Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

Question 68 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks:

What is required in the sixth commandment?


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?


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.


Read Full Post »

Today’s reading is from Leviticus 19.

19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Of this, Henry says:

“Here is, I. A law against mixtures, v. 19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen. i. 25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Eccl. iii. 14. As what God has joined we must not separate, so what he has separated we must not join.” [Deut.32:8] ~M. Henry’s Comm. On Lev.19

Notice that he quotes Jesus (Mark 10:9) on the topic of human marriage as the corollary passage. And recall that St. Paul tells us that the laws regarding cattle haven’t chiefly to do with cattle, but with human relations (1 Cor. 9:9-10).

Sir William Blackstone informs us of the definition of the word ‘Monster’ as it is employed by Henry to refer to the offspring of diversely gendered unions:

“A monster … hath no heritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage … But our law will not admit a birth of this kind to be such an issue as shall entitle the husband to be tenant by the courtesy; because it is not capable of inheriting. And therefore, if there appears no other heir than such a prodigious birth, the land shall escheat to the lord.” ~Sir William Blackstone’s Comm. on the Law, Vol.II, Chpt.XV

As with the category of a ‘Bastard’, Blackstone tells us that Monsters are, legally speaking, “nullius filius, kin to nobody”.

Read Full Post »

Magnalia Dei

Again, a learned friend is doing the Lord’s work by translating the great doctors of the faith into the common tongue; many such works are suppressed today but so long as an authentic confessor of the antique faith draws breath there will yet be someone to preserve these treasures. 

What follows is  a wonderful piece– quite typical of the historical Church’s understanding of things. The author (and the church of his day) had no notion of the behaviorist theories of Freud and Young which have recently become so firmly entrenched; the Church of yesteryear believed in nurture but not to the exclusion of nature. In Fokelorist terms their cosmology was as anthropological as it was literary. For such views, unanimous though they once were, they would be harried from most modern congregations. But if we have little communion with those now living we will console ourselves with the communion of the venerable dead in Christ. 

