue, “You’re at entirely different places in your lives…you have so little in common, etc.” In short, the man would find himself fiercely arguing that the couple were ‘unequally yoked’ in a general sense. This generic principle of unequal yoking applies across a broad spectrum of considerations (linguistic, social, cultural, racial, etc.). Montagues ought not marry Capulettes irrespective of conversion status; this remains a self-evident truism which flies in the face of the post-civil rights era Church’s definition of marriage. Everyone knows, whether or not they admit it, that we ought to seek similarity in our bridegrooming after the exemplar of the first marriage (Matt.19, Gen.2:18-20).
And even in its most literal sense, we still recognize it as inhumane to yoke an ox with a donkey: Though they might plod in the same direction, at the same pace, at the behest of the same master, their gate remains distinct one from the other and it is therefore injurious to both creatures. And if we are enjoined to make such considerations of our beasts, how much more ought we to give such consideration to the yokings of our children?
Henry opines on the burden of these laws from the parallel passage in Leviticus:
“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)

Henry clearly sees some moral implication to the principle of unequal yoking, joining that which by nature God has separated, in the general sense. He tells us that the burden of the Law be against “all needless mixing”; this is in keeping with Rushdoony’s assessment that the emphasis is against “uncongenial mixing”. This principle is expressed across a broad continuum of case laws from the most mundane horticultural matters to issues of inheritance and nationhood.

Rushdoony and Henry both connect this principle closely with the Creation Image/identity ordinance but for the purpose of brevity I’ll not entertain that implication at length here; suffice it to say that God created man in His image, commissioned Man to identify and categorize biological things on the basis of morphology, drew Woman from Man’s own flesh (as a reflection of the man), and the first banishment-separation of Mankind was punctuated by God’s setting of a mark upon Cain that Sethites might know him as “other”. The implication is that by following the same morphological observations prescribed by God to Adam, Sethites knew to keep certain bounds between themselves and Cainites (as Dabney says, all things commanded to Adam are normative to Mankind as requisites to stewardship and dominion). And Augustine alludes to this when he connects the segregation of Noah’s sons with the segregation of Adam’s, saying, ‘It has never failed to be foretold in prophesy from the beginning of the human race, and we now see the prophecy being fulfilled in all that happens.’ (ibid.)

On the matter of infamy codes connected with the principle of unequal yoking Henry continues:

“Others think they [Non-Israelites] are excluded only from marrying with Israelites [this is over and against other sorts of unequal-yoking]. Thus the learned bishop Patrick inclines to understand it; yet we find that when this law was put in execution after the captivity they separated from Israel, not only the strange wives, but all the mixed multitude, see Neh. xiii. 1-2…It is plain, in general, that disgrace is here put, upon bastards and eunuchs, v. 1, 2. By bastards here the Jewish writers understand, not all that were born of fornication, or out of marriage, but all the issue of those incestuous mixtures which are forbidden, Lev. xviii. [The word herein translated, ‘Bastard’ is Mamzer in Heb. It is defined as “mixed, mongrel, mixed-peoples, alien, alienated, incestuous, one born of an illicit union”] And, though it was not the fault of the issue, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made infamous…yet it is here promised (v. 5) that if they took care of their duty to God, as far as they were admitted, by keeping his sabbaths and choosing the things that pleased him, the want of this privilege should be made up to them with such spiritual blessings as would entitle them to an everlasting name…” (M. Henry’s Comm. On Deut. 23)

Though Patrick sided with the Rabbis of his time in their insistence upon a purely patriarical form of Kinism (without regard to matrilineal descent), Henry retorts that we have a superior interpretation of these laws granted us by the infallible prophetic authority of Ezra and Nehemiah, who insisted not only on the exclusion of the foreign women but the mixed children as well (some of the mixed assembly were by this time possibly three generations dilute). To be a Bastard/ Mamzer, was and is, irrespective of religion, to be an illegal alien without any 14th Amendment option of naturalization.

So it is that the mixed peoples (Mamzerim) expelled in the days of Nehemiah became the Samaritans—though they worshipped the God of Israel, they had no “heritage, right or memorial” (Neh.2:20) with Israel because they simply weren’t Israel by definition. Thus, after having publicly read the Law and the genealogies, “those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners” (Neh. 9:2).