“Through the flood, God had destroyed all men save eight persons; now the new world was to be reinhabited by Noah’s three sons. I will indicate just our own grandparents and those of our neighbors—other nations may take care of their own provenance. From Magog came the Turks and the Tatars. Magog means “a man who lives by plunder, not dwelling in cities or houses, but al-ways staying in the country”: those peoples have just such a nature. From Meshech came the Muscovites. Meshech means “a good shot”: Such are the terrifying warriors of that people. From Ashkenaz came the Germans. Ashkenaz means “a priest of the holy fire; a man who can call fire down from heaven.” From Elisha came the Silesians. Elisha means “God’s salvation; a man who knows and confesses the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ.” These two men learned about our Lord Jesus in the churches of Shem and testified of the heavenly truth to all the wolves. Here we see that God often finds pious hearts among the foe as well. From Riphath came our Poles. Riphath means “a great giant”: so are there still big, tall, strong folk among this nation. No other scribe in the world could have given us such an account. From this it is proven that Moses was the oldest, noblest, best, and most trustworthy writer of history. Hence it is now clear that Japheth was the grandfather of all of us who dwell in these countries. We are all Japheth’s children, and that which Noah foretold (Gen. 9:27), viz., that we children of Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem, has come true: For through the gospel we have all been brought to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, who was revered in the churches of Shem. God be praised and thanked for this forever! From Ham, Noah’s youngest son, came but idle, wicked knaves and adversaries of God’s people: Babylonians, Philistines, etc. For as the raven, so the egg. The apple falls not gladly from the branch. What by elders was sung is the lore of the young. Bad hair and bad hide always make a bad pelt. Hawks don’t hatch eagles. Nimrod was a towering tyrant before the Lord; that is, by the tolerance and permission of God: For without God’s permission and will no tyrant could lift a foot, nor would Pilate have had any authority. Nimrod was the first king of Babel, a mighty warrior, feared by all men like a hunter by hares. He was, as his name implies, amarus dominator, “a bitter, severe ruler,” who forced his people to work in his court and wait on him as though they were peasants in bondage. He might as well have been called “Never-bread,” for he took the bread from the mouths of his poor subjects and left them with never a piece of bread, and he turned never red over the matter: He was not ashamed by any knavish trick; he had the ἀδιατρέψιαν of Caligula, who thought it was the most commendable part of his nature that he could say and do as he pleased and had no shame before anyone: but periit, cui pudor periit, “He is lost who is lost in shame” Dear [reader], behold, the worst knaves snatch for themselves the most power and glory in the world; the fattest pigs always snap up the biggest beets; the worst rogues always have the best luck; they live on the fat of the land while the devoutest people bear their cross and gnaw the table-cloth of hunger.
From Shem came the children of Eber, the Hebrews; in German this means “wayfarers, pilgrims, and strangers in the world.” Such is God’s peo-ple; and such must always continue to wander in the world and endure much affliction as dwellers in the same house. They know, too, that they have no enduring place here, and so they behave like strangers and folks on a pil-grimage, setting their hearts on the eternal fatherland where they shall stay forever: for our Lord Jesus thus studiously calls the heavenly dwellings man-siones (“places in which to stay”). Here again we find our Lord Jesus in a beautiful mystery. With respect to God, our Lord Jesus truly had the pri-macy and the greatest esteem from among His friends; but as far as the world was concerned, He always came last and brought up the rear. You can see this very beautifully in Genesis. When Moses lists Noah’s sons in the beginning of Genesis 10 (v. 1), he puts Shem at the top regardless of the fact that he is not the oldest but the middle [son]: Moses did this for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ who was to be born from the bloodline of Shem. Thus Shem has the highest place for the sake of our Lord Jesus, as it has even been evinced above. He puts Japheth under him because that is where the circle is to be joined. In religion, Japheth’s children were to take after the children of Shem. In promotionibus Magistrorum (“when masters get their diploma”) the last locus is the locus gratiae, (“place of grace”). Thus Japheth is placed here in loco gratiae, for the children of Japheth “glorify God for His mercy,” as St. Paul says in Romans 15:9.
Ham, the wicked knave, is put in between them; for he, as the true tare among the wheat, was to plague and afflict the children of God just as has surely transpired. This is one thing. Shem has the highest place at the intro-duction of the chapter to the glory of our Lord Jesus; but when his children according to the flesh are counted, and Shem’s children are recorded in the manner in which they stood before the world, then Shem has to go to the bot-tom and come last: the precedence was given to Japheth with many wicked people, and to Ham with nothing but bad leaves. So it goes in the world: the worst knaves always get the greatest glory. It often cuts the pious to the lung and liver when they see it with their own eyes; for thus Psalms 37 and 73 are anguished, fretted and plagued with this grief. “Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my kidneys,” says Psalm 73:21. Cain, too, was the cock of the hoop; he built for himself the first city: Abel was a cinder-sweeper. The Herods with their wanton dancing maiden got the rosarium and malthouse: John got the kiln. That gallows-bird Barrabas came first in Pi-late’s speech and the hearts of the Jews: Christ was last and least. Like-wise in our text, Magog, Meshech, Nimrod, and the Philistines come first: Shem’s children are forced to gather their dust and breathe their stink. The former were a whole nation; the latter barely a handful. The former had great fortresses; the latter were poor pilgrims, etc. Therefore do not let it grieve you when the world sweeps you and your gospel behind the stove. “Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious against the workers of iniquity. For like the grass they shall soon be cut down and as the green herb they shall wither… fret not yourself because of him who prospers in his way…For evildoers shall be cut off…For yet a little while, and the ungodly shall be no more: and when you seek for his place, it shall not be” (Ps. 37:[1-2, 7b, ]10). Where are the haughty nose-blowers of Ham’s bloodline today? There is nei-ther stick nor stocking of theirs to be found in the world. (Magnalia Dei, Part 2, Sermon XXIV, on Genesis 10, exerpt)

Valerius Herberger’s Magnalia Dei “The Mighty Acts of God” is subtitled: “Or, How Jesus Christ is the Core and Substance of Holy Scripture.” It is a 600 codex-page devotional commentary from Genesis to Ruth in which every chapter, or sermon, heading begins with “Jesus…”

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

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 »

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)


“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 »

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 »

Older Posts »