The Lord Himself affirms this distinction when speaking to the Syrophoenician woman saying, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not good to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.” (Mark 7:27) which is to say that it be immoral to look after the welfare of foreigners ahead of one’s own people just as it would be to consider another man’s children ahead of your own. We do not take Christ as engaging in gratuitous racial taunts but simply asserting His Patriotism, and special love of His kinsmen as an extension of His own natural family. His use of the term ‘dogs’ is taken as hyperbole meant to construe the distance of priority between His ‘kinsmen according to the flesh’ and the stranger. And this is not out-of-keeping with other such assertions made by Christ—He likewise drew such a distinction of priority in His calling upon children to “hate” their parents (Luke 14:26) by comparison to their love of God.

The principle of national and filial priority is also espoused by the Apostle when he says that “He who takes no care of his own, especially those of his own household, is worse than an unbeliever…” (I Tim.5:8) ‘His own’ (idios in the Grk., “of unspecified affinity”) is clarified by its subset, ‘his own household’; this means that we have a greater responsibility for ‘our own’ parents, cousins, great uncles, etc. than do those more remote to them. This principle extends unobstructedly to one’s ethnos, as is proven by John’s usage: “He came unto His own and His own received Him not.” (John 1:11). John clearly extends the idiom to a people group as a concentric outgrowth of the family. And Cyprian connects this with the identical sentiments penned by Isaiah:

“That every person ought to have care rather of his own people, and especially of believers: The apostle in his first Epistle to Timothy: ‘But if any take not care of his own, and especially of those of his own household, he denies the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’ Of this same thing in Isaiah: ‘If thou shalt see the naked, clothe him; and despise not those who are of the household of thine own seed.’” (st. Cyprian, Tract I On Envy and Jealousy)

But Augustine elaborates this connection further:

“For the examination of a number of texts has often thrown light upon some of the more obscure passages; for example, in that passage of the prophet Isaiah, one translator reads: ‘And do not despise the domestics of thy seed;’ another reads: ‘And do not despise thine own flesh.’ Each of these in turn confirms the other. For the one is explained by the other; because ‘flesh’ may be taken in its literal sense, so that a man may understand that he is admonished not to despise his own body; and ‘the domestics of thy seed’ may be understood figuratively of Christians, because they are spiritually born of the same seed as ourselves, namely, the Word. When now the meaning of the two translators is compared, a more likely sense of the words suggests itself, viz., that the command is not to despise our kinsmen, because when one brings the expression ‘domestics of thy seed’ into relation with ‘flesh,’ kinsmen most naturally occur to one’s mind. Whence, I think, that expression of the apostle, when he says, ‘If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them;’ that is, that through emulation of those who had believed, some of them might believe too. And he calls the Jews his ‘flesh,’ on account of the relationship of blood.” (St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine book II, chpt. 12)

Augustine recalls to us the pledge of St. Paul’s Patriotism wherein the Apostle yearns to suffer the punishment due his “kinsmen according to the flesh” if it might affect upon their redemption (Rom.9:3, 11:14). This, Augustine construes as the Apostles’ conformity with the principle of Isaiah’s admonition (Isai.58:7). And really, if we disallow Augustine’s and Cyprian’s view (ethno-nationalism) here we have no rational frame of reference for what would otherwise be, if it were possible, relegated to nonsensical ramblings in scripture. If Augustine has parsed these texts incorrectly, we are yet to perceive any coherent context for Isaiah’s, St. Paul’s or Christ’s overt nationalistic sentiments. They stand nonetheless.

Henry once again reinforces this principle of familial proximity/ priority even in the finer nuances of the Law as it extends to issues of “favored nation status” in our foreign relations policy:

“We should think that the Edomites had been more injurious to the Israelites than the Ammonites, and deserved as little favour from them (Num. xx. 20), and yet ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, as thou must an Ammonite, for he is thy brother.’ Note, The unkindness of near relations, though by many worst taken, yet should with us, for that reason, because of the relation, be first forgiven.” (M. Henry’s Commentary on Deut. 23)

But overall, we recognize the deuteronomical case laws as outworkings of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments applied. If so, it behooves us to ask from which commandment the principle of unequal yoking, in its various forms, descends; fortunately little inference is here required as St. Paul has confirmed that it has to do with marriage (II Corinthians 6:14). This means the principle of unequal yoking is a consequent of the seventh commandment prohibition on Adultery and this really makes the most sense as it is the only one having at all to do with proper versus improper fusions of anything.

And such being the case, it is then natural that the myriad laws amid which we encounter the principle are found to have one uninterrupted thematic continuum—familial, hereditary, horticultural and other assorted ‘yokings’. The laws against unequal yoking precede the treatment of Bastards and Eunuchs organically, as one uninterrupted thought (Deut. 22 & 23 approximately). Bastard (Mamzer, ‘mongrel’) was a term denoting the illegitimacy and impurity of the resultant offspring of various sorts of unequal (adulterous) yokings.
This explains why the Septuagint translators opted to use moicheuo (an inflected form of the Greek word moich) in Exo. 20:14 in the place of our word, ‘Adultery’. The Theological Dictionary of The New Testament by Kittel (English translation by Bromiley) defines moicheuo thus:

“Of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.”

We find an historical survey of lexicography thoroughly supports this definition. It is an inflected form of this exact word that was used by Aristotle to describe admixtures between dissimilar families of birds over against “true-bred” species (Aristotle, Historia Animalium XI.32.6-10). A.L. Peck therein translates it as “mixed and adulterated”.

And it is also noteworthy that Jerome carried the same connotation into the Vulgate Bible, using the Latin term non moechaberis in Exodus 20:14 and non adulterabis in Romans 13:9 where Paul quotes from the Septuagint. Non moechaberis is a transliteration of the earlier Greek word which depends wholly upon the Greek definition but non adulterabis is a derivative of the Latin word adultero, which The Oxford Latin Dictionary defines as:

“To mix substances with each other; adulterate; to spoil/damage the purity or strength, to corrupt or falsify.”

Of course there is the question then of why our English translations bear the term “adultery” rather than ‘adulteration’. The answer to this is really quite simple: They were originally synonymous as variant iterations of the same concept derived of the same root Latin word (previously mentioned). The Oxford English Dictionary actually lists the recently obsolete definition of Adultery as:

“Adulteration, debasement, corruption.”

It footnotes the fact that early Christian writers used the term to describe any sexual relations “of a Christian with a Jewess”. And it cites Ben Johnson, who, in 1609 (two years prior to the printing of the King James Bible) used the word adultery as a synonym for ‘adulteration or debasement’. Infact, all the related family of English words point in the same direction:

Adulter: “to corrupt, debase, adulterate.”

Adulterant: “that which adulterates, adulterating.”

Adulterate: “spurious, counterfeit, of base origin, or corrupted by base admixture.” (verb) “to render spurious or counterfeit, etc.

Adulterer: “one who adulterates, corrupts, or debases.”

Adulterous: “pertaining to, or characterized by, adulteration; spurious, counterfeit, adulterate.”

But Herrell has pointed out perhaps the most interesting facet of this etymology found in The Oxford English Dictionary is that the footnote inserted under the definition of the verb form of adulterate says: “repl[aced] by To commit adultery.” Adulterate and to commit Adultery were originally interchangeable, which explains Johnson’s assertion that adultery be synonymous with ‘adulteration or debasement’ at the time of the earliest English translations. But that’s just to say that all three—Greek, Latin and English translations—agree on this matter; Moicheuo, Adultero and Adultery (adulteration) all mean the same thing.

So we see that it really isn’t a problem of bad translation of the text—the translation is perfectly sound here. The problem is that we’ve quite recently (in the last 300- 400 years) changed the once universally understood definitions of those words.

But of course, in the Reformed tradition we do not accept definitions by their secular usage but by their biblical usage; with that said, we turn to observe St. Paul’s quoting from the Septuagint in Romans13:9, using the term “moicheuo” and it must be asked—if he, being a highly educated Hellenic, knew the classic definition of that Greek word (as used by Aristotle among others) and as one with apostolic/prophetic authority, knew the intent of the Law—why did he not correct or at least augment the translation there and then? He could have used another word if he so wished. Clearly, it must be argued that he accepted the translation as correct. When he penned those words his readers, without the benefit of any redaction or qualification from the apostle, would naturally be inclined to understand it in the plainest (Koine) sense. What they would understand him to say then is “You shall not adulterate.” (i.e. “You shall not mix those things which are by nature, religion, covenant, culture or kind, separate.”) And he lets stand both the translation and the likelihood of the readers’ taking it in that sense.

And it is then in keeping with such a view of the Law that the Apostle would admonish the Corinthians against joining Believers to Unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14), the members of Christ to a harlot (I Cor. 6:14-16), and various other inappropriate fusions of pagan practice with Christian worship. He even compares such things with the elemental divisions imposed at creation when he asks “what communion hath light with darkness?”

It may be said that their Cosmopolitanism required reproof in regard to several categories of adulteration even if race is not specifically enumerated among them.

Here, one is likely to ask why amongst all the categories of adulteration addressed by the Apostle we find none addressing race specifically.

Though I would say his admonishment to take care of ‘one’s own’ (among other racially aware statements) fits the bill, I acknowledge the fact that the New Testament levels no overt prohibitions on the matter. A couple things may be said of this: One, we know race-mixing was taboo amongst the Romans and Greeks who occupy the backdrop of the New Testament; Horace even praised this feature as a quintessential aspect of Roman law and thought:

“The pure home is not mongrelized by illicit sexual intercourse/ law and custom have driven out forbidden mongrelization/ mothers are praised for their resemblance of their offspring/ vengeance closely follows guilt.” (Ode 4:5:21)

Moreover, early Christian writers agreed with this:

“If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like to themselves—and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments—how much greater is the gladness in God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race is announced!” (St. Cyprian, Treatise No.10 on Envy and Jealousy)

And two, it is a mainstay of Reformed thought that a thing legislated in the Old Testament, if not abrogated in the New, stands. Call them what you wish—Laws against hybridization, unequal-yoking, bastardization, or adultery—none are annulled in the New Testament.

Seminally, it can not be overlooked that Paul’s treatment of those various matters are typically compared by the Apostle himself, to marriage. His generic treatment of these various incongruencies among Christians manifestly relies therefore upon the seventh commandment.

Henry again concurs on this principle of adulteration/ unequal yoking in its general sense:

“Nehemiah had the vexation, notwithstanding this, to see some of his own people treacherously corresponding with Tobiah and serving his interest;…
Many in Judah were in a strict but secret confederacy with him to advance the interest of his country, though it would certainly be the ruin of their own. They were sworn unto him, not as their prince, but as their friend and ally, because both he and his son had married daughters of Israel,
v. 18. See the mischief of marrying with strangers; for one heathen that was converted by it ten Jews were perverted. When once they became akin to Tobiah they soon became sworn to him. A sinful love leads to a sinful league.” (M. Henry’s Comm. on Deut. 23)

He closes this passage with a normative warning against any and all adulteration, be it marital or national, as it invariably leads to divided loyalties and a compromising of security in all spheres. He even goes so far as to say that the exceptional foreigner, even if converted to our religion, will still carry with them ‘a sinful league’ which draws away ten of ours for their one.

We see this very effect in the modern American experience as Non-Whites, irrespective of conversion status or espoused ‘Americanism’, categorically reserve great scorn for all of our old national heroes: Be it the Pilgrims, the Virginia Colony Planters, the Founding Fathers, the Frontiersmen or the Western Homesteaders— Non-Whites, even if Christian, generally disdain them all. The reasons for this are manifold and beyond the scope of this paper but the fact can not be ignored that multiculturalism and multiracialism carry with them a great compromise of loyalties. Even when ‘conservative’ Christians, Non-Whites’ vision for America is one of perpetual Statist revolution. They love America only insofar as it bears no resemblance to what it used to be. This is why and how Barack Obama has successfully campaigned under a political platform summed up in one word: “Change”. This perspectival dissolution is precisely the sort to which Henry refers and which Nehemiah mitigated through stringent application of God’s Law—because acquiescence to the ‘exceptions’ in such matters only provide a foothold for the national revolution and desolation of Deuteronomy 28.

But it is the alternative to the dissolute society which is laid before us in scripture:

“To return to the Biblical doctrine, a wife is her husband’s help-meet…a true help-meet is a man’s counterpart, that a cultural, racial, and especially religious similarity is needed so that woman can truly mirror the man and his image.(pg. 351) Basic to family law is the inner bond of blood and faith.(pg. 360) The family was basic to Biblical society and culture; the godly family had to be perpetuated, and the ungodly family cut off. The bastard was cut of from church and state, insofar as any legal status was concerned, to the tenth generation (Deut.23:2). He might be a godly man but he was not a citizen. (pg.375)…bastards could not be recognized as legitimate…The creation and perpetuation of godly families is thus basic to the law (pg.380). Biblical law is designed to create a familistic society…[marital infidelity is] treason to the family and introduces an alien loyalty to the home, as well as alien seed (pg.395). ’In the trustee period, adultery, along with one or two other crimes, is the most infamous act against the whole society-kinship group…’(by Zimmerman) (pg.396) ‘Adultery…threatens the security of the bloodline…’(Cole) (pg. 397) A third type of divorce is implied, enforced by authorities, as with Nehemiah, in cases of consanguity and mixed-marriages: Mixed marriages banned: Deut. 7:1-3; cf. Ex.34:12-16; Num. 25:6-8. (pg. 403) Marriage is held in faithfulness to the creation ordinance.” (pg. 409) (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law)

And:

“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.…especially with all relatives, for “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [or, kindred], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). The authority of the husband, and of the wife, is not personal but theological and is a trusteeship for God, first of all, and then the family. …When conservative Christians think of the godly family, they tend to think of the domestic rather than the trustee family; as a result, the individual man is exalted as head of the household rather than placed strictly in a trusteeship, in a position of custodial powers. …The atomistic family has no future. The godly family commands the future. The future family is under God, the trustee of children, property, inheritance, welfare, and education. It governs the basic areas of social power in terms of God’s law and grace.” (R.J. Rushdoony, “The Trustee Family” Journal of Christian Reconstruction: Symposium on the Family, Vol. IV, No. 2, Winter 1977-78, 12.)

This Trusteeship of one’s inheritance is a responsibility entrusted not only over real estate but all of a Christian family’s holdings— faith, culture, riches and yes, blood—that is to say, heritage.

Read Full Post »

By now everyone has heard about the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court on the subject of Gay marriage [sic]. It has many Evangelical Pundits calling fire down from heaven but by and large they fail to grasp the point of origin for this Johnny-come-lately abomination; expectedly then, they have no proposal for its remedy save more incoherent amendments to our Constitution.

James Edwards has done a masterful job of obviating the not so golden thread running through the history of American jurisprudence on the topic of Marriage. He reminds us that the legal arguments used as justification for the aberration de jure originate from the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling which declared the Laws banning interracial marriage to be unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment which granted citizenship and “equal protection” to Non-Whites.

He mentions the fact that Gullup took a poll after the 1948 ruling in which 95% of Americans said that they were morally opposed to interracial marriage. He says that Christians of yesteryear demonstrated a level of outrage toward mixed-marriage equivalent to that of modern Evangelical’s response to Gay marriage. But on this point I admit a slight disagreement with my friend Mr. Edwards as Gallup now polls American disapproval ratings of Gay marriage at only 74%! That means that Americans were infact more convicted on the matter of interracial marriage than they are now about Gay marriage (by a margin of 21%)! But rather than detracting from Mr. Edwards’ point, I think my a fortiori treatment of the matter actually bolsters his argument because it shows how much the concept of Marriage has been cheapened in the minds of Americans since 1948. Once Marriage received its first egalitarian retooling America’s conviction for the sanctity of that institution slid precipitously into retrograde.

But of course, the Evangelical’s current crusade to enshrine Heterosexual Marriage in the Constitution will remain a fool’s errand so long as the 14th Amendment stands. The concept of “equal protection” is the ‘great commission’ of Abraham Lincoln. It is the fruition of the Gettysburg gospel, inspired by his cozy aquaintence, Karl Marx.

Neither modern Judiciary, nor any extant Legislative body will ever admit Heterosexual Marriage as an Amendment to the Constitution because it would be a denial of the now hallowed 14th Amendment. Mr. Edwards is right—Gay marriage follows interracial marriage as surely as night follows day.

Lincoln’s pursuit of “a more perfect union” was posited over against the national covenant of our Constitution which recognized the fact that, in Judge Douglas’s words, “[T]his government was made on the white basis…it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever.” (from the first of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates) And it must be noted that Lincoln even conceded this point at the time only to ostensibly deny it via speeches and edicts after the fact.

All of this aside, Article III, Section 2 empowers Congress to simply forbid the Court from ruling or even hearing cases on the subject of Marriage between persons of the same sex but the faux Conservatives of today will never utilize this constitutional check of powers because no matter what they say, they really aren’t opposed to judicial activism. Just think of it, if it weren’t for such usurpations why, we’d all still be living in a White country, Abortion would be akin to Witchcraft (and for that matter, Witchcraft would be akin to Witchcraft) and any talk of Gay marriage would be like discourse on the behavior of unicorns—abject fantasy.

But of course, the employ of the Constitutional option at this late date is, for our duplicitous overlords, out of the question. It would show our de facto government for the treasonous fraud of which Lincoln was founder. They’re playing a high-stakes game of Liars’ Poker and they’re “all in”.

Read Full Post »


A Dougie MacLean original as sang by Hank MacGregor…
Here are the lyrics:

You’re a stranger to these hills and you’ve come up here to end your days
And you love our running rivers and you love our quaint little Highland ways
You sold your house in the city – you put it on the market and you did so good
Now you’ve bought a little piece of something that you don’t understand and you’ve misunderstood…

He rebukes laissez faire Capitalism and Democratic Individualism which know no community covenants and recognizes no identity above one’s consumer status. Though he’s speaking of the wealthy Technocrats who treat his beloved highlands as an amusement park, these words apply thoroughly to the invasion of the American South by the same ilk.

chorus:{…But I’ll tell you about the land that you play on
What you’ve gained is our ultimate loss
I’ll tell you about the soil you decay on
I’ll hold it up to you like the Fiery Cross… }

This haunting chorus reverberates in the deep recesses of the heart of any who have ears to hear. He proclaims the corrosive disassociation of the interloper to be an act of aggression and an assault upon all that is good. Were Christian order to abide in the land such things would not be. Thus he lifts up the crann tara, “the fiery cross” as a symbol of both God’s illuminating mercy and His terrible wrath.

…You love the view from your window and you’d go out
more but it always rains
You don’t think much of the music or the tears in the
old man’s sad refrains
You’ve bought yourself miles of tartan and you wear it
round your middle and you wear it on your head
You stand there a proud believer in a vision of the truth
that’s long gone dead. But I’ll tell you about the land etc. (chorus)…

He gives voice to his contempt of the foreigners who play at Patriotism, only to mock his history and the venerable dead.

…Once these glens were full of people and the songs
and stories of their fathers of old
And there was peace and plenty and a horn of
whisky when the weather grew cold
Then along came the great improvers and they

cleaned it up like only imperials could
They lined them up for transportation to the land of the
brave and the free and the good
But I’ll tell you about the land etc. (chorus)…

Though the Clans had their disputes the notion of Celtic barbarians immersed in perpetual war was a mythological contrivance of the English who habitually caricatured their enemies. This tactic was perpetuated as much under the protestant rule of Elizabeth and Cromwell as it had been in the reign of their Romish predecessors but this defamatory tactic had originated in the Roman church’s anathemas of the more orthodox Celtic church of the British Isles. The Roman Bishops spared no expense in their attempt to delegitimize the Culdee church of the Gaels—they burned books, manuscripts, churches and men. British Imperialism, political and cultural, was a vestigial habit of Caesero-Papism. The Bard keenly perceives this caustic infidelity in the outlander’s patronage.

…Look to the south I tell you that the black man has it
cruel and hard
But you don’t have to look any further that the rumble
of stones in our own backyard
And Oh sad the day and all that’s left are a fading few
Yes Sir you may have paid good money for it but no it’ll never belong to you But I’ll tell you about the land etc. (Chorus)…

Though we may recognize the plight of those remote to us we are nonetheless enjoined to remember first the needs of our own. Our philanthropic impulse, when divorced of any objective call of responsibility to our own children, serves perennially as the impetus to Communism. It reduces all men to mere economic units without any other bonds of significance, regional, cultural or filial. It decimates all things of seeming permanence and strips all peoples of their unique identities.

And they who languish as docile cogs in this Babelite machine as decontextualized “global citizens” will never be a part of the lands which they acquire; the blood and tears of a people are naught to them but a quaint story from the backward days of yore. Our clannish Christian forbears are, as far as moderns are concerned, aliens and enemies to all that they cherish. For them, contempt of our families be the greatest virtue as such estrangement liberates them to actualize all of their wildest messianic fantasies.

MacLean is a master Bard and wordsmith. His music ever renders the profound simple and the simple profound.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »