+Christians, not Jews, are the true sons of Abraham
+the Jews of today are Pharisees
+Christians and Jews do not belong to the same God
+the primitive Church did not support Jewish militarism
+Christians that aid the Jews put their souls in danger
Please Join Us In PRAYER
Yesterday I was a guest on the Praise of Folly podcast with Todd Lewis. We discussed the origins of the Enlightenment and defended Protestantism from the charges made against it by Catholic reactionaries.
Today's program focuses on an article by Andrew Joyce about Christianity and nationalism
-On Europe and the "Faith" by Andrew Joyce.
Today's program looks at the Christian's duty to fight for both mercy and justice.
-SBBDL asks whether the modern Church is redeemable.
Today's program looks at the cyclical nature of political systems and the prospects facing us in late-stage democracy.
-Is Trump a classical tyrant?.
-Livy's account of the end of the Roman monarchy.
-Herodotus' account of Periander and Thrasybulus.
Today's program looks at the ongoing Jewish subersion of the Alt-Right and the possible return of hard communism.
-The second Psalm.
-The intensified Jewing of the Alt-right.
-The New York Times makes a safe space for PC reactionaries.
-Rushdoony's book Law and Liberty. .
Today's program looks at the evil being brought into the world by the Marxist doctrine of multiracialism.
-White Christians must repent for racism.
-The racially diverse new majority.
-"Anti-racism" is based on envy.
-Grades are a form of white supremacy.
Today's program further examines the Jewish strategy of subversion and how this could play out in the "alternative right".
Today's program features a conversation with Hans Gygax. Topics include the Trump phenomenon and the attempted infiltration of the radical right by mainstream conservatives.
-TIME article This Is What Ancient Greeks Would Have Called Donald Trump.
-Breitbart article An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right.
-Daily Stormer article Breitbart’s Alt-Right Analysis is the Product of a Degenerate Homosexual and an Ethnic Mongrel.
One would think that after a decade of observing the cowardly behavior of fake conservatives, nothing would surprise me anymore. But I must confess that this week I was taken aback by the controversy surrounding Donald Trump's suggestion that if abortion were made illegal there would be penalties for women who had abortions. It is understandable that the pro-infanticide voices in our culture would condemn Trump's position as "anti-woman", but Trump was also attacked by Ted Cruz and other supposedly pro-life leaders.
While Trump unfortunately moderated his position in a subsequent statement, the logic of his original comments suggesting prison sentences for women who had abortions make perfect sense. If one truly believes that abortion is murder, how could one possibly oppose penalizing those who abort their own children? What is the point of making something illegal if there is not going to be any legal penalty for violating the law?
When condemning Trump's position on Twitter, Cruz wrote that:
"We shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and gift to bring life into the world"
Cruz's statement was echoed by various other organizations in the mainstream pro-life movement. Their hysterical response highlights exactly why the pro-life movement, and the conservative movement as a whole, have been so unsuccessful. They attempt to mix the moral axioms of liberalism with their own Christian worldview and end up reinforcing liberal values. In this case, the pc pro-lifers regurgitate the leftist argument that abortion restrictions are "anti-woman" by saying that certain types of abortion restrictions are indeed "anti-woman".
And finally, this episode shows once again how emotional, muddle-headed and anti-nomian contemporary Christianity has become. There is no stomach for offending worldly opinion or for affirming and enforcing God's standards of justice. The distasteful task of actually carrying out the type of punishment that God commands is abandoned in favor of sentimental talk about respecting the feelings of those who commit heinous deeds. The contemporary Church has no fight, no vision, and they wonder why they lose every battle in the culture war.
Back in 2014 I wrote an article for the Daily Stormer called The American Race and the Fate of the World. The article argued that the real American people (i.e, patriotic white Americans) are still the most powerful ethnic group in the world, if only we would assert ourselves, and that the fate of the world ultimately rests on whether or not Americans wake up and resist the Jewish New World Order.
As is typical of the Europe-obsessed white nationalist movement, there was some criticism of high regard I showed for the American people, but I still believe that my original analysis is correct, and that the main argument of my article is even more relevant today in light of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and its global ramifications.
Donald Trump is the American people's most popular candidate in this election cycle, and he threatens to undermine the current globalist worldview and replace it with an America-first ideology. The global elite is panicked. The Chinese communists, Mexican presidents, the establishment in both major political parties, and the “billionaire class” in America are terrified that Trump might actually become president and undo everything that they have worked for. Keeping Americans pacified and in their place is essential in order for the New World Order to consolidate its power. The system could keep going if nationalist revivals occurred in other countries, but if the United States goes nationalist it will be game over for the globalists.
Their terror, and the futility of their efforts to stop Trump so far, show just how fragile their control really is. And while Trump certainly deserves a large amount of the credit, we must keep in mind what is fueling Trump's popularity: it is the “rednecks”, the white blue-collar rubes that the Jews and the their cosmopolitan white allies despise. For the first time in decades, the hated American white man is standing up for his interests, and the only counter-attack that the global elite can come up with is to call us “fascists” over and over again. The elites stand to lose everything, and name calling is the only strategy they can come up. As I wrote back in 2014,
Under Jewish control, the American race is like a chained animal, forced to perform for its master. We, who are the most powerful nation on earth, are made to live like helpless slaves. We are disgusted by every effort of the left and the colored masses to destroy traditional Americanism, but at every step of the way we are laughed at and insulted because of our beliefs. In the country that we built, the Jews and other non-whites live more comfortably than they ever have elsewhere, and in return they mock us and demand the destruction of our way of life.
Our assent to Jewish power is the only reason why degenerate, leftist ideas have any success anywhere in the world. We have the power to control the course of global events, but instead we allow ourselves to be trampled underfoot in our own homes and communities.
We, the American race, the sleeping giant of the world, must awaken and drive out the anti-American forces of Jewry. If we do not do so, we will lose everything. The fate not just of our country, but of the entire world rests on this one question: can Americans throw off the Jewish yoke and once again fight for White Christian civilization.
Trump is admittedly a flawed vehicle for American traditionalism, but for the first time in my life there is actually hope that the sleeping giant is stirring.
I would like to encourage everyone to check out the new youtube channel belonging to my friend Hans Gygax. There is a serious lack of pro-white video media, and Christian pro-white video media in particular, so this is a very welcome development. Hans has an introductory video up on his channel, and promises more to come soon.
In what is quickly becoming a new subgenre, Vox has published yet another article trying to explain why Donald Trump's presidential campaign is so successful. While most of these articles tend to be rather dull and lacking insight, the Vox article entitled The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age. It's authoritarianism is worthy of note.
The article is clearly following in the footsteps of the landmark Jewish “study” published as The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. This study, which was funded by the American Jewish Committee, gave the deranged Freudian-Marxist theories of the Frankfurt School a scientific veneer. The study claimed that support for patriotism, the traditional family, law and order, and a capitalist work ethic all sprang from the flawed “authoritarian personality”. After tracing support for traditional values to a personality disorder rather than conscious ideological choices, the Jews attempted to label all proponents of tradition as mentally imbalanced. (For an extended analysis of The Authoritarian Personality, see pages 107-119 of my book Weep Over Jerusalem).The first thing to note about the liberal demonization of “authoritarian” traits is that several of these traits are actually quite positive. One might describe the authoritarian personality as “steadfast”, “prudent”, “loyal” and “possessing moral clarity”. The “authoritarian” traits of respecting order and clearly distinguishing between friend and enemy are necessary for building civilized societies. They have only been demonized by perverted Jewish Freudians because these Jews want to destroy traditional Western Civilization and they know that “authoritarian” whites are the biggest impediment to achieving this goal.
In the Vox article, author Matthew MacWilliams writes:
A voter’s gender, education, age, ideology, party identification, income, and race simply had no statistical bearing on whether someone supported Trump. Neither, despite predictions to the contrary, did evangelicalism. Here is what did: authoritarianism, by which I mean Americans’ inclination to authoritarian behavior. When political scientists use the term authoritarianism, we are not talking about dictatorships but about a worldview. People who score high on the authoritarian scale value conformity and order, protect social norms, and are wary of outsiders. And when authoritarians feel threatened, they support aggressive leaders and policies… Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions.
If we are to believe the data cited by MacWilliams, then the Trump phenomenon is the result of much more than surface frustration with current policy.
In place of the authoritarian ideal, the Jews have promoted the soft, the infantile, the neurotic, and the muddle-headed. The Jews have been remarkably successful at relegating and subduing authoritarian traits. Jew-run Hollywood consistently presents authoritarians as being either uncool or downright psychotic. It is therefore no surprise that the millions of Americans who possess these traits are rallying to the first candidate in decades who has unabashedly embraced an authoritarian style. Authoritarian Americans have grown up being told by the media and the public school system that their values and instincts are evil and depraved. This explains why support for Trump has been like a flood released by bursting dam.
Trump's authoritarian style also helps to explain why his support is so broad. If, as the author of the Vox author claims, authoritarian traits do not match exactly with conscious ideological commitments, then it make senses that Trump is drawing a “diverse” group of supporters. It seems safe to assume that these authoritarian traits will show up in Northeastern union workers who usually vote Democrat as well as in more typical Republican demographic groups like white Southerners. Trump's authoritarian appeal also helps to clarify the problem of whether or not Trump is a “real conservative”. It seems that Trump held rather liberal social views up until relatively recently. This has been seized upon by some of his Republican critics who claim that he is some sort of secret Democrat deliberately pushing the Republican party to the far right in order to ensure a Clinton victory in November. A more likely explanation is that Trump has always been a real authoritarian, and that he now sees the Republican party as the most likely vehicle for political success. I doubt very seriously that Trump is sincere in his support for traditional marriage or opposition to abortion; but I do not doubt his sincerity when he loudly proclaims his desire to harshly deal with all of our enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is a sad day when the sodomites at Counter Currents have become the voice of reason on the issue of the proper role of the “manosphere” in white nationalism. But alas, it has come to pass. In an admittedly excellent article, sodomite Greg Johnson explains the obvious: Roosh V, who is a rapey Middle Easterner known for his books about sex-tourism in Europe, should not be celebrated by white nationalists. The guy is famous for defiling dozens if not hundreds of white women, and in at least one instance he has admitted to committing what would be considered rape under current law, as Johnson explains in his article.
Given that Roosh is know for his series of books about how he slept with white women in different European countries, one would think that it would be obvious to even the most broad-minded white nationalists that Roosh is just as much the enemy as the rape jihadis currently streaming into the heartland of the white race. However, Roosh occasionally criticizes the Jews and there are apparently a lot of sexually frustrated losers in the white nationalist movement, which has led several white nationalists to admire Roosh and the pick-up oriented “neomasculinity” that he represents. Some of the less morally scrupulous white nationalists have openly endorsed his work.
The problem here is actually much larger than Roosh himself. Even aside from the fact that Roosh is non-white, the attitude that he has towards women is a poisonous one for nationalism. In their extreme bitterness towards feminism, the manosphere has become increasingly insulting and spiteful towards all women in general. The problem ceases to be the Jewish ideology of feminism and becomes the feminine itself. Women are treated as the other. They are blamed for every ill in liberal society, thereby absolving white men of all responsibility. This is a damaging attitude for nationalism, because in nationalism it is necessary to foster harmony between the two halves of the race, the male and the female. I am not aware of any successful nationalist movement, past or present, that has taken the position that women as such are the enemy. These manosphere types even go so far as to say that feminism, or rebellious women in general, are the chief cause of Western civilization's decline and that women are the chief beneficiaries of the sexual revolution. The ignorance of this movement is betrayed by these ridiculous claims and their insincerity is exposed by the obvious fact that they have absolutely no desire to go back to the pre-sexual revolution standards of morality. Prior to the sexual revolution, much of the material produced by the manosphere would have been deemed obscene and therefore illegal. Birth control was not widely available and abortion was illegal, making the free sexual lifestyle that the manosphere aspires to impossible. Men have embraced the sexual revolution with open arms because it allows them to fulfill their lusts. Even those with a vestige of honor who theoretically understand the damage that the sexual revolution has done seem incapable of changing their own behavior (i.e., abstaining from fornication). In my experience, the only men who are actually interested in rolling back the sexual revolution are Christians who understand that the return to traditional morality starts with the individual. Anyone who claims to be opposed to the sexual revolution but then reads books on how to bang as many sluts as possible is a pure hypocrite.
The style of pick-up artistry practiced by Roosh is known as “game”. Over the last few years, game has become increasingly popular amongst nationalists. From what I can tell, the main point of game is to teach nerdy losers how to become “alphas”. This enables them to see through the lies of feminism and to become self-confidant serial fornicators. I unhesitatingly call these men losers because many of them seem to complain not simply about feminism preventing them from finding traditional housewives, but about feminism preventing them from being able to have even casual sexual relationships. This seems to be a common complaint amongst manosphere types, especially those who also identify with white nationalism. I say that this is abnormal loser behavior because in my own experience I have never met any men who share the manoshpere's insistence that it is impossible to “get women” in today's feminist world. Almost all the men I have known from college or from work have been in steady relationships or have been happily “playing the field”. The level of sexual angst displayed by the manosphere types is something I have not seen since high school. I was totally unaware that grown men in today's promiscuous atmosphere actually need to read guide books on how to pick up loose women.
How game is supposed to help advance the cause of nationalism is truly beyond me. I have asked game advocates to explain this to me on multiple occasions, but I have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense. I grant that feminism is a major problem in the West and that it is one of the main tools used by the Jews to destroy white families and drive down white birth rates. What I do not understand, however, is how game is supposed to truly overcome feminism. The great success stories that I hear from game proponents is that they are now able to bed numerous women and to do so without any emotional attachment. But from a nationalist perspective, the biggest problem with feminism is the destruction of the traditional family, and therefore the goal of nationalism needs to be the restoration of the traditional family and the increase of white birth rates. From what I have seen, however, game does absolutely nothing to restore the traditional family. I have not seen one example of a gamer who used his neomasculine skills to transform a liberal feminist into a traditional housewife. I have not seen any testimonials from ex-feminists who ascribe their embrace of traditional gender roles to the raw masculinity of a pick-up artist. The more prominent leaders of neomasculinity, including Roosh himself, seem to be unmarried and childless (Roosh is currently 36 years old, and has been writing game material for almost ten years). As a Christian opponent of game and neomasculinity, I am accused of being a “beta” or a “white knight” for opposing the ridiculously anti-women attitude of gamers. But in reply, I can say that if our goal is the restoration of the traditional family, then Christians can boast of a much better track record.
There is already a movement in the United States that has converted thousands of women away from feminism and promiscuity. Women who had been indoctrinated with radical feminism from their youth have come to see the error of their ways and have been transformed into traditional housewives. This movement is called conservative Christianity. I have read several testimonies from women who rejected feminism and free love after coming to faith in Christ. Looking at my fellow white nationalist writers and bloggers, I have certainly noticed a trend that the happily married ones tend to be Christian, which is not at all surprising. We follow the old paths; we pursue courtship and marriage following the pattern of our Christian ancestors; and we apparently do not suffer the crippling frustration that is the mark of manosphere. I want to make it clear that I am not making a utilitarian argument in favor of Christianity. I am not advocating that anyone become a Christian simply because it can overcome feminism. But overcoming feminism is undeniably one of the great blessings that the Christian faith provides. Being born again in Jesus is the only way to rid oneself of all worldly doctrines, including feminism. The fact that game advocates so stridently oppose Christian sexual ethics is just one more indication of the extremes to which unregenerate man will go in his quest to distort and deny the truth. Even in its more traditional form, marriage was a compromise, as both the husband and the wife have always been required to make certain sacrifices in order to create a harmonious new family. The manosphere, with its attitude of perpetual play and selfish enjoyment, does not lead to this marital harmony and it is not part of the solution to feminism.
In the spirit of Rushdoony Commemoration Day, I have been listening to some of the excellent Rushdoony lectures available at the Pocket College website. In particular I would like to make a few comments on Rushdoony's two part lecture on the Voluntary Church in America (part 1, part 2).
Rushdoony's two books on Americanism, This Independent Republic and The Nature of the American System have greatly influenced my understanding of my own country, and his lectures on the voluntary church are equally insightful and enlightening. In these lectures, Rushdoony traces the distinct American character to the Great Awakening that began in the colonies around 1740. The Great Awakening was a tremendous outburst of Evangelical spirituality in Britain and her colonies in the New World. Men such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and John Wesley fostered a renewed zeal and focus on personal salvation.
Significantly, as Rushdoony points out, this focus on personal salvation had the effect of undermining the importance of the state church and denominational distinctions. For example, Edwards was a Congregationalist, while Whitefield and Wesley were both clergy of the established Church of England. While Edwards and Whitefield were both Calvinists, Wesley was an Arminian. But despite these theological and ecclesiastical differences, these great preachers and their followers often felt more spiritual kinship with the ardent Christians of differing denominations than with the lukewarm members of their own particular sect. More than that, the lukewarm members of their own sect could no longer even be thought of as true Christians. The church was increasingly seen as the body of the faithful, not a bureaucratic insititution. Rushdoony explains that in the old world, even amongst Protestants, the existence and legitimacy of the state instituted church was almost always a given. Nations, not individuals, became Lutheran or Reformed, or remained Catholic. The new focus of the Great Awakening on a personal, direct relationship with God led to the American aversion to state churches. It also led to a radical new phenomenon: the independent, member-funded church became the norm in the colonies and later on in the republic.
Within American Christianity, it became the expectation that churches were congregations of like-minded individuals who came together voluntarily and voluntarily funded their own ministers, buildings, and philanthropic ventures. And this American attitude of voluntarism was not restricted to religious activities. It became the standard American attitude towards all of life, including politics and community. Rushdoony argues that this principle of voluntarism is what distinguishes American civilization from European civilization, which would account for the difficulty that Europeans have when it comes to understanding American politics. To this day, Europeans have difficulty comprehending the American insistence on individual responsibility, limited government, and voluntary charitable organizations. The European mindset, which grew out of the state church mindset, naturally assumes that a nationwide governmental institution should control law enforcement, education, health care, and every other aspect of social and political life. The principle of voluntarism also would account for the radically different results that followed the spread of democracy in Europe. In America, the arrival of democracy meant the decentralization of power and responsibility. When Americans were given the choice of how to run the government, they naturally chose to run the government in the same way that they were already running their churches. In France, on the other hand, when the people were given the choice of how to run the government, they ran it in the same totalitarian fashion that the French king and the catholic church had already been running it.
Gaining this insight into the nature of Americansim is important, especially for those of us on the far-right who strongly oppose the status quo. If our goal is to build a new American nationalism, it is important for us to understand the deepest spiritual and psychological roots of the American people. And upon discovering that Evangelical Protestantism is at the heart of Americanism, it is easy to see why Americanism has fared so poorly over the last 100 years, and what must be done to remedy it. Over the last century Protestantism has been driven from the power centers of American life. While small “WASP” elites remained in the large cities, the bulk of the urban population became overwhelmingly Jewish and Catholic thanks to the foolish immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (although these policies were doubtless due to the desire of the WASP business elites for cheap labor). Even though I am a descendant of both Polish and Irish Catholic immigrants, I say without hesitation that the transformation of America's urban centers into Catholic and Jewish strongholds was disastrous for traditional Americanism. While there certainly are Catholics who embrace traditional American values, by and large traditional Americanism only survives in the more rural areas of the country where Evangelical Protestantism has remained the dominant spiritual orientation.
In closing, I echo what Rushdoony himself says about renewing traditional Americanism: it can only be achieved by turning the hearts of the American people back to Christ. Not only must our people repent, but we must work on divorcing ourselves from institutions and power structures that are not based on the principle of Evangelical voluntarism. Either through reform or secession, we must come to live under a system that accurately reflects our national soul.
Today it is commonly held that Evangelical Christianity is inherently pro-Jewish. This opinion is shared by Evangelicals themselves, who boast of their pro-Jewish sentiment, and by nationalist Catholics and neo-pagans, who see it is a strong argument against Evangelical Christianity. While contemporary Evangelicals certainly are guilty of the philo-Semitic heresy, one does not need to venture very far into the past to see that this was not always the case. Even up until the 1930s, some of the most prominent Evangelical leaders were fully aware of the Jewish problem and spoke about it openly. (This puts the Evangelical shift to philo-Semitism in the post-WWII era, which is the same period during which Catholics and mainline Protestants officially changed their attitude towards the Jews as well.)
In this article, I will focus on one such leader, William Bell Riley (1861-1947). Riley was a Baptist pastor from Minneapolis who was the leader of the “fundamentalist” movement of the early 20th century. The fundamentalist movement was the conservative Christian reaction to the spread of Darwinism and modernism in American culture. According to William Vance Trollinger Jr., author of God's Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism (1990, The University of Wisconsin Press.), Riley was “...the dominant figure in American fundamentalism in the first half of the twentieth century. More than any other individual, it was Riley who, in the decade after World War I, marshaled the fundamentalist forces into crusades designed to purify both American Protestantism and American culture in general”(4). “Riley was the founder and leading spokesperson of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA), the first organization that attempted to unite conservative Christians of all denominations in an international association. An indefatigable polemicist, he was one of the most active and effective debaters among American antievolutionists.” (33)
To the surprise and dismay of polite society, today's conservative Evangelicals share many of same the ideas promoted by the fundamentalists (creationism, Biblical inerrancy, etc.), especially the central idea that God will not continue to bless America as long as Christianity is being driven from public life. However, unlike today's Evangelicals, Riley and his contemporaries were not blind to the central reason why Christianity was under attack: the influence of organized Jewry. Trollinger explains, “In the 1930s and 1940s Riley transferred much of his intellectual energies from his failed fundamentalist crusade to the active promotion of an anti-Semitic, conspiratorial interpretation of national and international events” (62-63). “According to Riley, behind the scenes of world events there operated an international Jewish-Communist conspiracy...These plotters sought to manipulate affairs in order to bring wealth and power to themselves and chaos and poverty to the Gentile masses…Riley argues that the Jewish cabal had as its ultimate goal 'the establishment of a single government...whose place and power will be made secure by a reign of terror that will put to the most torturous death any and every opponent; the plan being to exalt a few of Jewish blood to honors and untold opulence, and retain them there at the expense of the world's millions'” (72). As part of his efforts, Riley heavily promoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and supported the work of the leading patriots of his day, such as William Dudley Pelley and Elizabeth Dilling. Interestingly, Riley's anti-Semitism was completely in line with his strong anti-evolutionist convictions, which led him to be highly critical of National Socialist Germany: “In 1941 Riley published the pamphlet Hitlerism; or, The Philosophy of Evolution in Action, in which he described Hitler as the “BEAST-MAN” who was putting into practice Darwin's doctrine that 'might makes right'...In this regard, it is noteworthy that in Hitlerism Riley did not even mention Hitler's persecution of the Jews. Put more baldly, there is no indication here or elsewhere that Riley ceased his public attacks on the Jews because he had undergone an intellectual or moral transformation.” (79).
To the liberal Trollinger, Riley's shift to a greater concern about the Jewish problem cannot be based on any legitimate observation or experience. In the liberal mind, the Jews are completely blameless, so the roots of anti-Semitism must be sought by psycho-analyzing the anti-Semitic individual. Trollinger (page 69) settles on the theory that Riley retreated into anti-Semitism because of his own personal failures. The truth, however, is found in Riley's address The Jew and Communism, which was delivered in October of 1936. In this address Riley gives an account of how he came to hold his anti-Semitic (or as he preferred to say, anti-Jewish) convictions. Riley explains how in his own experience the enemies of Christianity and traditional Americanism have always turned out to be disproportionately Jewish. He also recounts how his shift towards an anti-Jewish position went against his prior theological convictions. As a committed premillennialist, Riley believed that the Jews have not been completely cast off by God and that they still have an important role to play in the End Times. Before reaching his anti-Jewish position, Riley even spent time with organizations that attempted to evangelize the Jews. While I disagree with premillennialism (and hold it to a large degree responsible for the growth of “Christian” Zionism), it is to Riley's credit that he did not let his premillennialism blind him to what the Jews are currently doing to us.
In closing, I present the entire text of Riley's address The Jew and Communism. I pray that it will show Evangelical Christians, even premillennialists, that there is nothing in their faith that prevents them from recognizing the evil that the Jew has brought upon us.
The Jew and Communism
(The following text is transcribed from the original scans available at the Riley collection at the University of Northwestern).
For three successive Sunday nights I have been giving a brief dissertation on Communism, the first of these - “Shivering at the Sight of a Silver Shirt,” the second - “The Red Shirt of Russia and a Shirtless Russia”, the third - “Is There Danger to America in Communism?”, and now tonight,- “What Has the Jew to do with Communism?”
A Paper entitled “Anti-Semitism in America”, a Jewish defender says:-
“Until the last few years it has been the Fundamentalists and Premillennialists who have been noted for teaching kindness to the Jews and for persistently promoting the preaching of the Gospel of the love of Christ to the Jews.”
This is absolutely true! I have been a member of the boards of the two Jewish Missions of this city; I was for years on the Board of Councilors of a New York Mission. As a Fundamentalist and a Premillenialist I accord to the Jews not only a great place in past history, but also a major place in prophecy, or history to come. But I also agree with another statement to be found in that same Jewish Defense Paper, namely,
“The Word of God offers no quarter to individual Jews who may be criminals. There is no warrant for dealing gently with an offender against the peace of society, because he happens to be a Jew.”
“Anti-Semitism” is a sadly misapplied term. If it means anything, it means “opposition to Abyssianians, Arabians, Palestinians, Phenicians, Syrians, and the countries of the Euphrates and the Tigris; and everybody knows there is no such opposition. The term adopted covers entirely too much, and in some cases is intended as a cloak against all conceivable crimes.
For instance Guilford and Liggett were brutally and cowardly murdered. They were murdered in the same way and in all probability by the same man (Jewish gangster Kid Cann), and in each instance by a shotgun. But, when two people, witnesses to the second murder, testified as to the man they saw do the deed, it is very poor taste to cry “Anti-Semitism” and try, thereby, to prejudice the public against the justice that should have been meted out to a liquor vendor Jew!
The same principle applies when Jews are found leading Communistic meetings,- as in Chicago heading Communistic parades,- as in Minneapolis, directing Communistic banditry,- as in China, and murderous revolutions,- as in Russia.
To be sure, all Jews are not to be held responsible for even the attitude of the majority of them; but when a large proportion of people make no revolt against such leadership they must endure the reputation thus created. There are doubtless many Jews in Minneapolis, as there are in other parts of America, who are loyal to our form of government, and all such will have no objection to what I am about to say. I am happy to say that one of the finest defenses of the American Constitution that I have seen in print was recently issued from the pen of Josiah E. Brill, Jewish attorney of this city. I would advise your reading of the same; it is a classic!
But I am expressing in this article my own experience and observation with the members of this race. I disclaim all prejudice. There is no grounds upon which a Christian could have a mere prejudice against a Jew. We adopt his Sacred Book as our own; we give to him credit for having provided the Christian's Saviour through a Jewish Mother, so there could be no religious prejudice. There could hardly be a race prejudice since the Jews are a white race, and the question of color-difference does not come in. Socially, the Gentiles have always offered to the Jew far more attention than he is willing to accept; and politically we have given to the Jew in America every right accorded to native-born Americans.
Why, then, has he become unpopular in this country? It is my profound conviction he has nobody to blame for it but himself. In this connection I rehearse my own experience and observation in the matter.-
My first unfortunate dealing with the Jew began 25 or 30 years ago when, as a member of a committee, we tried to find a common basis on which great portions of God's Word could be read in the public schools, and we found the leaders of this race our opponents at every step.
My second experience came in connection with the 28 debates that I held in different parts of America on the subject of Evolution. Scarcely one of these occurred within the vicinity of a University, that there were not University students present who tried to heckle the opponent of Evolution and who hung about after the debate was over for personal disputations in defense of Atheism; and we shortly discovered that, in the overwhelming majority, they were young Jews.
My third observation was that whenever there is a Communist parade, or a Communist meeting, the Jew is present out of all proportion to his numbers in America.
My fourth observation was that the Jewish secret organizations of the country,- when you can get at their objectives,- are too often in line with Communism; and there are few Jews who do not belong to one or more of these organizations.
To illustrate: let me give you a couple of passages from a local organization operated under a national one with headquarters at 1225 Broadway, New York, and known as THE A.B.C. OF THE PIONEER WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION.
A dinner of Jewish women was held in Minneapolis and when they left the tables, one of them inadvertently left behind the tract that I hold in my hand on “What is the Pioneer Women's Organization?”- in which it states very clearly that, in America it “participates in socialistic activities through the ballot, through support of striking workingmen, through cooperative undertakings, etc.”
Another quotation from this same tract it:-
“The Pioneer Women's Organization's affiliation with the Second Socialist International, reaffirms our solidarity with the laboring masses of the world.”
Doubtless this tract was printed before the 4th International was born, showing its Russian leanings.
Still further: The Gentile is hardly to blame for calling attention to the fact that the present American Administration under Mr. Roosevelt, - now almost uniformly conceded to be “pink” to say the least, with a strong tendency to deep “red” - is to such an extent Jew in council, that leading Jewish magazines have boasted the large number of their people now in places of power under Roosevelt appointment.
Again,- It was not “Anti-Semitism” that led Disraeli, the greatest Jew that the English world ever knew, to write:- “The influence of the Jews may be traced to the last outbreak of destruction in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property, and in the secret societies that form provincial governments, and men of the Jewish race are found to be at the head of every one of them.” (See “The Life of Lord Bentick” pp. 497 and 498.)
It was not Gentile prejudice that led Dr. Oscar Levy of London, that brilliant Jew, to say:-
“We have erred, my friends; we have most grievously erred...We who have posed as the saviors of the world; we, who have even boasted of having given it 'the' Savior, we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners.”
It may be easy enough to condemn Sergius Paulus as guilty of forgery since he is dead and not able to defend himself, but who will answer Dr. Munzer, the Jew, and who will deny the power that was formerly exercised in Prussia by Walther Rathenau; in Germany by Balin, Schwabach, Simon and others; and by the Rothschilds as the Kaiser's adviser; the Mounds', Sassoons', and Isaacs' influence in England? the Brandies, the Warburgs and Klein with Barnard M. Baruch and Felix Frankfurter in America?
Some time ago in a Jewish Convention, resolutions were passed warning young Jewish students against their too vocal expressions favoring Communism; that was a step in the right direction.
But if the Israelites in America are to recover the comfortable status that they have occupied in America for a hundred years or more, they can accomplish it in only one way,- by seeing to it that the multitudinous representatives of their nation who now engage in the business of liquor selling, who now are found too often in charge of sporting places with spotted records, who now crowd the halls of Red Communists and head street parades of the same, and who now appear before School Boards to condemn young Gentiles who are loyal to American form of government, and who object to the distribution of loyalist literature, and who who take so conspicuous a part in the administration of a government that tends to government control and ownership of all things,- and consequently a possible Russian administration in America in which the soft word “liquidation” would displace the harsh but more meaningful word “murder” - cease these things, and then Anti-Semitisim, so-called, will soon sleep the sleep of natural death.
In other words, if the Jew has become unpopular in America, a country that has received him with open arms, he has nobody but himself to blame for that circumstance, and he alone can remove that sentiment.
As part of the panicked effort to smear Donald Trump, National Review editor Rich Lowry published a piece in Politico in which he draws a distinction between constitutionalism and populism. While acknowledging that the two can be compatible, he expresses concern about populism that is not “tethered” to constitutionalism:
Conservatism has always had a populist element, encapsulated by the oft-quoted William F. Buckley Jr. line that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But the populism was tethered to, and in the service of, an ideology of limited-government constitutionalism.
As a constitutionalist myself, I agree that in order to have a virtuous, prosperous country it is necessary for constitutionalism and populism (or more accurately nationalism) to be tethered together. However, Lowry seems to have his priorities backwards: nationalism should not be subordinated to constitutionalism, but rather constitutionalism should be subordinated to nationalism. When it happens that a government or written constitution no longer serves the interests of the nation that established it, it is time for the government to be radically reformed. Cuckservatives and kikeservatives, on the other hand, claim that the written political document must be defended at all costs, even if it means that the nation that framed the document is to be wiped out by the soft genocide of mass immigration and race-mixing.
Not only must constitutionalism be subordinated to nationalism, but constitutionalism is in fact impossible without nationalism. For the very word “constitution” should not be understood in the narrow sense given to it by the cucks. The “constitution” of a nation is not just a document. The “constitution” of a nation is that which constitutes it; in other words, that which makes up the nation. Thus every nation has a racial constitution and a religious constitution, in addition to its legal constitution. Even the legal constitution of a nation is more than just a document, for it also includes a nation's political traditions and practices. The overall constitution of a nation is made up of its legal, religious, cultural, linguistic and racial aspects. Written constitutions are shaped by all of these influences and are therefore inseparable from the racial characteristics of the men who wrote them. There is therefore no such thing as a “color-blind” constitutionalism. Many cucks are quick to say that they do not care if America becomes a brown country, so long as the constitution is respected. But the constitution cannot survive this racial transformation. The third world hordes are predisposed by their low IQ and other genetic traits to vote themselves more welfare and government benefits. Self-reliance and limited government are not part of their racial makeup. The browning of America will inevitably result in the permanent destruction of American constitutionalism.
Thus while Trump might not be a constitutional scholar, he is the only candidate whose victory could conceivably result in the return of white dominance to our country. This white dominance is absolutely essential to restoring the original constitution of America.
The “Alternative Right” never ceases to amaze (and disappoint) me. This month we saw the passing of David Bowie, one of the foremost propagators of degenerate art and immorality in the 20th century. Appallingly, many on the alt-right are mourning his death and suggesting that the filth that this man produced somehow has value or relevance for radical traditionalists and nationalists, imagining that his work has some sort of Nietzschean or occult significance.
I say that this is appalling because Bowie seems to have checked every box on the enemies list. Race-mixer, check. Transvestite, check. Drug user, check. Homosexual (or at least bi-sexual), check. Ahead of his time SJW, check.
As for the respect for Bowie coming from many on the alt-right, perhaps they were just a bit too impressed by Bowie's drug-fueled trolling during a couple of interviews in the 1970s when he expressed support for fascism. But these few comments (which Bowie soon retracted) are meaningless when weighed against the sum of what he achieved during his career. Bowie was one of the most consistently degenerate forces in popular culture. He did much to normalize homosexuality and cross-dressing, even if he embellished the degree to which he was actually involved with those subcultures. It is also possible that many on the alt-right are so intoxicated by Bowie's musical abilities, that they fail to see that he is just as much an enemy of traditionalism and racial integrity as Howard Stern or the Kardashians, and that his work is just as uninteresting and insignificant. The only other hypothesis I can think of is that Bowie's promotion of fantasy and unreality somehow speaks to the psyche of the alt-right, which for all its complaints about postmodernism is still just one offshoot of it.
The rise of Donald Trump has been the biggest story on the dissident right for the last six months. Trump's ability to break the rules of Jewish political correctness with impunity has delighted everyone to the right of the Republican “establishment” and its wealthy Wall Street donors. At the same time, many on the far right have raised concerns about Trump's true intent and opinions. Both the delight and the concern are justified. While Trump should be praised for his plans to secure the border and ban Muslim immigration, he still seems oddly close to the Jewish establishment at times. For example, he recently was given the opportunity to host SNL, a show which is produced by the liberal Jew Lorne Michaels. Far-left, anti-Christian Jewish comedian Larry David had a cameo on Trump's SNL broadcast, during which David jokingly called Trump a racist. If the Jewish establishment were really as terrified of Trump as they frequently claim to be, it seems unlikely that Trump would be treated in this manner.
I do not wish, however, to dwell upon theories about Trump's possible motivations. For the sake of this article, I will consider what the Christian perspective on the Trump phenomenon should be, even in the best case scenario. I take the best case scenario to be that Trump actually understands the race issue and that he wishes to seize control of the country in order to re-assert white dominance in America. While this development would be a great blessing and a partial return to the way God intends for us to live, it seems very unlikely this would “make America great again” in a meaningful way. Great nations cannot simply be created out of poor material. They come about from a confluence of cultural, racial, and historical factors. America's greatness came from the piety, morality, and self-sacrifice of the people who founded and built the nation; as long as these elements are lacking, greatness will elude us.
While most of the complaints about Trump from the cuck-right have been laughable and pathetic, at least some of their critiques ring true.
They are correct in saying that Trump's bombast and lack of gentlemanly virtue would have disqualified him from serious consideration in the age of America's founding fathers. It is indeed difficult to imagine the incredibly conservative society of late 18th century America appreciating a twice-divorced man whose business ventures have included gambling dens and smutty beauty pageants. But the cucks have no one to blame but themselves when it comes to America's apparent lack of concern about Trump's seedy persona. The cucks have spent the last 70 years doing absolutely nothing to stop the Jewish assault on Christianity, public morality and classical learning; rather the only time the cucks ever seem to have any fire in them at all is when they are tearing down and maligning the few patriotic Americans who have tried to fight Jewish power. The cucks caved on Jewish control of Hollywood, they caved on racial integration, they caved on the Jewish communist takeover of the universities, they caved on feminism and the sexual revolution; and now they are angry that Trump, who has been able to thrive in such a debased environment, is taken seriously in politics.
Another cuckservative complaint about Trump is that he frequently shows a disregard for constitutional government, evidenced by some of his wilder claims about what he will do if elected president (for example, his claim that he will mandate the death penalty for cop killers, something not remotely within the authority of the executive branch). It is possible that Trump's claims along these lines are mere hyperbole, but there is a very real concern about the damage that could be done to constitutional government during a Trump presidency. But this is only because such authoritarian measures would be necessary in order to reverse the current decay in America. Trump's wealth allows him to run for office without any outside financial support, but I doubt that his wealth is sufficient to fund enough congressional candidates to take over the legislative branch of the government. Thus as president Trump would be blocked by a hostile congress at every turn. It is even conceivable that a congress attempting to impeach President Trump would need to be suspended or dissolved. As a proponent of rational, constitutional government, I would certainly be saddened that such drastic measures would be needed, but it is sometimes the only way forward when a society has become so corrupt and degenerate.
The preceding points suggest that a Trump victory would represent the emergence of a sort of American Caesarism. The parallels between contemporary America and late republican Rome are indeed obvious: prosperity has led to weakness and moral laxity; our stoic forebears would be ashamed at the state of their spoiled descendants; we have become an uneducated mob addicted to spectacle; reviving the old forms of government in the current degenerate culture would be unfeasible; and the only thing that could overturn the current corrupt system is apparently a boastful oligarch who desires to elevate himself above his fellow oligarchs.
Given all of this, it becomes apparent that a Trump victory would be at best only a small step towards restoring white Christian civilization to its former state. The mission of the Church would be essentially the same during a Trump administration as it is under the current system: to reassert the primacy of God's Word in all areas of life and culture. Having Trump in the white house could certainly aid this mission (for instance, the persecution of the Church by the radical sodomite lobby and others would likely lose some steam), but there is nothing I have seen to suggest that Trump or his followers understand the fundamental dangers posed to America by modernist ideologies. Unlike the Puritan revolution, the American revolution, or the fascist movements of the 1930s, the Trump phenomenon does not yet seem to have any spiritual dimension. America's greatness has not been destroyed by “stupid” or “loser” politicians. It has been destroyed by an evil world view, one which can only be defeated by an alternative world view. If Trump is victorious, the slide into further Caesarism and degeneracy could only be countered by a spiritual revival. We also must not forget that Caesarism, for all of its immediate benefits, tends to lead to further state meddling in Church affairs. As Christians we must not let a nationalist Trump administration cause us to lower our guard or think that our witness is not as urgently needed.
But for all of his shortcomings, I still hope that in 2017 I am enlisting in Trump's deportation force.
Salon recently published an anti-gun article called White guys are killings us: Toxic, cowardly masculinity, our unhealable national illness. The article argues that the traditional American concept of white male supremacy is the root cause of our unique gun culture and our strong resistance against any efforts to limit our Second Amendment rights. Cuckservatives responded to the article by pointing and sputtering at the hyperbolic headline, but as is often the case when discussing the origins of American society, it is the Left that more honestly highlights the racialist dimension.
If you can filter out the anti-white editorializing, the Salon article quite accurately describes early America as being a society founded by and for whites, particularly in recognizing the connection between white solidarity and democratic government:
The gun is central to the founding of an American society where hierarchies of race and gender were central to the country’s Herrenvolk white racial settler democratic project. America was born as, and remains, a culture and society dedicated to maintaining the dominance, privilege, and power of white men over people of color and women. This was not an accident, bug, or a glitch. It was a feature. Guns helped White America to commit genocide against First Nations peoples and to steal land under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. The gun maintained Southern society as a white over black racial military dictatorship.
In other words, gun ownership was central to white America's struggle against surrounding savagery. Without personal ownership of firearms, fewer settlers would have struck out into a wilderness populated by primitive natives, and southerners would have faced the constant danger of a slave revolt. So far the article is spot on, and it gets even more interesting:
The color line dominates America’s past and present. The United States’ racial order, those seemingly arbitrary, yet so very powerful and life altering demarcations of who is “white” and “non-white” in the United States, was born in 1675 during Bacon’s Rebellion. In that moment, white indentured servants and black “laborers” struggled together against the planter class in Virginia. The planter class found a solution, one that still dominates how Whiteness pays a psychological and material wage to white people in the United States. White elites decided to give white indentured men guns and land when their period of service was complete. In contrast, black people would be slaves, people without rights in that society, and whose period of “service” was permanent: the black body became human property and a vessel for White America’s wealth.
The only major flaw in the preceding paragraph is the assumption that racial distinctions are "arbitrary" (white planters recognized the very real racial similarities between white laborers and themselves, they did not just make them up), otherwise the analysis is essentially correct. Unlike the rulers of the more aristocratic colonies of Latin America, white planters in the northern British colonies wisely chose racial solidarity with poor whites rather than class prejudice against them. As I have explained elsewhere, white racialism arose together with the democratic view that all white men are entitled to the same basic rights and opportunities. The old world belief in an absolute distinction between white nobles and white peasants runs counter to white racial consciousness and solidarity, a fact that was very clearly grasped by the German regime of the 1930s.
In early America, firearm ownership was a mark of citizenship. After the Civil War there was an effort by the radical egalitarians and abolitionists to guarantee full equal rights to the former slave population. While this equality was written into the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, it was never fully accepted or acknowledged by the vast majority of white Americans. Both de facto and de jure prohibitions on race mixing and full enfranchisement persisted for decades in the North and the South. The reason for this is the obvious inequality between whites and blacks that nearly all white people are naturally aware of. The Salon article continues:
White elites understood the practical and symbolic power of the gun. As such, they passed laws that made it illegal for black Americans to own firearms. African-American Civil War veterans, a group that had earned their full citizenship as men via martial prowess, would be made the focus of special violence by white Southerners. The infamous Black Codes and Jim and Jane Crow denied guns to black people on practical grounds—black people with guns would be able to actively resist white supremacist violence and political disenfranchisement. These laws had symbolic power as well. Because gun ownership was reserved for white people, it was deeply integral to notions of white masculinity and white male power. The gun was a tool for white men to protect “the white family” against non-whites.
Today the gun is still an effective and necessary tool for defending the white family from non-white violence. The wisdom of these previous generations of white Americans is manifest whenever one considers the shocking murder rates in majority black cities. In the hands of whites, guns contribute to an orderly free society. In the hands of blacks, guns contribute to anarchy and destruction. The problem with gun violence in the United States has nothing to do with concepts of white masculinity; rather, it has to do with the gravely mistaken notion that the concept of white masculinity can be transfered to black men. When given voting rights, blacks set up parasitic welfare states that inevitably self-destruct. When given gun rights, blacks kill each other in mass numbers. The attempt to grant white freedoms to blacks not only leads to violence and chaos, but it ultimately degrades and limits the freedom once enjoyed by the white population. Again from Salon:
In an iconic visual, members of The Black Panther Party, in compliance with state law, marched on the California state capital while brandishing their guns. The notion that gun ownership should be exclusive to white people would be asserted once more. Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, worked to pass stricter gun laws because of the Black Panthers using open carry laws.
This is the tragedy of trying to integrate blacks into white society: freedoms that could be exercised responsibly by whites are taken away from everyone. Jews and leftists pretend that it is the the non-whites who are the victims when the state passes restrictive laws specifically aimed at solving problems caused by non-whites, but this is incorrect. It is the white population that suffers during every misguided effort to integrate racial groups that are incompatible with our civilization.
Salon accurately states what is at stake in the gun control debate: the constitutional right to gun ownership is a white thing, and undermining this right undermines white culture. White Americans currently have only a subconscious awareness of this. Unless they come to a conscious understanding of this issue, their gun rights will eventually disappear.
When it comes to the question of racial equality, there is a broad spectrum of secular opinion. The socially acceptable position is that all races are absolutely equal in every way, while secular white nationalists of the more extreme variety hold that non-whites are so inferior that they do not even qualify as human. Rather than occupying a position on this spectrum, Christianity transcends the spectrum altogether; Christianity posits a spiritual equality derived from the commandment that we love our neighbor, while at the same time recognizing the reality and significance of human differences. To both the racial egalitarian and to the secular white nationalist, Christian equality is seen as foolishness. The egalitarians want absolute equality in all spheres of life, so Christianity's spiritual equality is offensive in its refusal to implement equality by force in this life; secular racialists want absolute inequality in all sphere's of life, and Christian equality is seen as an impediment in the total dehumanization of the inferior races. In a sense, both the egalitarian and the secular nationalist are correct: Christianity runs counter to their carnal schemes. As Christians, we should be aware of our unique position, and we should unapologetically offend those who oppose it. The following passages from Soren Kierkegaard's Works of Love (Harper Perennial 2009, pages 80-84) incisively deal with the question of Christian equality and inequality, and how much it differs from worldly interpretations of the same issue. He begins by noting the role that Christianity has played in weakening pagan caste systems in which certain individuals were deemed to be non-human:
Even the person who is otherwise not inclined to praise God and Christianity does so when with a shudder he reflects on the dreadfulness in paganism or a caste system whereby men are inhumanly separated man from man through the distinctions of earthly life, when he reflects on how this ungodliness inhumanly teaches one man to disclaim relationship with another, teaches him presumptuously and insanely to say of another man that he does not exist, that "He is not born."
While the egalitarian may be grateful for this change brought about by Christianity, there are racialists and "radical traditionalists" in the mold of Julius Evola who actually want to bring back these firm caste distinctions. Like the Pharisees, they wish to restrict the definition of "neighbor" to those of their own kind or ideology, while Christ calls us to love both the haughtiest and the most degraded, whether they be persecuting magistrates or suffering prisoners.
Then he even praises Christianity, which has saved men from this sort of evil by deeply and eternally unforgettably stamping the imprint of kinship between man and man, because kinship of all men is secured by every individual's equal kinship with and relationship to God in Christ, because the Christian doctrine addresses itself equally to every individual and teaches him that God has created him and Christ has redeemed him, because the Christian doctrine calls every man aide and says to him, "Shut your door and pray to God and you have the utmost a human being can have; love your Saviour, and you have everything, both in life and death; then pay no attention to the differences, for they make no difference."
(First a quick note to my Reformed readers: simply substitute "Christ has redeemed all men" with "Christ has redeemed men from all classes and nations", and I believe that Kierkegaard's general point remains the same.)
Having dealt with the aspect of Christian equality that is pleasing to the secular egalitarian, Kierkegaard then proceeds to the side of the doctrine that causes him offense. God saves us where we are, in our current circumstances. Salvation is of grace, so there is no need for the saved man to become wealthier or more powerful upon his conversion. Christian equality demands not only respect and recognition for men of unequal status, it demands respect and recognition for inequality itself. To deny inequality is to distort the Gospel, because denying inequality demands a communistic equality on earth before spiritual equality can be fully gained.
I wonder if a person looking from a mountain peak at the clouds below is disturbed by the sight; I wonder if he is disturbed by the thunderstorm which rages below in the low regions of the earth? Just so high has Christianity set every man, absolutely every human being--because before Christ just as in the sight of God there is no aggregate, no mass; the innumerable are for him numbered--they are unmitigated individuals. Just so high has Christianity placed every man in order that he should not damage his soul by preening himself over or grovelling under the differences in earthly existence. For Christianity has not taken distinctions away--any more than Christ himself would or would pray God to take the disciples out of the world--and these remain one and the same thing. Never in Christendom, therefore, just as never in paganism, has there lived any man who has not been attired in or clothed with the distinctions of earthly life. Just as the Christian does not and cannot live without the body, so he cannot live without the distinctions of earthly life which belong to each individual, whether by virtue of birth, position, circumstance, education, etc.--no one of us is pure or essential man. Christianity is too earnest to present fables about pure man--it wants only to make men pure...
...Consequently, Christianity has once and for all dispelled this horror belonging to paganism, but the distinctions of earthly existence it has not taken away. These must continue as long as time continues and must continue to tempt every man who enters into the world, for by being a Christian he does not become free from distinctions, but by winning the victory over the temptation of distinctions he becomes a Christian. In so-called Christendom, therefore, the distinctions of earthly existence still continually tempt; alas, very likely they more than tempt, so that one behaves arrogantly and another defiantly envies. Both ways are rebellion, rebellion against what is Christian. Far be it from us to strengthen anyone in the presumptuous delusion that only the mighty and the famous are the guilty ones, for if the poor and weak merely aspire defiantly for the superiority denied them in earthly existence instead of humbly aspiring for Christianity's blessed equality, this also damages the soul. Christianity is not blind, nor is it one-sided; with the quietness of the eternal it looks equably on all the distinctions of earthly life, but it does not contentiously take sides with any single one. It sees--and with real distress--that earthly busy-ness and the false prophets of secularism will in the name of Christianity conjure up the illusion of perfect equality, as if only the high and mighty make much of the distinctions of earthly existence, as if the poor were entitled to do everything in order to attain equality--only not by way of becoming Christians in earnestness and truth.
In this passage Kierkegaard is primarily discussing the distinction between rich and poor. What he says about the "false prophets of secularism" in the context of class struggle is certainly true, but it is even more true when it comes to the current struggle for "racial equality". Economic inequality exists mostly because of differences in ability and external circumstances of birth (for example, being born into a wealthy family). In the case of economic inequality, there is at least a degree of plausibility that some from amongst the poor could have been rich if they had received the same external advantages as the rich. But in demanding racial equality, the secularist denies God's creation in a much more profound way. Due to obvious racial differences, it is completely implausible to suggest that Negroes can reach white levels of achievement if given the same external advantages. The Negro's disadvantage is in his very blood. Denying racial differences is like denying that a man born with Down syndrome is less mentally capable than a normal, healthy person. Down syndrome is genetic, physiological, and visibly apparent in the face of the individual. The same is true of race.
He, then, who will love his neighbour, he who consequently does not concern himself about eliminating this or that distinction or about mundanely eliminating all distinctions but concerns himself devoutly with permeating his distinctions with the sanctifying thought of Christian equality, such a person easily becomes like one who does not fit in with earthly existence, not even with so-called Christendom; he is readily exposed to attacks from all sides; he easily becomes like a lost sheep among ravenous wolves. Wherever he looks he naturally sees distinction (for, as said, no man is pure man, but the Christian lifts himself above distinctions); and they who have mundanely fastened themselves to a temporal distinction, whatever it is, are like ravenous wolves.
Here Kierkegaard plainly states what the Christian is to expect: attacks from all unbelievers on every important point of ethics and religion. The black man is our inferior, but he is also our neighbor and therefore God commands that we love him. The black man should be excluded from our political community, perhaps even in a position of official servitude, but his children still have the same absolute right to life that ours do. We think it best that congregations be racially segregated, but we would never deny baptism or fellowship to non-whites who are sincere in their Christian faith. In saying this we offend both the egalitarian and the secular nationalist, for they have both "mundanely fastened themselves to a temporal distinction"; but if we were not offending them, we would not be doing our job. Under the current Jewish regime, the Gospel is attacked by the false doctrine of carnal equality, so this is where we need to witness to the truth. Under a secular nationalist regime, we would likely be attacked from the opposite direction.
In my last post I gave some brief information on the traditional Christian attitude towards sodomy. To expand on that topic, I recommend to my readers the excellent sermon "Sodomites On Trial" by Matthew Trewhella (download the sermon here). The sermon was originally preached in 2003 shortly after the United States Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws to be "unconstitutional". Trewhella gives a detailed historical account of how sodomy was treated in the early American colonies, and even more importantly he does an excellent job communicating the total revulsion with which homosexuality was viewed. Christians in past ages considered sodomy to be as bad as murder and rape. Until we bring back that attitude, our claims of representing "traditional" or "Biblical" Christianity are insincere.
In today's white nationalist subculture there is an ongoing discussion on whether sodomy should be condemned or celebrated. This fact has always baffled me. It is hard to see how anyone claiming to be a traditionalist or a reactionary could embrace such an obviously deviant and perverted activity. Those on the "alt-right" like to talk big about being "radical traditionalists", when in reality they do not want to go any further back than 1986, the year when the United States Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting sodomy were constitutional.
This divide in the nationalist community came to a head last week when outspoken Christian Matthew Heimbach was dis-invited from Richard Spencer's homosexual-friendly conference sponsored by the National Policy Institute. While I am not aware of the details of the conflict between Heimbach and Spencer, it appears that the attitude towards homosexuals advocated by Heimbach and his associates was deemed morally unacceptable by Spencer, specifically the idea of executing homosexuals.
The alt-right critics of traditional Christianity seem completely ignorant of the fact that all traditional cultures strictly regulated sexual behavior, even those nations that allowed some form of pederasty. In arguing against the position of Christian traditionalists, the alt-rightists make the same "wow, just wow" comments usually made by SJW's. In the eyes of the alt-right, merely pointing out that someone wants to criminalize homosexuality is proof that this individual is crazy/stupid/evil. The impression I get is that these alt-rightists are not traditionalists or rightists at all. They are liberals who realize that their comfortable consumerist way of life is threatened by changing demographics. They pretend that they are anti-materialist and anti-bourgeois, but then their articles and comments show that many of them are just as interested in popular films, music, drugs, promiscuity, and vain gym culture as your typical white millennial. They even share the same superficial attraction to muddled Eastern mysticism and occultism found amongst suburban yoga moms.
I am encouraged that the divide between Christian and antichrist white nationalists is growing. I have yet to see a convincing theological argument for why God would bless our endeavor to reshape the dominant ideology in the West when we seek fellowship with sodomites and their sympathizers.
At the same time I am dismayed by the fact that so few people on the far right
(even many who profess to be Christians) affirm the obvious truth that
homosexuals should be executed. It easy to argue that sodomites should be executed on both
theonomic and traditionalist grounds. The Biblical teaching on
homosexuality is clear:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
As for the argument from tradition, while the Church has generally not taught that the Mosaic criminal laws must be followed under the New Covenant, punishment of homosexuality has been the norm in all Christian nations until the rise of liberalism in the 20th century. Sodomy was a capital crime under English common law, and it was also a capital crime in the state of Virginia during the period immediately following American independence. During the 19th century the states moved away from capital punishment, but sodomy was still illegal and was punished with imprisonment. It was in fact not until 2003 that the United States Supreme Court ruled that sodomy bans were unconstitutional.
Being a traditionalist Christian means working to revive the traditional moral and legal attitude towards sexual perversion. Thinking that homosexuality should be legal is completely at odds with Scripture and the entire Christian tradition. Furthermore, a Christian should never dismiss the Mosaic law as being barbaric or irrelevant. As I wrote in an earlier piece, "it was out of love that God revealed his law to his people, revealing to them a divine standard of justice which our fallen minds are unable to discern by their own power. Israel was blessed because of her just, God-given law, while her pagan neighbors were doomed to engage in sodomy and other immorality. The law that demands the death of sodomites is perfect and right, and causes the heart to rejoice. The judgment of God that condemns homosexuality is 'sweeter than honey' (Psalm 19:10)."
I am also dismayed that this divide between the Christian right and the sodomite right is apparently being driven by the pro-sodomy nihilists like Spencer. The Christians should be the one actively cutting ourselves off from Spencer and his followers, not the reverse. As I wrote in an earlier article on this same topic, "The Christians who associate with [the sodomite right], while not living in the city of Sodom themselves, look back at Sodom, hoping that something good will come out of it. I pray that these Christians change their ways, and begin imitating Lot instead of his foolish wife, and leave the Sodomites alone with the hellfire they have brought upon themselves."
In their eternal quest to prove that liberals are the "real racists", many conservative Christians have tried to vilify Darwinism by arguing that it inevitably leads to a belief in eugenics and racial hierarchy. They reason that without Darwinism, the racialism of National Socialist Germany and other regimes would never had existed, and they imply that liberals who affirm Darwinism could turn "racist" at any moment. Conversely, on the far right some atheistic racialists blame Christian anti-Darwinism for our current racial predicament, reasoning that if only Darwinism were fully embraced, anti-racism would fall away. Both views are incorrect, and they are incorrect because they do not fully appreciate what the moral consequences of Darwinism are.
Taken by itself, the theory of Darwinism does have racialist implications. According to Darwinism, the process of natural selection led to the evolution of humans out of micro-organism. This process inevitably leads to differences in ability in every species and subspecies. The racialist Darwinists are therefore in a sense correct when they charge liberal Darwinists with intellectual dishonesty, for the liberal Darwinist is forced to affirm the absurd position that natural selection has led to differences in ability in every organ of every organism except for the human brain, which has miraculously evolved to the exact same condition in every human tribe and family regardless of environment or particular historical experience. Where the atheistic racialist goes wrong, however, is in failing to see that the chief consequence of Darwinism is a moral and intellectual libertinism that inevitably embraces anti-racialism.
Contrary to the claims of secularists, Darwinism's immediate and widespread popularity was not due to a sudden scientific enlightenment. Rather it was due to fallen man's ancient desire to become free of God's moral commandments. If man was created by blind, random forces, then man has no sentient Creator to whom he owes obedience. This makes man autonomous when it comes to morality. Many 19th and early 20th century Darwinists would certainly be viewed as "racist" and right-wing by today's standards, but this was because of the legacy of Christian civilization that still influenced the mores of Western society. As Darwinism became more widely accepted, autonomous man asserted his own understanding of morality more and more. "Archaic" institutions like the Church, the family, and the nation-state increasingly came under attack. Autonomous man thought that his knowledge of the evolutionary process gave him the ability to consciously reshape human existence and human nature. Schemes for an egalitarian, communistic, one-world government have been amongst the chief fruits of Darwinism. (Even in National Socialist Germany, which mixed traditional Christian ideals with Darwinism, there were those who thought they could re-write the rules of Christianity and morality based on their own human understanding.) Darwinism views human existence as an open-ended process, not a defined sphere with God-ordained limits of acceptable behavior. Under such an ideology, hedonism and sexual liberation will reign. Hedonism conflicts with racialism, because racialism demands that sexual relations be regulated not by pure pleasure, but by long-term considerations about the fitness of a mate. That is, the welfare of prospective children and the entire nation are put before the pleasure of the moment. The hedonism born of the Darwinist credo that "we are all just animals" cannot tolerate the restraints of racialism.
Darwinism cannot be separated from the libertinism that it implies. While it is certainly possible for some individuals to be both Darwinist and racialist, history shows us that Darwinism, hedonism, secularism and anti-racialism all go together. As evidence, I point out that religious institutions in the United States were the last holdouts against the tide of racial egalitarianism. The Southern Baptist Convention did not formally repudiate its support for racial segregation until 1995, and the evangelical Bob Jones University did not lift its ban on interracial dating until 2000. I can think of no Darwinist institutions or associations that resisted egalitarianism for so long. Fashionable secularists embraced Darwinism in the mid 19th century, and less than a century later these same secularists embraced the "civil rights" movement and full racial equality. In both cases it was Bible-believing Christians who led the resistance, and this is no accident. Racialism thrives when men believe in a sovereign God who has established human differences.
And finally, to any Christians who persist in thinking that all racialism is inherently Darwinist, I point out that the racial hierarchy that existed in the antebellum South was formed in a thoroughly Christian society and preceded the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. It is impossible to charge Christian nationalists with Darwinism when it is our desire to return to an understanding of race the flourished prior to Darwinism.
I recently recovered from a rather nasty cold. While I was sick I was reading the excellent devotional The Practice of Piety by Lewis Bayly. Even though my sickness was far from life threatening, any health trouble or physical discomfort is an opportunity for the devil to put thoughts of ingratitude into our minds. As such, it is a time to be especially on our guard and especially mindful of the grace that we have received.
From The Practice of Piety:
O gracious and merciful father, who art the Lord of health and sickness, of life and of death; who killest and makest alive; who bringest down to the grave and raiseth up again; who art the only preserver of all those that trust in thee, I, thy poor and unworthy servant, having now, by experience of my painful sickness, felt the grievousness of misery due unto sin, and the greatness of thy mercy in forgiving sinners, and perceiving with what a fatherly compassion thou hast heard my prayers and restored me to my health and strength again, do here, upon the bended knees of my heart, return, with the thankful leper, to acknowledge thee alone to be the God of my health and salvation; and to give thee praise and glory for my strength and deliverance out of that grievous disease and malady; and for thus turning my mourning into mirth, my sickness into health, and my death into life. My sins deserved punishment, and thou hast corrected me, but hast not given me over unto death. I looked from the day to the night when thou wouldst make an end of me. I did chatter like a crane or a swallow; I mourned as a dove when the bitterness of sickness oppressed me; I lifted up mine eyes unto thee, O Lord, and thou didst comfort me, for thou didst cast all my sins behind thy back, and didst deliver my soul from the pit of corruption; and when I found no help in myself nor in any other creature, saying, I am deprived of the residue of my years, I shall see man no more among the inhabitants of the world, then didst thou restore me to health again, and gavest life unto me; I found thee, O Lord, ready to save me.
And now, Lord, I confess that I can never yield unto thee such a measure of thanks as thou hast for this benefit deserved at my hands. And seeing that I can never be able to repay thy goodness with acceptable works, O that I could with Mary Magdalene testify the love and thankfulness of my heart with abounding tears! O what shall I be able to render unto thee, O Lord, for all these benefits which thou hast bestowed upon my soul! Surely, as in my sickness, when I had nothing else to give thee, I offered Christ and his merits unto thee as a ransom for my sins; so being now restored by thy grace to my health and strength, and having no better thing to give, behold, O Lord, I do here offer up myself unto thee (Rom. xii. 1), beseeching thee so to assist me with thy Holy Spirit, that the remainder of my life may be wholly spent in setting forth thy praise and glory.
O Lord, forgive me my former follies and unthankfulness, that I was no more careful to love thee according to thy goodness, nor to serve thee according to thy will, nor to obey thee according to thy benefits. And seeing thou knowest that of myself I am not sufficient so much as to think a good thought, much less to do that which is good and acceptable in thy sight, assist me with thy grace and Holy Spirit, that I may, in my prosperity as devoutly spend my health in thy service, as I was earnest in my sickness to beg it at thy hands. And suffer me never to forget either this thy mercy in restoring me to my health, or those vows and promises which I have made unto thee in- my sickness. With my new health renew in me, O Lord, a right spirit, which may free me from the slavery of sin, and establish my heart in the service of grace. Work in me a great detestation of all sins which were the causes of thy anger and my sickness; and increase my faith in Jesus Christ, who is the author of my health and salvation. Let thy good Spirit lead me in the way that I should walk; and teach me to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world, that others, by my example, may think better of thy truth. And sith this time which I have yet to live is but a little respite and small remnant of days which cannot long continue, teach me, O my God, so to number my days that I may apply my heart to that spiritual wisdom which directeth to salvation. And to this end make me more zealous than I have been in religion, more devout in prayer, more fervent in spirit, more careful to hear and profit by the preaching of thy gospel, more helpful to my poor brethren, more watchful over my ways, more faithful in my calling, and every way more abundant in all good works. Let me, in the joyful time of prosperity, fear the evil day of affliction; in the time of health, think on sickness; in the time of sickness, make myself ready for death; and when death approacheth, prepare myself for judgment. Let my whole life be an expression of thankfulness unto thee for thy grace and mercy. And therefore, O Lord, I do here from the very bottom of my heart, together with the thousand thousands of angels, the four beasts, and twenty-four elders, and all the creatures in heaven and on the earth, acknowledge to be due unto thee, O Father, which sittest upon the throne, and to the Lamb, thy Son, who sitteth at thy right hand, and to the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from both, the holy Trinity of persons in Unity of substance, all praise, honour, glory, and power, from this time forth and for evermore. Amen.
The final solution to the white problem is accelerating. Countless Arabs and Negroes are invading Europe, with the Jewish media claiming that they are "refugees" and "asylum seekers". Many suicidally "liberal" whites are welcoming these criminal invaders, while there is a degree of backlash coming from conservative whites who are less deracinated.
This conflict amongst whites has of course led to much moral posturing as both sides attempt to take the high ground in the argument. The whites with healthier racial instincts are naturally in the right, but they will likely lose the battle of ideas because they are not taking an explicitly racialist position. For if all races are equal, then the pro-invasion position is correct.
As happens when discussing anything related to race, the non-racialist conservative is forced to talk about "cultural preservation" rather than addressing the real issue. But people who are racially equal can easily assimilate into a new culture, and cultures are mutable things that can be improved through conscious effort. If possessing a superior culture is the only reason why Germany is a nicer place to live than Africa, then the philanthropic thing to do is to allow as many Africans as possible into Germany and encourage them to assimilate. By denying innate racial differences, the non-racialist conservative affirms the idea that an African can be just as German as a Nordic European. The best that the non-racialist conservative can do is protest that the current wave of migration will make assimilation more difficult, which will be seen as a claim that is difficult to verify and quantify, and not very convincing when those seeking admittance likely face death in their home countries. We also must note that gradual migration will destroy Europe just as surely as mass migration, for assimilation means miscegenation and mongrelization. Not only will there be more mixed-race children, but there will be more white Europeans with mixed-race nieces, nephews and cousins, making the idea of racialism even more unpalatable than it already is. By affirming racial equality, the conservatives have left untouched the strongest premise of the pro-invasion side.
Another important front in the battle for the moral high ground is the issue of greed and global inequality. Once again, after accepting the main premise of the pro-invasion side, the non-racialist conservative has no sound ethical argument. After all, the pro-invasion side is correct in saying that it is selfish to worry about the economic burden of admitting "refugees" when the West is so wealthy and there are so many third-world people in need. Both sides fail to see that wealth is based almost entirely on human capital. Mass migration of inferior human capital to the first world can only result in lowering the collective welfare of mankind, because the subsequent mixing with the native white population degrades the overall quality of humanity. It is like saying that a man infected with the plague can be cured by moving into a house inhabited by healthy people. Being around healthy people will not help the sick man, but it will undoubtedly contribute to the spread of the disease. The ethical thing to do is to keep the healthy healthy, and prevent those who are incurably ill from infecting the healthy. The migrants paw and grab at the healthy body of Europa, hoping that her health and beauty will rub off on them. But this can never happen.
As we have seen, the pro-invasion arguments can only be countered by explicit racialism. More than that, explicit racialism is an absolute necessity in our current situation. We cannot be satisfied with any sort of soft nationalism. We cannot be content with the situation of de facto racialism that obtained in the past when white populations were relatively isolated and therefore free from contamination. In a world of high speed travel and communication, such measures will not prevent mongrelization. We must view the broad scope of history, and understand that strict and explicit racialism is the only bulwark against a world of barbarism. For millennia Providence preserved the white race, though we ourselves were largely blind to the significance of race. Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries white men and women living alongside non-whites developed a mature race realism. Once we became illumined with this understanding, we bore the responsibility of developing a rational racial policy that would ensure the preservation of the great blessings that God had bestowed upon us. But, as is his habit, fallen man rebelled against this knowledge, and instead declared that he could bring about a state of absolute equality through his own efforts. In the 20th century, Western man became cursed not only with blindness but with fruitlessness as well. The birth rates in Europe have fallen beneath replacement levels, and the swelling population of the third-world could very easily wipe out our race within a few generations. Unheeded visionaries once warned of the "rising tide of color"; today we are faced with a deadly flood of color, and we are viewed as madmen when we try to convince our fellow whites not to destroy our own levees.
Martin Luther's opinion on Judaism is infamous, while the view of John Calvin on the subject is not as widely known. This translation is offered to help change this situation. Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies is characteristic of the man. It is bold, hyperbolic and emotional, qualities that are found throughout Luther's writings. Calvin's Response to Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew is equally characteristic. It is precise, systematic, and intellectually penetrating. Today, when the Church faces the mounting threat of persecution at the hands of the Jews, the insights of this great reformer are invaluable.
Download the book here.
The website Faith and Heritage recently published an article by Jan Stadler on The Heliand, or the Anglo-Saxon Gospel. According to Stadler:
Much in the same way the Gospel of St. Mark was written to accommodate a
Greek audience, and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke to accommodate
Hebrew audiences, the Heliand was written to adapt Christianity to people
who had very little connection with the Mediterranean world. This text is
beginning to experience a revival as of late among dissident right-wingers
seeking a way to better understand folkish religion...
Many unbelievers, sadly, become discouraged away from Christianity thanks to the effeminate and uninspiring nature of modern evangelicalism and Catholicism. The Heliand helps us give light to a world that not only proves the historical irrelevancy of modern evangelicalism and mainstream Christianity, but also gives us the ability to communicate a vibrant, active faith of warriors that can inspire men to transcend the languishing within modern effeminate “Christianity.”
Stadler is right to point out these problems of contemporary Christianity and the intellectual and emotional weakness that today's Christians often display. I hope that Stadler is proven correct in his suggestion that exposing unbelieving right-wingers to such material as The Heliand will bear fruit.
Along similar lines, I hope that promoting the work of Soren Kierkegaard could be helpful in the same way. This post is entitled "Preliminary Thoughts On Kierkegaard", because I have only just begun exploring the work of this philosopher. There is nothing that I have seen from his writings that strays from Biblical orthodoxy, but I am not yet familiar enough with his thought to offer a full endorsement (Kierkegaard wrote in a several different personas, so it is sometimes difficult to pin down his personal belief). What I have read so far, however, is very exciting, and I feel compelled to share it.
The best way that I could describe Kierkegaard would be as a "Christian fundamentalist Nietzsche". This term must be explained carefully. I do not mean to suggest that the conclusions of Nietzsche's philosophy have any value or can be somehow synthesized with Christianity. They cannot. But Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both reacting to the same problems. They both saw the vanity of 19th century European civilization, especially in its optimistic-progressivism. But while Nietzsche sought the solution to this vanity in materialism in nihilism, Kierkegaard knew that the only real solution is found in faith in Jesus Christ. I say that Kierkegaard was a Christian fundamentalist because he viciously attacked the state churches of his day, expressed support for credobaptism, and stressed the absolute, immediate faith relationship between God and the believer. Like Nietzsche, his writing is biting and poetic. He does not shy away from the more challenging passages of Scripture that often make believers uncomfortable. For example, his book "Fear and Trembling" focuses exclusively on Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Isaac. Rather than quickly explaining this episode as "just a test", Kierkegaard explores it with a depth that I have not seen from any Christian theologian.
Nietzsche is popular because many of those on the far right are disgusted by the complacency and smugness of the vapid bourgeoisie, as they should be. But the philosophy of Nietzsche is a dark and hopeless morass that will drag souls down to damnation just as surely as any other branch of materialism. Those Christians who seek friendship with the world make the Gospel appear effeminate and bourgeois, and therefore unattractive to many on the far right, but it is not so. In Kierkegaard the Gospel is revealed as the burning and uncompromising light that it is.
In closing, I include a passage from the above mentioned book "Fear and Trembling". Given the name of this website, this passage is quite fitting, as it extols Abraham, not as the father of the Jews, but as the father of faith:
It was by faith that Abraham could leave the land of his fathers to become a stranger in the land of promise. He left one thing behind, took another with him. He left behind his worldly understanding and took with him his faith. Otherwise he would surely not have gone; certainly it would have been senseless to do so. It was by his faith that he could be a stranger in the promised land; there was nothing to remind him of what was dear, but the novelty of everything tempted his soul to sad longing. And yet he was God's chosen, in whom the Lord was well pleased! Yes, indeed! If only he had been disowned, cast out from God's grace, he would have understood it better. As it was it looked more like a mockery of himself and his faith. There was once another who lived in exile from the beloved land of his fathers. He is not forgotten, nor his songs of lament in which in sorrow he sought and found what he had lost. From Abraham we have no song of lament. It is human to complain, human to weep with one who weeps, but it is greater to have faith and more blessed to behold the believer.
It was faith that made Abraham accept the promise that all nations of the earth should be blessed in his seed. Time went by, the possibility was still there, and Abraham had faith; time went by, it became unlikely, and Abraham had faith. There was once another who held out an expectation. Time went by, the evening drew near, he was not so pitiful as to forget his expectation; therefore he too should not be forgotten. Then he sorrowed, and the sorrow did not deceive him as life had done; it did all it could for him and in the sweetness of sorrow he possessed his disappointed expectation. It is human to sorrow with the sorrower, but greater to have faith and more blessed to behold the believer. From Abraham we have no song of sorrow. As time went by he did not mournfully count the days, he did not cast suspicious glances at Sarah, fearing she was growing old; he did not stay the march of the sun, so that Sarah should not grow old and with her his expectation; he did not soothingly sing to Sarah his mournful lay. Abraham became old and Sarah was mocked in the land, and still he was God's chosen and heir to the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed. Would it not be better, then, were he not God's chosen? What is it to be God's chosen? Is it to be denied in youth one's youthful desire in order to have it fulfilled in great travail in old age? But Abraham believed and held firm the promise. Had Abraham wavered he would have renounced it. He would have said to God: 'So perhaps after all it is not your will that it should happen; then I will give up my desire, it was my only desire, my blessed joy. My soul is upright, I bear no secret grudge because you refused it.' He would not have been forgotten, he would have saved many by his example, yet he would not have become the father of faith; for it is great to give up one's desire, but greater to stick to it after having given it up; it is great to grasp hold of the eternal but greater to stick to the temporal after having given it up. But then came the fullness of time. Had Abraham not had faith, then Sarah would surely have died of sorrow, and Abraham, dull with grief, instead of understanding the fulfilment, would have smiled at it as at a youthful dream. But Abraham believed, and therefore he was young; for he who always hopes for the best becomes old, deceived by life, and he who is always prepared for the worst becomes old prematurely; but he who has faith retains eternal youth. All praise then to that tale! For Sarah, though stricken in years, was young enough to covet the pleasure of motherhood; and Abraham, though grey of head, was young enough to want to be a father. Outwardly the wonder of faith is in Abraham and Sarah's being young enough for it to happened according to their expectations; in a deeper sense the wonder of faith lies in Abraham and Sarah's being young enough to wish, and in faith's having preserved their wish and through it their youthfulness. He accepted the fulfilment of the promise, he accepted it in faith, and it happened according to expectation and according to faith; for Moses struck the rock with his rod but he did not believe.
So there was rejoicing in Abraham's house when Sarah was bride on their golden-wedding day.
Military families in Colorado and Wyoming who have seen their loved ones risk life and limb fighting Zionist wars now face a new threat: stalking and intimidation by Muslim invaders in their own country. According to CBS Denver:
An alert has been issued by the FBI to all law enforcement agencies in Colorado and Wyoming involving U.S. military families and concerns about who may be watching them.
The alert says Middle Eastern men are approaching families of U.S. military members at their homes in Colorado and Wyoming. It mentions Greeley (Colorado) and Cheyenne, Wyoming as the specific areas.
In one case last May the wife of a military member was approached in front of her home by two Middle Eastern males. The men stated that she was the wife of a U.S. interrogator. When she denied their claims the men laughed. The two men left the area in a dark-colored, four-door sedan with two other Middle Eastern males in the vehicle.
“The woman had observed the vehicle in the neighborhood on previous occasions,” the alert states.
Similar incidents in Wyoming have been reported to the FBI throughout June 2015.
The same Jews who sent their family members to face Muslim savages in foreign lands are importing millions of these same savages to roam the streets of middle America. When the Jews told Americans that we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to "defend freedom", I doubt that many military men were thinking of the freedom of Muslims to harass and intimidate their wives in front of their own homes.
Last week I waded into a rather contentious comment section at Tradyouth. Over the course of the exchange, some members of Tradyouth expressed some very shocking opinions, including:
-That for the sake of political expediency, it is acceptable for Christians to encourage pagans and Muslims to become more fervent and fanatical in their false religions.
-That a Christian can use his website to publish articles promoting pagan-Christian syncretism.
-That Christians can use the writings of anti-Christian occultists to encourage this pagan fanaticism and syncretism.
-That when searching out allies, even from amongst our own kin, there is no level of moral depravity (including pederasty and adultery) that would disqualify someone.
-And finally, that in doing all of the above, they are not acting contrary to Scripture or the example of the saints.
There is much that could be said against these attitudes. In fact, after the exchange, I strongly feel the need for a comprehensive study on appropriate Christian-pagan relations, especially in the realm of politics. But leaving that task to a later date, I will briefly state what I believe to be the most serious problem with the above opinions: a failure to understand that apostasy is at the heart of the current crisis in the West, and that turning to Jesus is the only solution to this crisis.
There is hardly anything that is taught more plainly in the Bible than that the sin and unbelief of our fellow countrymen will bring about collective punishment for the nation. This is clearly what is happening to us now. Because our problems are due to our white brothers falling away from the faith, it is unreasonable to think that they can be part of the solution by embracing paganism more fervently.
To quote Seraphim Rose, a figure much admired by many at Tradyouth:
Christian compromise in thought and word and negligence in deed have opened the way to the triumph of the forces of the absurd, of Satan, of Antichrist. The present age of absurdity is the just reward of Christians who have failed to be Christians.
It is futile, in fact it is precisely absurd, to speak of reforming society, of changing the path of history, of emerging into an age beyond absurdity, if we have not Christ in our hearts; and if we do have Christ in our hearts, nothing else matters.
As long as our white brothers and sisters persist in their paganism and atheism, they are of no help to the cause of Christian nationalism. To be a Christian nationalist is to desire one's nation to thrive in Christ and for Christ.
Last year I wrote an article refuting the claims made by Matthew Heimbach in his "Death to America" speech. In this post, I would like to expand on one of the falsehoods that Heimbach promoted in his speech: that monarchs are somehow immune from the corrupting influence of usury. As I mentioned in my previous post, Heimbach seems to have a "fairy tale" understanding of how monarchy works. Students of European history will know that monarchs throughout the ages were frequently drowning in debt. This included the Russian Tsars who sent loan agents throughout the West to secure capital. Many of these monarchs also had very close relationships with the Jews, and even used the Jews (and Jewish bankers) to consolidate their own power at the expense of decentralized, feudal systems built on the principle of limited powers and mutual obligations. As Jewish banking power grew in the 19th century, the great monarchies of Europe were forced to treat the new Jewish rulers as equals, and sometimes even as superiors. The inherited power of these monarchs does not seem to have given them any special ability or desire for combatting Jewish usury.
The following quotes are from the article "The Alien as a Servant of Power: Court Jews and Christian Renegades" (Lewis A. Coser. American Sociological Review, Vol. 37, No. 5 (Oct., 1972), pp. 574-581). These quotes show how German princes in the 17th and 18th centuries helped to bring about the anti-traditional order that now dominates the West:
The German princes and Hapsburg Emperors, wishing to
rebuild and modernize
their states and armies after the bloodletting
of the Thirty-Years War and to emulate
the splendor and power of the Sun King in
Versailles, searched for suitable instruments.
Their sixteenth-century predecessors had
used the financial power of great South-
German bankers and merchants such as the
Fuggers for borrowing large sums of money
and streamlining their financial administration. But such patricians
no longer existed.
Under the pressure of such structural limits all German rulers, great or small, turned to the Jews.
Jewish communities had existed in Germany since the early Middle Ages. Living in ghettos, the Jews at times enjoyed the special protection of the Emperor or other potentates against payment of high taxes. Persecuted and despised by the population in general and by guilds in particular, they were often driven from certain states then readmitted...
At court Jews lived in a social no-man's land. There they became the ruler's instrument for destroying feudal forces, estates, and guilds restricting his power. They were his financiers and bankers, advisors and collaborators, in his drive to establish a modern mercantilist economy and a unified, bureaucratized government. Only men free from corporative and traditional restraints, having international ties and no connections with feudal dignitaries or the urban institutions of commoners were able to play such auxiliary roles...
Their effectiveness rested on mutual confidence and mutual support. They and the ruler were partners who, for reasons of their own, stood opposed to the traditional powers and the adversaries of modernity. Though the Jews were by far the weakest in the triad of forces contending for power and influence, their support was nevertheless central to the victory of absolutist rulers.
Jewish financiers and entrepreneurs supplied the armies of their prince, financed his wars, arranged new loans and settled old debts. They supplied the jewels for the prince's wife and his mistresses, but they also were innovators in building up trade and industry in defiance of guild restrictions. At times they monopolized the trade in silver, salt, or tobacco. They built silk, ribbon, cloth, and velvet factories in Prussia; they were chief tax collectors and diplomatic representatives, financial administrators and bankers, but above all confidants of the prince.
The closeness that often developed between the ruler and the Court Jew was based on their common distance from the population at large.
Prince and Court Jew were one in wishing to break down those intermediary powers of estates and guilds, which prevented the direct subordination of the prince's subjects to his personal rule...
The dues and taxes paid by the Jews went directly to the prince and were not subject to the financial controls ordinarily exercised by estates and towns...
Of course the Jews had the last laugh on the old monarchs, whose base of power was destroyed along with all other traditional institutions in the West. What we see in the emergence of modernism is not simply a struggle between monarchical and republican forces, but a struggle between localism and centralization. The American Patriots and the Constitution were firmly on the side of localism and distributed powers, ideas deeply rooted in our feudal heritage. It appears that the Jews were always on the side of centralization, often working together with rapacious monarchs who had no real loyalty to their subjects. The monarchies of Europe were destroyed because of their greed. The push for centralization and modernization destroyed traditional safeguards against poverty and oppression, which in turn prompted the spread of revolutionary socialism, another phenomenon that the monarchies completely mismanaged.
A particularly embarrassing episode in the history of the old European regimes comes from mid-19th century Austria. In the 1860s, the Imperial Austrian government was in horrible debt and had to beg for funds from the Jewish Rothschild banking family. In a paper by Lawrence D. Steefel ("The Rothschilds and the Austrian Loan of 1865." The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1936), pp. 27-39), we read that Austrian noblemen had to use flattery when coaxing a loan from Baron James Rothschild. Steefel quotes a letter by Count Mulinen, one of the Austrian officials in contact with the great Jewish usurer:
"The baron is, above all else, vain and be could not but
appreciate my alacrity. So he consented receive me today [September 2]
he is immured for two days on account of the great Jewish holidays...
Permit me to add a few more words about Rothschild. Baron Becke
[another Austrian] is of the opinion
that our financial fate is in his hands and that if we don't succeed
with him, we won't accomplish anything of consequence with the others.
We must, then, make the sparks fly and, especially, flatter old man
James. Anything pleasing to his conceit is worth one or two per
cent...How would it be if we gave him a grand
cordon? It was the cross
of Stanislas that made the Russian loan. Has he the iron crown of
class? If not, can we let him hope for it?"
Steefel adds, "Mulinen's hint was taken and he was authorized to let Baron James hope for the grand cordon of the iron crown if the loan was made. Baron Becke found his attitude toward the loan much more favorable after this intimation"(page 30). It seems that the great monarchs of Europe (including the Tsar) were not above prostituting their highest honors in order to win the favor of Jewish usurers. But even with these flatteries and promises of great honors (in addition to the massive interest that the loan would have brought), Rothschild still insisted on very severe terms. This led the Austrian agents to take a loan from a French group of bankers instead. Steefel describes this "better deal" that the Austrians received:
In round numbers, the treasury received 90,000,000 gulden and contracted to repay 157,000,000. The resulting rate of interest was about 9 percent and the bankers' profit 28,500,000 francs. The State Debt Commission, in its report of May 11, 1866, stated that the conclusion of this loan, at a time when peace was not yet threatened, had been under the most unfavorable and burdensome conditions and had exerted a depressing effect on Austria's finances.
So much for monarchs protecting their subjects from the sting of usury.
On the occasion of the July 4th holiday, Richard Spencer published a piece at Radix Journal strongly condemning Americanism. His attack was typical of the New Right/Alternative Right (a topic I have covered in the past). Spencer criticizes the very concept of republican government, claims that America was corrupt and doomed to failure from the very beginning, claims that the American and French revolutions were essentially the same, and offers a vague defense of ancien regime hereditary monarchy.
In countering Spencer's position, I would like to focus on a piece of evidence that Spencer cites as an argument in his favor, the famous Corner Stone speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. In reference to the speech, Spencer says:
A century and a half ago, Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America, was faced with the prospect of the victory or annihilation of his nation and fledgling state in what is now referred to as the American Civil War.
In his greatest address, “The Cornerstone of the Confederacy,” he did not speak (mendaciously) about "states rights" or any kind of Constitutional legality. He instead cut to the heart of the social order he was opposing. He stressed that the Confederacy was based on the conclusion that Thomas Jefferson was wrong; the "cornerstone" of the new state was the "physical, philosophical, and moral truth" of human inequality."
From this brief reference to Stephens, one might be led to think that Stephens was opposed to the American Constitution and favored an aristocratic or monarchical government. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we shall see by examining the Corner Stone speech in more detail.
First of all it is necessary to point out that Stephens did believe in states rights, and even talks about it in the very same speech:
That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?
This is the quintessential states rights argument: the liberated colonies were all sovereign states that voluntarily entered a union, and as such they have the right to peaceably leave the union if they desire to do so. It is hard to say if Spencer is being deliberately dishonest on this point, or if he simply did not read the entire speech.
Other passages from the speech reveal that Stephens was obviously an admirer of the original Constitution and of the tradition of Anglo-Saxon law from which it arose. Stephens took pains to convince his audience that all of the virtues of the original Constitution were preserved in the Confederate Constitution, while the latter possessed certain modifications making it superior to the former:
This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.
In discussing the future prospects of the Confederacy, Stephens sounds exactly like the American
Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable. We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government.
Having looked at all the ways in which Stephens agreed with the founding fathers, we now turn to his disagreement with them. In the Corner Stone speech, Stephens offers the following criticism:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
In short, Stephens' basic criticism of the Declaration of Independence is that it should have read "all white men are created equal" (and to be fair to Jefferson, if one reads his more detailed writings on race, this is surely what he actually meant). While it is true that the founders largely thought that slavery would/should be done away with, they feared the ill effects of racial amalgamation, as these words from Jefferson demonstrate:
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.
Stephens undoubtedly had a clearer conception of racial inequality than Jefferson did, but it is not so obvious that Jefferson's proposal of emancipation and racial separation is in any way inferior. Especially today, with recent advances in automation, it is difficult to argue in favor of the presence of a servile non-white caste in a future white republic. The absolute separation advocated by Jefferson (and by many abolitionists who wished to resettled emancipated blacks in Africa or the Caribbean) seems to be the wiser choice.
It is also important to note that Stephens saw the Confederacy as the first government founded on a mature race realism. This of course implies that all former governments, monarchical and republican alike, missed the mark on this important principal. This is certainly due to the fact that mature race realism only emerged in the 19th century. As a new scientific principal, race realism would take time to be fully recognized, as Stephens points out:
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.
Stephens is explicit in distinguishing race realism from hereditary aristocracy, a system that Stephens believed to be in violation of the laws of nature. Thus the cornerstone of the white republic seems to have at least four facets: conformity with the laws of God, the legally recognized superiority of the white race, the legally recognized equality of all whites, and the rule of law as guaranteed by a written constitution. I strongly agree with all four if these principals, while Spencer apparently would only agree with the second of the four.
It is a fact of history that the states that most strongly and explicitly promoted white identity (such as the Confederacy and NS Germany) also strongly supported legal equality amongst all white citizens. This should not be viewed as an accident. The monarchical, Catholic Iberians who settled Central and South America showed very little concern for racial purity compared with the Protestant, republican colonists to the north. I suspect that this difference is due largely to the nature of aristocratic, feudal government. It an aristocracy, the vast majority of the population lack full rights as citizens. Because white nobles viewed white peasants as occupying such an inferior position, it was not of great concern to the nobles that their peasants and serfs remain racially pure. In a white republic, political rights are based on a simple in/out judgment: either someone was in the political community or outside of it. In a feudal aristocracy, on the other hand, there were already several gradations of citizenship, which made it easy to add non-whites and half breeds to the system. Furthermore, nobility was a quality that could be granted by a king and/or the Church, which meant that mixed race individuals could be ennobled. (Even in Tsarist Russia, a full-blooded Negro could become "noble" and marry a white aristocrat, something far beyond the reach of a white serf. In a monarchy, at the will of the king a Negro could be deemed a nobleman and fit to marry a white noblewoman, while in a white republic like one of the southern states, a Negro "nobleman" would not be deemed fit to marry the poorest, most unchaste white woman in the land.) All this led to the prolific growth of mixed race individuals in the Latin colonies. The aristocratic, pagan Aryans who conquered India suffered an identical fate.
Protestant colonies in North America (especially New England) had a very different political orientation, one that was much more conducive to the growth of white identity. In fact, one can argue that the understanding of race subscribed to by Spencer and other Alt-rightists is of purely Protestant origins, which should be a source of great embarrassment. More than an embarrassment, this is actually a contradiction at the heart of "radical traditionalist" nationalism. On the one hand, the radical traditionalist condemns every aspect of the post Reformation West, but on the other hand clings firmly to the post Reformation understanding of race that was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. To be an ideologically consistent "radical traditionalist" would mean rejecting 19th century race realism.
These Protestant colonies possessed constitutions granting equal legal rights under the law to all white citizens. Whites were inside the political community, while Indians and Negroes were not. In the northern colonies/states this understanding was sometimes de facto rather than de jure (mainly because the small number of non-whites made firm legal distinctions less necessary). In the South, however, the principle of republican equality met with centuries of experience with large numbers of non-whites, leading to the clear racial understanding expressed by Stephens.
As for Stephens' prediction that race realism would eventually win wide recognition, he was in a sense correct. Following a decade of disastrous abolitionist "reconstruction" in Dixie, Southerners were wisely allowed to institute a firm system of segregation that would ensure racial purity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries it appeared that many Yankees were slowly being convinced of the Southern position, evidenced by the growing popularity of eugenics and racial hygiene in the North. In fact, had it not been for the sudden and absolute subversion of our academic institutions and entertainment industry by Jews in the 20th century, our age would undoubtedly be marked by its strong and clear race realism.
Before closing, I would like to address a few more of Spencer's points. First, it is necessary to ask why so many Alt-rightists find the constitutional arguments about states rights so "mendacious", to use Spencer's term. I suspect this might be due to the fact that so many "anti-racist" fake conservatives talk at length about states rights while simultaneously denying that race has any significance. I freely admit that today's fake conservatives speak mendaciously about states rights, but that does not invalidate constitutional questions. The confederates saw constitutional issues to be so important because white Christian civilization has always valued objective standards of law and justice. This is not an aspect of who we are that should be denigrated or abandoned. A white republic must be based on justice, and we should not aim for the thuggish "master morality" of a non-white gang which would make our own might the only moral law. Securing the physical survival of our race without securing our traditional sense of right and order would be pointless. Government based on a written constitution is not in opposition to racial nationalism. They are complimentary.
Second, I take issue with Spencer's view that a state should not have an ideological dimension. Spencer writes that:
..."the pursuit of happiness" . . . "inalienable rights . . . endowed by our Creator" . . . The great slogans and myths of 1776 and 1789 have a quaint ring to them today. They hail from an older phase of the Left, and thus have become, as it were, "conservative."
These platitudes function like dogma and form the unexamined basis of political action and speech. This is most obvious through a familiar political shorthand; the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, America is "more than just a place . . . America is an idea." (As geography is thrown out the window, so is race, people, culture, history, and more.) Ryan's meme is reiterated across the spectrum—from a rock star's urgings that Americans be "one" with the world, to the inaugural addresses of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Much of political discourse in America involves politicians accusing rivals of not believing in the American dogma hard enough."
Spencer seems to be saying that a state should be defined by an ethnos, not by an idea. Once again, we see a false contradiction. A state should be both an ethnos and an idea. Weimar Germany and National Socialist Germany had the same ethnos, but a different idea. If Spencer's own political vision came to pass, he too would see his triumph as a great leap of ideological progress, and in his dreamed of white republic, political rivals would certainly accuse each other of not believing in racialist dogma "hard enough". Arguing over ideas is an intrinsic aspect of politics, not something unique to anti-racialist proposition nations.
And finally, I point out the generally muddled and irrational nature of New Right anti-republicans. They present only vague arguments against deliberative and representative government without offering any practical vision of what a return to the ancien regime would look like. Are 90% of the citizens of the future white republic to be peasants without full legal rights? Will there be a hereditary monarch? Would the monarch be somewhat restrained by a parliament, or would that be too redolent of egalitarianism? It is inconsistent and dishonest to offer vague praise of monarchical systems without addressing these practical questions. Alt-rightists correctly see racial egalitarianism as a problem, but their reaction is to promote unquestioningly every type of political inequality that has existed in the past. They reason that because the races are unequal, therefore every type of political inequality is good. They would do well to learn from Stephens and come to understand that we should only seek to recognize inequality where it actually exists, as in the case of differences between the races of mankind. We know that Negroes will beget children that are inferior to whites. On the other hand, when it comes to peasants and nobility of the same racial stock, there is no reason to doubt that the child of the peasant might be superior in every ability to the child of the aristocrat, as history has shown over and over again. We must respect the racial inequality ordained by God, but not the man-made distinction of titled aristocracy.
I consider it one of my more unpleasant duties as a critic of the current culture to keep up with enemy publications. One of the more prominent and more nauseating enemy publications is the feminist website Jezebel.This website recently ran a story about the most popular pornography searches amongst millennials. The results are outright disgusting. Search terms that made it into the top ten include "step mom", "mom" and "step sister".
We must be clear that all fornication is damnably sinful. Even "normal" pornography is a horrible scourge that should be completely banned. But it is even more disturbing to learn that a very sizable portion of today's youth finds incest fantasies to be so alluring. It is at first difficult to understand why simulations of incestuous acts should draw such a large audience, and why "normal" pornography does not satisfy, but studies on pornography have often come to the conclusion that overindulgence leads to an ever greater need for sexual stimulation. This makes sense, because fornication is not simply about satisfying a purely biological urge inherent to our fallen nature. It is about emotional and psychological gratification that comes from transgressive excitement and novelty. As the souls of our youth are deadened by extensive pornographic intake, there is a constant drive towards greater and greater perversion.
The popularity of incest pornography also provides insight to why "gay rights" receive so much support when only a tiny fraction of the population is homosexual. Tolerance of one perversion breeds tolerance of others, and anyone with a desire that is condemned by traditional Christian morality will ally with his fellow perverts.
Thanks to Hollywood, pornography, and public school "sex education" programs, we now have a society where a majority of people are, from a Biblical perspective, perverts. Heterosexuals do not really seem to be any less perverted than homosexuals. Given this fact, there is less hope than ever that a majority of the population would respond to rational arguments for the betterment of our race and society. Their slavery to sin is too profound; only a miracle from God can restore them to moral health.
In recent months I have written about the series of victories won by the Left. One of the main reasons that the Left has enjoyed such success is that many people who are naturally on the Right do not understand the Left/Right divide. Rightists will publicly defend certain doctrines and opinions, but they will rarely defend the essence of their worldview, and almost never attack the essence of the left-wing worldview.
One common explanation of the Left/Right divide is that the Left is for equality while the Right is for inequality. This is an explanation that many leftists would agree with, and one that some on the more radical Right would also accept (while those on the lukewarm Right would be horrified by this characterization of their beliefs). While this explanation gets close to the truth, it does not, to my mind, capture the essence of the right-wing worldview. I agree that the essence of the Left is equality, but the essence of the Right is not inequality, but excellence. The reverence for excellence often leads the rightist to accept or even promote human inequality as a means for achieving excellence, but not as an end in itself. This is why the rightist bristles at the idea of giving out participation trophies to the losing team, while the leftist is uncomfortable with elevating one group or individual above another. The leftist mania for equality can lead so far as desiring equal rights for animals, because even putting humans above animals is seen to violate the sacred principal of equality.
With revolutionary Marxism we see the most extreme form of leftist thought. The following poem "Questions From a Worker Who Reads" by the communist Bertolt Brecht perfectly illustrates the hatred for excellence in the name of equality:
Who built Thebes of the 7 gates?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants?
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.
The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone?
Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him?
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it?
Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill?
So many reports.
So many questions.
Brecht's attempt to undermine the great men of history is infantile. The obvious reason why we do not give equal honor to Caesar and to Caesar's cook is because Caesar's cook was unremarkable and could easily have been exchanged for another. Caesar could have taken any number of cooks on his campaigns without changing the outcome. But without Caesar himself, the outcome would have been very different. The same is true for all of Brecht's other examples. Alexander is remembered rather than his subordinates because his subordinates were inferior in their achievements. In the case of great monuments, we remember the men who organized and commissioned them because without a genius organizing and commanding the laborers, these laborers would have left behind only ordinary structures unworthy of notice. Brecht's poem perfectly demonstrates the leftist's perverse reasoning. Although not all leftists are as consistent or outspoken in their position, if one analyzes any leftist program or doctrine, one can quickly detect this same love of equality and hatred of excellence.
Having looked at the essential difference between the Left and the Right, it is easy to see that Christianity is the ultimate right-wing worldview. That is not to say that all right-wing views are Christian. For example, there is the Nietzschean view where equality is denigrated and individual or collective racial excellence is the highest good. But in Christianity, the whole purpose of man, and of all creation is to glorify God, the supreme and ineffable excellence. Nothing in existence is outside of this plan of glorification. Even rebellious sinners cannot escape their role, for in their just punishment they glorify God and demonstrate his excellent justice. In glorifying God, men are called to personal excellence, even to personal perfection. In order to achieve this perfection, the perfect, sinless son of God stood in our place and bore our punishment. He who had neither sin nor imperfection took on all sin in order to destroy it. In the illumination of the Gospel, men are forced to see themselves as less than nothing when compared with the Creator. We are called to seek personal excellence, but never with our own strength or virtue. Every good thing is attributed directly to God. Every vanity and falsehood of human invention is called to swift destruction. The greatest kings of the earth are called to humility, and before the throne of God even the righteous saints cast their crowns. Thus the right-wing Christian view goes beyond the worldly attitude criticized by Brecht. As Christians, we recognize the relative superiority of Caesar over many of his contemporaries, but we also recognize that his greatness was carnal and fleeting, and that even this inferior greatness was according to Providence. Great men are to have their due, but it is to be strictly limited. The overwhelming glory of God is to have the first place in every thought and deed.
When besieged by the Left, rightists often make the mistake of agreeing with the essence of the left-wing worldview ("equality"=good), and try to argue that it is their own worldview that promotes equality even more than that of the Left. This is a mistake because it is obviously false. It is impossible to outdo the Left when it comes to equality. Rightists do not gain anything by arguing that welfare dependence hurts Negroes, or that proportionally more Negro babies are aborted. It is impossible to gain ground when you cede to your enemy the most fundamental question. Only by denying the principle of equality itself and unapologetically promoting excellence can the right-wing position make any progress.
This July 4th, I suspect that many conservative Americans will view their holiday differently. It is difficult to celebrate one's freedom when the federal government has decided that freedom includes mandatory acceptance of sodomite marriage. I especially hope that Southerners will reflect upon the meaning of the holiday and wonder just how long they can expect to fly the flag of their choice in "land of the free".
Of late the news cycle has been dominated by two stories, the hysteria over the Confederate flag and the Supreme Court redefinition of marriage. Both of these issues are related to distortions and misunderstandings of the concept of freedom (a topic I've covered before). America was founded as a republic where white men living in accordance with Christian, European morals would have equal opportunity for economic and political advancement. In rebelling from the king, the British colonies redefined the membership of their political communities and repudiated the principal of hereditary rule. However, they still clearly defined the limits of their political community and they largely retained the concept of hereditary membership within this political community. Only those descended from the original founders or immigrants of similar racial stock could be full members of the community. Negro slaves and Indian tribes were explicitly excluded. In other words, the American concept of freedom was nationalistic, not universalist.
This nationalistic conception of freedom is found in the Declaration of Independence, as explained by Confederate president Jefferson Davis:
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born--to use the language of Mr. Jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three fifths.
Davis shows that there are no grounds for suggesting that slavery is incompatible with Americanism, or that the principles of the Declaration imply racial egalitarianism.
In one segment of the Declaration, rarely quoted today, Jefferson complains that the king "has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." That is, the founding fathers saw the Declaration of Independence as part of a racial struggle against Indian savages and rebelling Negro slaves. Clearly this is a declaration of national liberty, not of universal liberty.
Beginning with the abolitionists in the 19th century, subversive forces have replaced the original, nationalistic freedom of early America with the universalist freedom of the Jacobins and Marxists. According to the universalist conception of freedom, all of humanity is one and therefore all of humanity must share the same political rights. This tendency first manifests itself in breaking down legal distinctions within a state, and logically ends in the demand for one-world government. National borders become instruments of inequality, because men on one side of a border have different liberties from men on the other side. All political and cultural distinctions must be attacked with a genocidal fury.
In addition to being destructive and degenerate, the universalist conception of freedom is also self-contradictory, for it implies that all human differences of culture, character and opinion can harmoniously co-exist within the same political community. While it is possible to have relative diversity within a political community, it is impossible to have absolute diversity. At a certain point one group's rights will be violated by another's. In other words, one group's liberty is only gained at the expense of another's. The liberty of the early Americans was gained at the expense of the liberty of the king to rule over his colonies. The liberty of Christians to live in a wholesome society was won at the expense of the liberty of homosexuals and fornicators to publicly practice their perversions. The liberty of the white man in North America was won at the expense of the liberty of the Negro and the Indian. There is no way for these conflicting liberties to co-exist harmoniously.
Returning to the ongoing Confederate flag controversy, we can see that the ever-increasing liberty of the Negro undermines the liberty of the white man. Political correctness demands that Negroes not only be free from slavery, but be free from hurt feelings. In order for the Negro to enjoy this freedom from hurt feelings, the white man must lose his freedom to say certain words, display certain symbols, and live in certain neighborhoods.
The same holds true when it comes to the sodomite marriage controversy. The freedom of homosexuals to marry has been won at the expense of the Christian's freedom to refuse business services to blasphemous and immoral ceremonies. In the future, the homosexual's freedom from hurt feelings will demand that those with unwanted same-sex attraction lose their freedom to seek professional help.
It is worth noting how quickly these competing liberties come into conflict. Only during the cultural revolutions of the 1960s did Negroes and homosexuals gain full legal recognition, and now only a few decades later the liberties of white Christians are severely threatened.
When discussing these contemporary controversies, fake conservatives in the MSM talk about how we need to respect the freedoms of all Americans. This is impossible. In every one of these conflicts, one side will win and the other side will lose. White Christians are clearly the losers. Some time ago conservatives bought into the lie that the Negroes and homosexuals just wanted to live their lives freely, and that in the future society, we would all get along and respect one another. This false profession of brotherhood by the Left has now been abandoned. Our enemies are openly calling for a day when the white race and Christian opposition to homosexuality no longer exist. This is their utopia, and we will have no part in it. In this sense, the Left is being more honest than the fake conservatives. The Left is slowly starting to admit what they believed all along: that our liberties are incompatible with theirs.
If white Christians ever want to return their nation to her former glory, they must openly declare that American liberty belongs to them alone.
The child prostitution ring run by Muslims in Rotherham, England is a tragedy. I say that it is a tragedy not only because it is sad and sickening to read about the hundreds of underage white girls who were repeatedly raped by Muslims, but because this moral disaster was long in the making, was a confluence of profound errors, and was warned against for years by those who foresaw the future fruits of "diversity". As we examine each of the errors that led to the evils of Rotherham, we will see that they are all foundational doctrines of the anti-white, anti-Christian strain of liberalism that dominates American and European culture.
The main culprit in the Rotherham tragedy is the demonization of nationalism. Nationalism is the simple belief that people of the same ethnicity should have their own homelands. All immigrant crime in Europe is preventable. It is possible for these crimes to take place only because nationalism has been demonized and deemed a grievous sin. To the proponents of "diversity", wanting England to be English is more evil than non-whites raping hundreds of white of children. This is the twisted morality that led to Rotherham. After the Rotherham tragedy was reported in the media, this same twisted morality led many to worry more about the damage that the story might do to "diversity" than about the victims themselves.
Anyone familiar with the history of Islam will not be surprised by the emergence of child prostitution rings in immigrant communities. For centuries Muslim men have systematically enslaved non-Muslim women for their harems. Europeans were a frequent target for their slave raids. There was no reason to think that Muslims coming to Europe would behave any different. But this honest analysis of history and cultural trends is forbidden in the contemporary West. The only acceptable narrative is the one that says that the evil white man attacked and enslaved the rest of humanity for no good reason. This narrative makes Muslim men, one of the most aggressive and abusive groups in the world, seem like poor victims who need to be pitied and welcomed into our countries.
THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY
Many of the girls targeted by these gangs came from broken families. Thanks to drug use, promiscuity, feminism and the breakdown of the Church, the Western family is in ruins. More and more white children are born out of wedlock into unstable situations where they do not receive adequate care and attention. Mass media and the public schools sexualize children at a young age, and they begin "dating" and "experimenting with sex" in their very early pre-teen years. All of this made the girls ready targets for abuse. Some of the victims were "seduced" by their captors into a life of sex slavery, being plied with alcohol, gifts, and cheap compliments. In a healthy society, it would never be considered acceptable for a teenage girl to go on a debauched date with an older, non-white man (or with anyone else). In some cases where the parents complained to the police about the situation, the police had the gall to claim that the sexual relationship between these girls and the Muslim men was "consensual" and therefore acceptable. Such an idea could never have entered anyone's mind in a traditional society.
THE COWARDICE OF WHITE MEN
The greatest cowards in the tragedy are the police and magistrates who knew that the mass rapes were occurring but did nothing. There are even reports that the parents of some of the girls were arrested for trying to rescue their daughters. There are also reports of a girl going to the police and asking for help while bleeding from her crotch, only to be turned away. The white men on the police force and the city government did nothing because they feared the charge of "racism". They would rather see their defenseless white sisters continue in their abasement than suggest that non-whites could commit such a crime. And England was once a land known for chivalry. It is easy to blame the white men who let this tragedy happen, and they certainly deserve to be punished. But at the same time we must keep in mind that white men have been intentionally programmed to act this way by the system. Masculinity is denigrated and demonized just as nationalism is. The tribal spirit that demands protection and justice for one's kin is completely gone.
Of all of the crimes against our people, the Rotherham scandal is the most heartbreaking for me. All of those white British girls raped hundreds, if not thousands, of times cry out to Heaven for justice. Healthy nationalism, honest historical inquiry, strong families, a strong Church, white men raised to defend the honor of their women; any one of these things could have prevented the Rotherham tragedy. Examining all of the aspects that allowed Rotherham to happen reveals how completed defeated our civilization is. Each one of those girls represents Europe. She is being raped, debased, ridiculed and scorned, and she is being used up before being thrown away by her attackers. A more straightforward genocide of bullets and mass graves would be more dignified and more merciful.
The Jews called for our Lord to be crucified. They declared that His blood would be upon them and upon their descendants. The Jews persecuted the Church, putting to death early Christian believers. Even after their temple was destroyed and they were scattered from their homeland, they obstinately refused to hear the Gospel message. Wherever they have lived, the Jews have sought to undermine and pervert Christian society. Given all this, the phenomenon of Christian Zionism/philo-Semitism can be mind-boggling. Non-Christian or non-Evangelical observers rightly wonder how this theological abomination ever came to be taken seriously.
Christian Zionism did not emerge spontaneously in its present form. Like many of Satan's deceptions, it was woven slowly over the centuries. Error was added upon error, until we reached the current situation where Christians have turned the apostate, Christ-hating Jews into an idol, in many cases even saying that the Jews do not need faith in Jesus to be saved. In order to better understand this heresy, we must turn to the early development of Christian Zionism in 17th century English Puritanism.
In his paper "The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought, 1661-1701" (The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 78, No. 1/2 [Jan. - Apr., 1985], pp. 115-148) N.I. Matar explains that Christian Zionism emerged in the 17th century as a "novel" theological idea, and that in this early period, the conversion of the Jews to Christianity was just as important as their restoration to Palestine:
were seen to be instrumental in generating a hitherto novel principle in
Christian theology: the military Turko-Catholic threat to Protestant
Christendom, the Puritan millenarian speculations between 1640 and
1660, and England's moral responsibility to the Jews. During the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the fear of Catholic Turkish
power led theologians to believe that the Jews' conquest of Palestine
would necessarily be preceded by victory over Islam and Catholicism.
Consequently, they supported this Restoration as a means to their
political end. Moreover, they believed that such a Restoration would
to the fulfillment of the Pauline expectation of the millennial kingdom;
the Jews' Restoration to Palestine would inaugurate England's
messianic age. Also by concentrating on Romans 11, these English
evangelists felt that they owed the Jews a debt which they could repay
only by converting them to Christianity and restoring them to Palestine.
This became the Englishman's burden of responsibility to the Jews
whose rejection of Christ in the first century had allowed the overall
salvation of the Gentiles.
Then, as now, Christian Zionism was tied to a carnal view of the coming millennium, and to the belief that Jews can help us in our struggle against Islam. There was a striking difference, however, on the question of Jewish conversion. Early advocates of Jewish restoration to Palestine held that the Jews had to convert prior to their return. This view makes much more sense than that held by contemporary Christian Zionism. The Bible clearly states (Ezekiel 20:33-38) that only those Jews who have turned from their error to a right relationship with God can return to Israel. Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that the territorial promises are conditional on Jewish obedience to God. This difference between early and later Christian Zionism is profound, because in early Christian Zionism the Jews are not to be trusted allies until after they convert. The current decline of Christendom rests upon the fatal error of thinking that the apostate Jews can be trusted. Christian Zionism has always been mistaken, but it did not become truly fatal to the Church until the necessity of conversion was abandoned.
However, even in its early stage Christian Zionism was still dangerous. When Christian Zionism first emerged in England, the Jews had been banned from that country for centuries. Christian Zionism was largely responsible for their re-admittance. The theological justification for re-admitting the Jews was based largely on a complete ignorance of Jewish behavior. Most English theologians had never known any Jews, and they thought of the Jews in exclusively Biblical terms. That is, they saw the Jews as figures out of the Old and New Testaments, not as the wandering, Talmud-believing parasites that they had become:
the numerous writers had ever met a Jew in their lives; fewer cared for
the Jews as a community of a specifically historical and religious
culture. Englishmen restructured the Jews into a worldview that fitted
their own Protestant ideals, and interpreted Jewish history and
aspirations in light of English self-perception. Even after 1655, when
appeared in London, they were so few and unimposing that English
writers felt no need to change their previous perceptions of them.
To their English hosts, the Jews were not an autonomous community with a distinct ethnic history, but potential Christians and spiritual descendants of Paul rather than Moses. Once the right circumstances and inducements prevailed, there was little doubt in the English mind that the Jews would renounce their Judaism and become as zealous in their Protestantism as were the Londoners themselves.
When the Jews were sympathetically treated in print, this was done in light of their hoped-for conversion to Christianity and their renunciation of their religious character and history. If "philo-semitism" means...a positive attitude toward the Jews, then it is too vaguely defined...because this philo-semitism was conditional on the Jews' conversion to Christianity and their adoption of English culture and identity.
A more accurate description of the English attitude may be obtained by distinguishing between the "Hebraic" and the "Judaic" response to the Jews... Although such a distinction did not occur within Judaism itself, it certainly did occur in the English perception of the Jews. The "Hebraic" Old Testament character of the Jews was cherished because it had anticipated Christ and the New Testament, but the "Judaic" character (the Jews as a people, the Law, the Pharisees) was completely rejected. The "Hebraic" elements could be Christianized and were sympathetically adopted by the English; the "Judaic" elements remained part of the old law and the old covenant, not only opposed but also nullified. Thus, only after the English had imposed the prospect of conversion to Christianity upon the Jews did they respond to Jews positively; they called for Jewish settlement in England or Restoration to Palestine only insofar as that served the Protestant ideals of Christian England. There was neither a sympathetic address to the Jews nor a treatise encouraging tolerance that was not explicitly conversionist in purpose or "Hebraic" in emphasis.
The English expectation of mass conversion seems highly unrealistic, and lack of personal experience with Jews does not fully explain it. Surely the English theologians of the day were aware that Jews had lived amongst Christians for centuries without showing any inclination to convert. Despite this Jewish history of obstinacy, the English thought that the conversion of the Jews was imminent because English Protestantism represented a pure form of Christianity which Jews living in Catholic lands had not experienced:
Once the Jews walked in
London streets, and exhibited a social and religious identity, embryonic
as it was, the writers who had zealously advocated their return to England awaited the fulfillment of their conversionist expectations. The
Jews, conversionists believed, now that they were in the midst of true
and unadulterated Protestant Christianity, would quickly profess Jesus
as Messiah. Theologians never tired of describing not only how vicious
Catholics were to Jews, but also how Catholic idolatry had invariably
repelled the Jews and prevented their conversion. In Protestant
England, however, it was felt that the Jews had no excuse.
Of course this English hope of conversion was quite foolish, no matter how corrupt the Roman church had become. The Jews had collectively rejected Christianity in the earliest days of the Church. The Pharisees and their followers had rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. What boldness is it to think that our own "purified" churches can succeed with the obstinate Jews when they rejected our Lord himself? But despite their initial foolishness, the English soon realized that their opinion of the Jews had been mistaken, something that today's Christian Zionists seem incapable of doing:
But the London Jews...sought
to settle in England not to be converted but to maintain their religious
practice, and to do so publicly. They had no intention of becoming
Protestants; rather they aimed to preserve their cultural and historical
identity. Once that attitude became evident to Londoners in the mid-
1650s and early 1660s, there was an immediate backlash against
allowing the Jews' settlement in England.
Seeing that the Jews in London did not convert, but rather continued in their Judaic "unbelief," English theologians turned against the idea of the Jews' Restoration to Palestine. Indeed, it is in this period that the first detailed refutations of this principle appeared. Although prior to 1660 there was varied and serious opposition to the idea of Restoration, it was only now, after the Jews had settled in England but remained unconverted, that theologians began to doubt the validity of the Restorationist speculations...Since the Restoration principle was associated with conversion and since the hoped-for conversion did not take place, there was no valid theological reason to support the Restoration. Consequently, while the Restorationists and conversionists propagated their ideas, another camp appeared after 1660 that presented a detailed refutation of the Restoration idea.
The Christian Zionism of the 17th century emphasized the neccessity of Jewish conversion because Christians of that era understood that the restoration of apostate Israel would undermine Christianity. Shockingly, many contemporary Christian Zionists not only celebrate the restoration of Rabbinic and atheist Jews to Palestine, but even look forward to the day when the temple is rebuilt and sacrifices are once again offered. Christians in the 17th century understood that restoring unrepentant Israel would be not only an affront to God, but a threat to their own national sovereignty:
New Testament scholars like George Hickes, Henry Danvers, and
Lancelot Addison rejected the Restorationist thesis because it was valid
only within an Old Testament context. Within the Christian
interpretation of the exilic prophecies any "return to Canaan" would
a return to the "Mosaical Ritual" and that was not theologically
permissible after Christ. Indeed, wrote a Jewish convert to
addressing King Charles in 1662, the fact that there is no Jewish
government now in Palestine, neither law nor Sanhedrin, leads to the
conclusion that the Messiah must have already come. To support the
Restoration would undermine Christianity because it would imply the
nonfulfillment of the prophecies. That is why, he added, Jews should
be encouraged to convert. Henry Danvers, one of the most important
anti-Restorationists, emphasized that the fulfillment of prophecies in
Christ completely annulled Jewish political anticipations. All that
related "Carnally" to the Jews within the framework of their
religion-their Abrahamic descent, tribal allegiance, and attachment to
"their holy City or Nation"-was "Typical" of the Gospel fulfillment.
Having had physical contact with Jews in London, some English writers demonstrated intense hostility to their presence. They were appalled by Jewish adherence to the Mosaic law which they believed had long been repealed by Christianity. They could not understand why the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Having been subjected before 1660 to extensive writings on the Jews' inevitable conversion and Restoration, theologians were shocked that such expectations were not forthcoming. More dangerous was Jewish messianism, which challenged both New Testament doctrine and the theological legitimacy of the English state. The Restoration to Palestine without the proviso of conversion undermined Christian doctrine and made England subservient to Israel.
"Jewish messianism"--the belief held by apostate Jews that the Old Testament prophecies promise their return to Israel--is the default view of contemporary Jewish Zionists. Today's Christian Zionists eagerly make common cause with an ideology that 17th century Christians saw as a threat to their Church and nation.
Having looked at the emergence of Christian Zionism in England, we now turn to the spread of the ideology in early America. Americans were, naturally, heavily influenced by their English heritage in matters of religion, while also adding their own distinctive contributions. Robert K. Whalen ("Christians Love the Jews!" The Development of American Philo-Semitism, 1790-1860. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, Vol. 6, No. 2 [Summer, 1996], pp. 225-259) explains how Christian Zionism in America developed:
In the early
national period, religious literature abounded that foresaw the
conversion of the Jews and the restoration of Israel as the ordained
the millennial nation-the United States. This scenario was, allowing
for exceptions, socially and theologically optimistic and politically
liberal, as befit the ethos of a revolutionary era. By the eve of
however, countless evangelicals cleaved to a darker vision of Christ's
return in blood and upheaval...The deep emotional link between America and the
Jews, forged earlier amidst an ethos of millennial optimism and
national messianism, was reinterpreted through the immensely powerful,
dark, and poetic imagery of premillennial apocalypticism.
Philo-Semitism became enmeshed among conservative religious and
social values espoused by those who looked to the Second Advent,
not social reform, to remedy evils.
The Christian Zionism in the early American period was very similar to that of Puritan England. Like Puritan England, America had just emerged triumphant from a great military conflict, the results of which were thought to have world-historical significance. America was seen as the millennial nation that would lead mankind into an era of republican liberty. For many American Christians, the hopes for the blessed future of their own nation were tied together with the future restoration of the Jews to Palestine. And just like in 17th century England, at this time there was still a strong emphasis on Jewish conversion. According to Whalen, during this period there was:
...an optimistic philosophy of history that
increasingly identified republican virtue with God's incipient
kingdom. The millennium, "the kingly government of Christ," would
begin in America. Naturally, the Jews would be Christianized (for
how could there be a Christian millennium populated in part by those
who reject Christ?) and, naturally, the millennial state-America-
must take the lead in converting them and restoring them from their
If the devout Christian wished to hurry the millennial glory...then feelings toward the Jews must center on the future (the millennium) and not the past (the crucifixion). The Christian could not walk once again in the Garden (a restored millennial earth) unless the Jew walked with him. As warned [a contemporary] journal, "The ultimate triumphs of Christianity are in a measure suspended on the conversion of the Jews." Fulfillment of the Christian hope must be realized in company with the Jew or not at all...
The Jews were regarded prospectively and not retrospectively; as dear and future partners in God's millennial bliss, not as guilty murderers from a distant era.
It is also important to note that early American Christians understood that the Jews were depraved. These Christians trusted that Jewish moral defects would be remedied in the coming millennial age, but for the time being, the Jews could not be viewed as equals. Another similarity to earlier English Zionism was that most Americans had absolutely no first-hand experience with Jews.
American Protestant philo-Semitism was, in fact,
embarrassed from the start by the reality that "real life"
interaction in America was scanty indeed....
[I]n 1819, the Female Society of Boston and the Vicinity for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews was forced to admit, "The Jews in our own country are inconsiderable." It estimated the American Jewish population "at no less than three thousand living in unbelief." So sparse were American Jews that these ladies were reduced to sending funds to Bombay, India-a place believed to have a larger Jewish settlement than any city in America.
Americans interested in the Jews dealt with a purely hypothetical commodity-the Christian's Jew. This idealized Jew was regarded with benevolence leavened with a large dose of contempt and condescension. "A number of pious ladies" shook their heads in 1820 over "the deplorable situation of the Jews" and sighed that "the moral degradation of Israel is great." They accepted unquestioningly centuries-old bromides, for of the Jews they noted: "Their obstinacy, their avarice, and their property are an astonishment to all nations." The supposed property especially seemed to gall, for it was gotten in the age-old fashion of usury. A District of Columbia Episcopal magazine noted the Jews' supposed abhorrence of honest labor: "With few, very few, exceptions, it may be said of them, they are no where occupied in agriculture; they are no where merchants; or, if at all, only on the most limited scale." The result, naturally, was a chilliness of heart on the part of the Jews, an obsession only with gold and their own interests: "With the politics of the world they have no concern; and with the happiness or sufferings of others, little or no sympathy."
In 1823, the Reverend J. Sanford was apologetic about his solicitude for the Jews, explaining to his auditors that the Jews' degenerate nature was well enough understood: "I know they are stained with the Saviour's blood, I know that the fearful imprecation of judgment still cleaves to them. I know that they are the children of those who killed the Lord of the prophets, and will contemptuously spit on the ground whenever his name is mentioned." Nonetheless, charity led him to add: "It is not for us to avenge the wrongs of Christ."
In short, Christians thought of the Jews as depraved and hostile to Christianity, but also as necessary allies in the coming age. We certainly cannot fault these Christians for their earnest efforts to convert the Jews. However, a major shift in Christian Zionism seems to have occurred in the mid-19th century (this is the same time period which saw the rise of the philo-Semitic heresiarch John Nelson Darby). Christian Zionists were gradually beginning to see the Jews less as wicked outcasts and more as glorious priests. They increasingly confused the current reality and the hoped-for future. The image of the redeemed Jew of the millennium was superimposed over the depraved Christ-killers who plunder and corrupt every nation naive enough to grant them refuge. Together with this increasing confusion there is an ever more exalted role for the Jews of the future to play in the salvation of the world. The Temple priesthood is even to be revived, despite the fact that Christ the perfect high-priest has already offered the perfect sacrifice:
The transformed relationship of Jew and Christian in the
coming dispensation was spelled out by David Nevins Lord, a
wealthy Manhattan dry goods merchant and leader of the New York
millenarians. In 1849, he wrote: "That people are to be raised to a
relation to him [Christ] of
immeasurable dignity; and their office and agency are to be
most important elements in the administration
under which all
the nations are to be sanctified, and the world made through an
endless round of ages the abode of righteousness and bliss."
It was Lord's belief that the Jews would resume their role as God's
priestly people on behalf of humankind: "The descendants of Levi are
to be the ministers of the temple, sacrifices are to be offered in it,
all nations are to go to it to worship."
Such views are far different from the scenario of scheming rabbis and distraught Judaism proffered a few years earlier by would- be Christian benefactors. In 1844, a gushy Charlotte Elizabeth enunciated the remarkable millenarian conviction that the Jews were once and future kings: "Though Judah has neither temple, or altar, nor sacrifice ... all the arguments of all the theologians who ever wielded a pen, touching the supposed abrogation [of the role of the Jews as God's anointed] would be, to me, as chaff before the wind, in the presence of a simple Cohen-or Aaronite-even were he but measuring me for a shoe."
Mrs. Elizabeth's "simple Cohen-or Aaronite" has little in common with the "Unsaved, unpitied, unforgiv'n" Jews of a few decades earlier. He is a figure of immense moral authority. Joseph A. Seiss, whose leadership in the millenarian movement continued into the twentieth century, warned Christians that "when we come into Israel's presence, we should rather be humbled and solemn." The prophetic destiny of the Jew was yet to be fulfilled: "He stands in our luxurious cities, and before our churches, as Jonah amid Nineveh, summoning us to repentance and mourning." Philo-Semitism could go no further.
The Jew was now not simply equal to Christians, but actually superior to them, his DNA apparently more precious than the Christian's faith. The apostate Jews, who have rejected the Messiah, are elevated to the level of an Old Testament prophet, while Christians, who enjoy the imputed righteousness of Christ, are compared to heathens. It is precisely this attitude, this veneration of Jewish blood, that is killing our society.
In this post I hope to have provided some important information on how Christian Zionism developed. Zionism is closely tied to particular views on the millennium, a very complex topic which I hope to examine in more detail in the future.
No people have more occasion to be afraid of the approaches of pride, than those, who have made some advances in a pious life: for pride can grow as well upon our virtues as our vices, and steals upon us on all occasions. Every good thought that we have, every good action that we do, lays us open to pride, and exposes us to the assaults of vanity and self-satisfaction. It is not only the beauty of our persons, the gifts of fortune, our natural talents, and the distinctions of life; but even our devotions and alms, our fastings and humiliations, expose us to fresh and strong temptations of this evil spirit. And it is for this reason that I so earnestly advise every devout person to begin every day in this exercise of humility, that he may go on in safety under the protection of this good guide, and not fall a sacrifice to his own progress in those virtues which are to save mankind from destruction.
Humility does not consist in having a worse opinion of ourselves than we deserve, or in abasing ourselves lower than we really are; but as all virtue is founded in truth, so humility is founded in a true and just sense of our weakness, misery, and sin. He that rightly feels and lives in this sense of his condition, lives in humility. The weakness of our state appears from our inability to do anything as of ourselves. In our natural state we are entirely without any power; we are indeed active beings, but can only act by a power that is every moment lent us from God. We have no more power of our own to move a hand, or stir a foot, than to move the sun, or stop the clouds. When we speak a word, we feel no more power in ourselves to do it, than we feel ourselves able to raise the dead. For we act no more within our own power, or by our own strength, when we speak a word, or make a sound, than the Apostles acted within their own power, or by their own strength, when a word from their mouth cast out devils, and cured diseases. As it was solely the power of God that enabled them to speak to such purposes, so it is solely the power of God that enables us to speak at all. We indeed find that we can speak, as we find that we are alive; but the actual exercise of speaking is no more in our own power, than the actual enjoyment of life. This is the dependent, helpless poverty of our state; which is a great reason for humility. For, since we neither are, nor can do anything of ourselves, to be proud of anything that we are, or of anything that we can do, and to ascribe glory to ourselves for these things, as our own ornaments, has the guilt both of stealing and lying. It has the guilt of stealing, as it gives to ourselves those things which only belong to God; it has the guilt of lying, as it is the denying the truth of our state, and pretending to be something that we are not.
Secondly, Another argument for humility is founded in the misery of our condition. Now the misery of our condition appears in this, that we use these borrowed powers of our nature to the torment and vexation of ourselves, and our fellow creatures. God Almighty has entrusted us with the use of reason, and we use it to the disorder and corruption of our nature. We reason ourselves into all kinds of folly and misery, and make our lives the sport of foolish and extravagant passions; seeking after imaginary happiness in all kinds of shapes, creating to ourselves a thousand wants, amusing our hearts with false hopes and fears, using the world worse than irrational animals, envying, vexing, and tormenting one another with restless passions, and unreasonable contentions. Let any man but look back upon his own life, and see what use he has made of his reason, how little he has consulted it, and how less he has followed it. What foolish passions, what vain thoughts, what needless labours, what extravagant projects, have taken up the greatest part of his life! How foolish he has been in his words and conversation; how seldom he has done well with judgment, and how often he has been kept from doing ill by accident; how seldom he has been able to please himself, and how often he has displeased others; how often he has changed his counsels, hated what he loved, and loved what he hated; how often he has been enraged and transported at trifles, pleased and displeased with the very same things, and constantly changing from one vanity to another! Let a man but take this view of his own life, and he will see reason enough to confess, that pride was not made for man. Let him but consider, that if the world knew all that of him, which he knows of himself; if they saw what vanity and passions govern his inside, and what secret tempers sully and corrupt his best actions; he would have no more pretence to be honoured and admired for his goodness and wisdom, than a rotten and distempered body to be loved and admired for its beauty and comeliness. This is so true, and so known to the hearts of almost all people, that nothing would appear more dreadful to them, than to have their hearts thus fully discovered to the eyes of all beholders. And perhaps there are very few people in the world who would not rather choose to die, than to have all their secret follies, the errors of their judgments, the vanity of their minds, the falseness of their pretences, the frequency of their vain and disorderly passions, their uneasiness, hatred, envies, and vexations, made known unto the world. And shall pride be entertained in a heart thus conscious of its own miserable behaviour? Shall a creature in such a condition, that he could not support himself under the shame of being known to the world in his real state, -- shall such a creature, because his shame is only known to God, to holy angels, and his own conscience, -- shall he, in the sight of God and holy angels, dare to be vain and proud of himself?
Thirdly, If to this we add the shame and guilt of sin, we shall find a still greater reason for humility. No creature that had lived in innocence, would have thereby got any pretence for self-honour and esteem; because, as a creature, all that it is, or has, or does, is from God, and therefore the honour of all that belongs to it is only due to God. But if a creature that is a sinner, and under the displeasure of the great Governor of all the world, and deserving nothing from Him but pains and punishments for the shameful abuse of his powers; if such a creature pretends to self-glory for anything that he is or does, he can only be said to glory in his shame. Now how monstrous and shameful the nature of sin is, is sufficiently apparent from that great Atonement, that is necessary to cleanse us from the guilt of it. Nothing less has been required to take away the guilt of our sins, than the sufferings and death of the Son of God. Had He not taken our nature upon Him, our nature had been forever separated from God, and incapable of ever appearing before Him. And is there any room for pride, or self-glory, whilst we are partakers of such a nature as this? Have our sins rendered us so abominable and odious to Him that made us, that He could not so much as receive our prayers, or admit our repentance, till the Son of God made Himself man, and became a suffering Advocate for our whole race; and can we, in this state, pretend to high thoughts of ourselves? Shall we presume to take delight in our own worth, who are not worthy so much as to ask pardon for our sins, without the mediation and intercession of the Son of God? Thus deep is the foundation of humility laid in these deplorable circumstances of our condition; which show that it is as great an offence against truth, and the reason of things, for a man, in this state of things, to lay claim to any degrees of glory, as to pretend to the honour of creating himself. If man will boast of anything as his own, he must boast of his misery and sin; for there is nothing else but this that is his own property. Turn your eyes towards Heaven, and fancy that you saw what is doing there; that you saw cherubims and seraphims, and all the glorious inhabitants of that place, all united in one work; not seeking glory from one another, not labouring their own advancement, not contemplating their own perfections, not singing their own praises, not valuing themselves, and despising others, but all employed in one and the same work, all happy in one and the same joy; "casting down their crowns before the throne of God"; giving glory, and honour, and power to Him alone. [Rev. iv. 10, 11] Then turn your eyes to the fallen world, and consider how unreasonable and odious it must be, for such poor worms, such miserable sinners, to take delight in their own fancied glories, whilst the highest and most glorious sons of Heaven seek for no other greatness and honour, but that of ascribing all honour, and greatness, and glory, to God alone? Pride is only the disorder of the fallen world, it has no place amongst other beings; it can only subsist where ignorance and sensuality, lies and falsehood, lusts and impurity reign. Let a man, when he is most delighted with his own figure, look upon a crucifix, and contemplate our Blessed Lord stretched out, and nailed upon a Cross; and then let him consider how absurd it must be, for a heart full of pride and vanity to pray to God, through the sufferings of such a meek and crucified Saviour! These are the reflections that you are often to meditate upon, that you may thereby be disposed to walk before God and man, in such a spirit of humility as becomes the weak, miserable, sinful state of all that are descended from fallen Adam. When you have by such general reflections as these convinced your mind of the reasonableness of humility, you must not content yourself with this, as if you were therefore humble, because your mind acknowledges the reasonableness of humility, and declares against pride. But you must immediately enter yourself into the practice of this virtue, like a young beginner, that has all of it to learn, that can learn but little at a time, and with great difficulty. You must consider that you have not only this virtue to learn, but that you must be content to proceed as a learner in it all your time, endeavouring after greater degrees of it, and practising every day acts of humility, as you every day practise acts of devotion. You would not imagine yourself to be devout, because in your judgment you approved of prayers, and often declared your mind in favour of devotion. Yet how many people imagine themselves humble enough for no other reason, but because they often commend humility, and make vehement declarations against pride!
The recent revelations about sexual abuse committed by Josh Duggar as an adolescent have made the Left ecstatic. The Left already hated the Duggars and what they stand for, and the sexual abuse story confirms everything they have suspected about "repressive" Christian morality leading to perversion and hypocrisy.
Sadly, many conservatives have rushed to the defense of the Duggars. These conservatives will complain that the media is unfairly targeting the Duggars because they are Christian. This complaint is largely valid. What Josh Duggar did is basically the same as what the Jew Lena Dunham did to her sister. The only real difference is that Josh Duggar repented for what he had done but Dunham basically says it was no big deal. Josh Duggar is demonized by the media, while Dunham is still seen as respectable. We also must remember the Jewish child rapists Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, whose films are still celebrated and awarded Oscars.
However, even though the Duggars are receiving more scrutiny than Jewish liberals would, this does not mean that they are noble people who deserve our respect. The hypocrisy of the Duggars is beyond belief. It is hard to consider a greater parenting failure than allowing your son to molest his sisters. While parents cannot be held fully accountable for everything their children do, their parenting ability can only be measured by the fruit it bears. I do not fault the Duggars for keeping the sexual abuse private. There were minors involved, who appear to have put the events behind them. But the Duggars have built their entire brand on the premise that theirs is a flourishing, Godly family, one that should serve as a model for others. They have written books about parenting, books that were appealing to a Christian audience because they assumed the Duggars to be model parents, which, apparently, they are not. Not only did the Duggars build their fame on a lie, but they built it on a lie which, once exposed, caused untold embarrassment to the Church. That is not even to say that those who have undergone sexual abuse in their families should not share their experiences of healing and forgiveness. They most certainly should, but it must be done honestly and openly.
As in all such cases of sexual abuse involving celebrities, the hubris of those involved is monumental. How could they have imagined that such a damaging story would never come out? How many times could they calmly renew their television contract without worrying about the police reports on their son being released?
Given all this, Christians should vehemently condemn the hypocrisy of the Duggars, and ask ourselves why we ever trusted a family that was eager to turn their children into reality TV stars.
The Jewish Left has a deep hatred for conservative Christianity. Therefore, whenever the Left advises Christians on how to grow their churches, this advice should be received with suspicion, especially when this advice consists in "embracing diversity".
The Washington Post, currently edited by Jew Martin Baron, recently published an article about a dwindling Southern Baptist congregation in Murfreesboro, TN that is being forced to sell its building to a group of Arab Baptists. Rather than being a sign of defeat, the Post spins this development as a great blessing for Southern Baptists, suggesting that the denomination would be thriving if only it could embrace "diversity" (white displacement) even more vigorously:
for the past decade, the denomination has been in what its leaders describe as a “discouraging” retreat. Although Southern Baptists remain by far the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, with an estimated 15 million members, a steady decline in overall numbers — of members, baptisms and churches — has led to much soul-searching and the realization that survival depends on becoming less insular and more diverse.
To that end, the Southern Baptists have apologized to African Americans for “racism of which we have been guilty,” expressed support for immigration reform, and in general sought to be less white, if not less conservative. A rising number of congregations are Latino, Asian and now Arab.
Speaking about the congregation featured in the article, the Post says, "The membership had aged and remained white as the area was booming and becoming more diverse."
This is the same message we hear whenever the Jewish Left gives "advice" to conservatives: the only way for you to stop losing is to embrace the changes we are bringing about. The Post makes it seem as if dwindling Baptist congregations and the influx of Arabs into Middle America are just inevitable, natural phenomena. This is completely false. The weakening of Christianity and the non-white invasion go hand in hand. The Church was strong in the South when whites were the dominant ethnic group. Once Southern whites lost control of their government, their schools and their media, the Church began to decline. Southern Baptists are not losing members because they are "too mean" towards illegal aliens demanding amnesty. They are losing members because their folk and their faith are under deliberate and systematic attack by the government, the public schools, the media, and all branches of organized Jewry. The people who built the South are being exterminated, and as they die, so will all traces of their distinctive culture.
If you read the comment sections at liberal websites reporting on the recent sex-scandal involving Republican politician Dennis Hastert, the glee is palpable. Some liberals cite the story of Hastert molesting a high-school boy as proof that conservatives are all hypocrites and perverts. What this scandal actually reveals, however, is that there are no authentic conservatives in positions of power.
Yet another "conservative" has turned out to be a homosexual. That is, Hastert is actually one of them, not one of us. The fact that a homosexual was able to masquerade as a conservative for so long testifies to the corruption of the fake-conservative establishment. Anyone who makes the slightest politically incorrect statement is quickly purged from the Republican party, while closeted homosexuals have long, prosperous careers.
In the case of Hastert, it appears that his own perverted tendencies could have been at play in his response to the scandal surrounding fellow homosexual Republican Mark Foley.
From Talking Points Memo:
Ever since yesterday's shock revelations, it seemed like news like this would come out as the underlying bad act behind Denny Hastert's public downfall. Because of that, the almost decade old Mark Foley scandal has rushed back into the minds of everyone who covered that story at the time. To review, if you weren't around at the time, in the death throes of the old Republican majority, in September 2006 it emerged that Congressman Mark Foley had had sexual interactions with male members of the Congressional page program, i.e., high school age students. Foley was not out as a gay man; though I think it was widely known or at least assumed that he was gay.
The story spun out of control because it quickly came out that the House leadership, with Hastert at the very top, had been at best sluggish in addressing warnings about Foley's conduct...
Hastert, through the entire drama, was awkward and slow to react or be clear or particularly convincing about what was known...
Looking back, it is hard to believe Hastert didn't go through the weeks of the Foley scandal something like petrified that his own history would be kicked up in the storm of the Foley revelations. Indeed, this new information might explain his own awkward and oddly tentative response.
If instead of being a homosexual, Foley had made some "racially insensitive" comments, he would have been booted from the party in an instant. Prominent Republicans would have outdone one another in hyperbolic condemnations of "racism". But since he was just a pederast, Republican leaders, including the homosexual Hastert, were slow to act.
It's true that establishment "conservatives" are hypocrites, but the hypocrisy is not due to the essence of conservatism. The hypocrisy is due to the fact that most establishment "conservatives" are actually liberals, both in their personal lives and in their policy choices.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that the sexual revolution is only just beginning. The same is true of the ongoing displacement and destruction of all white people around the globe. The two movements are parallel and feed off of one another. The normalization of miscegination, homosexuality, and childlessness drive down the white birth rate, and both the sexual revolution and the ideology of "diversity" psychologically abuse white children by teaching them that their ancestors and their cultural heritage are evil. And both movements are employing ever bolder agitprop campaigns aimed at confronting and shaming white people who engage in even the mildest forms of resistance.
The latest example of this comes from Holland, where a group of non-white invaders and their children are attempting to counter the phenomenon of "white flight".
Faced with an increasingly segregated education system, Dutch immigrant children have taken to the streets of their ethnically mixed Amsterdam neighbourhood seeking "white" pupils to attend their schools and help their integration.
Around 100 schoolchildren -- Arabs, Turks, Africans, Moroccans -- accompanied by their parents and teachers, wore provocative dazzling white T-shirts emblazoned with "Is this white enough for you?"...
"When, for different reasons, a school 'becomes blacker', it's very difficult to reverse the trend," said Diane Middelkoop, spokeswoman for the two schools...
For some, the phenomenon shows that racism is rampant in Dutch culture.
"It's shameful that it's come to this, that children have to take to the street to go to school with white children," said resident Joan, 80, originally from the former Dutch colony of Suriname, tears in her eyes.
She blames parents who take their children out of what Dutch media call "black schools".
"It's racism and I'm ashamed. There was always a bit of racism in this country, but today it's serious, it has to stop," she said...
Marching door to door, the children chant: "Don't think black, don't think white, don't think black and white: think the colours of your heart."
The point of these demonstrations is clear: to shame Dutch parents who take their children out of dangerously diverse environments. White flight (which often involves living in expensive neighborhoods and/or paying for private schools) has been the sole acceptable means of escaping the deadly vibrancy brought by non-whites. When questioned about their choice of neighborhood, white parents have been able to cite euphamisms for diversity such as "crime", "gangs" or "bad schools". However, with this new generation of leftist activism, such choices will be increasingly demonized and directly challenged.
With the Russian revolution, Marxists gained possession of one of the great empires of the world. They were able to use this populous and resource-rich land to conduct their socialist experiments. The results of these experiments were nightmarish. Millions upon millions of innocent people were murdered, and Christian congregations were destroyed, bringing about the largest generations of martyrs in the modern age. Whether in Russia, China, Cambodia or North Korea, wherever Marxist Communism is implemented, the same environment of misery and terror is to be found. By the 1940s, Marxism had been given its chance, and it had failed to deliver on every promise it made. But the obvious failure of Communism did not deter the great bulk of Jewish intellectuals, who were dismayed that Christians throughout the West were not clamoring to follow the Soviet Union's example. These Jews refused to accept that their precious ideology was a failure. Instead they placed the blame on gentiles whose religion and morality prevented them from seeing the “truth” of Marxism.
For Jewish Marxists, the Communist Utopia is the inevitable outcome of history. They believe that in this future state, all “oppression” will be gone and there will be freedom to pursue every sinful impulse. In this Utopia, the law of God—against which the apostate Jews have fought since they attempted to murder the Living Word—would be banished forever. Therefore, the Jews viewed the rejection of Marxism as a failure of the West: a failure of Western civilization, a failure of Western religion, a failure of Western morality, and a failure of Western logic and reason.
This “failure” had to be corrected. By the 1930s many Jewish revolutionaries had come to realize that preaching to the masses about economic theory was not a winning strategy, so they changed their approach by combining the work of Freud and Marx. These Jewish revolutionaries had already decided that Marxism is the only reasonable ideology, and that it is therefore impossible for a reasonable person to reject Marxism. And since no one could reject Marxism on truly rational grounds, the rejection of Marxism must be due to some sort of mental or emotional defect. These Jews did not merely label their opponents as greedy, as was usually the case under classical Marxism. Instead, they declared their opponents to be mentally ill and incapable of accepting the truth until their inner life was radically altered. Freud provided these Jews with a psychological theory that allowed them to explain Christianity and Western civilization as the result of sexual repression. The next logical step was to promote selfish hedonism and sexual liberation, not as the end result of Communism, but as the means of bringing about revolution. This new Freudian variant of Marxism was developed by a group of scholars originally based in Frankfurt, Germany, who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. Their ideology is frequently called Cultural Marxism, because it seeks revolution by transforming the culture through psychoanalysis and propaganda rather than through organization of industrial workers. Cultural Marxism has been remarkably successful in carrying out its aim, which is not surprising given our fallen nature. Carnal man has always been ruled by Eros, and he is therefore easily taken in by an ideology that promotes sexual promiscuity as a moral good.
This chapter deals with material that is obscure and tiresome, material that is written by Jewish theorists whose names are unfamiliar to a great majority of Christians. I beg that the reader have patience and strive to follow this chapter carefully. The ideas of Cultural Marxism have become completely mainstream, and the breakdown of society over the past decades is the direct result of Cultural Marxism and its promotion by Jewish individuals and organizations. In conquering the West, Cultural Marxism has succeeded where the tanks and bombs of the Soviet army failed. Understanding the arguments of Cultural Marxism and being able to counter them is key if we are to have any hope of taking our country back.
We begin with Max Horkheimer (1895-1873) and Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969), two Jewish scholars who co-authored Dialectic of Enlightenment, one of the key texts in the development of Cultural Marxism. The book was originally published in 1944, and it shows the Jewish loyalty to Marxism, Freudianism, postmodernism and pseudo-science. The authors attempted to discover why it is that Western Europe had reached such a high level of civilization during the Enlightenment, and yet still maintained a barbaric attachment to capitalism, patriotism, and other supposed evils. The elements that were already present in Marx and Freud are combined with the bile-spitting hatred that the Jew felt towards the dumb goyim who refused to abandon their faith and traditions in favor of Communism. Horkheimer and Adorno are also particularly fixated on the issue of anti-Semitism. Jews have never been liked by anyone who has ever had to live with them, and they have been kicked out of dozens of countries and communities throughout history. To the Jew, this is not evidence of any flaws in Jewish character or behavior. Rather, it is an indication of a widespread mental disorder that just so happens to infect every non-Jewish ethnic group in the world. Just as no reasonable person could be opposed to Marxism, likewise no reasonable person could have any legitimate reason for disliking the Jews. Only by curing the two related diseases of anti-Semitism and anti-Communism (both of which are caused by sexual repression and sub-conscious feelings of inadequacy) can the world enter into a truly “human” era of civilization.
The Jews of the Frankfurt School are undoubtedly secular, and yet they still view the Jewish people as the key to history and to the salvation of intolerant, anti-Semitic humanity. These Jews reject as “delusional” any suggestion that Jews are attempting to undermine society, but at the same time they affirm that Jews are superior and that the Jews ought to transform or abolish important aspects of gentile society in order to make it more Jew-friendly. In particular, Horkheimer and Adorno label Christianity, capitalism, and sexual repression as the main sources of anti-Semitism that must be done away with.
To the authors of Dialectic of Enlightenment, it is self-evident that the Gospel is false and illogical when compared with the Jewish (Talmudic) religion. Therefore, faithful Christians will always suffer from a sort of inferiority complex when they compare themselves to the Jews. Horkheimer and Adorno claim that in order to believe in Christianity, one must repress rational thought, and that anti-Semitism arises out of Christian resentment that the Jews have not made this “sacrifice of reason”. Christians “convinced themselves of Christianity as a secure possession”, and therefore they “were obliged to confirm their eternal salvation by the worldly ruin of those who refused to make the murky sacrifice of reason [i.e., the Jews]. That is the religious origin of anti-Semitism. The adherents of the religion of the Son hated the supporters of the religion of the Father as one hates those who know better” (Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford University Press, 2002. Page 147). In essence they are saying: forget the Pharisaic plot against Jesus, forget the persecution of the early Church by Jewish authorities, forget the evil blasphemies of the Talmud. The real cause of Christian animosity towards the Jews is a psychological flaw in Christians!
Given their harsh condemnation of the faith of Christians, one might expect that Horkheimer and Adorno would strongly support the Western tradition of logic and science. After all, the idol of “science” is commonly celebrated by those in rebellion against God. But for the Jews of the Frankfurt School, science and logic are just as much the enemy as Christianity, because science and logic were developed by capitalist society and are therefore tools of capitalist oppression. In a previous chapter we saw that Marx held all forms of thought to be shaped by economic conditions, an idea which the Cultural Marxists enthusiastically embraced, despite its impossible consequences. I say that the consequences are impossible because the Cultural Marxists do not merely claim that morality is dependent on economic factors and therefore mutable; they even dare to claim that the very rules of logic are shaped by economic exploitation based on the division of labor, and are therefore suspect:
Even the deductive form of science mirrors hierarchy and compulsion. Just as the first categories represented the organized tribe and its power over the individual, the entire logical order, with its chains of inference and dependence, the superordination and coordination of concepts, is founded on the corresponding conditions in social reality, that is, on the division of labor. (Ibid. Page 16)
This is the height of absurdity. Dismissing logic is like dismissing mathematics. Both of these branches of knowledge are demonstrable true, regardless of the economic situation in which they were developed. The rules of logic and mathematics are inherent to reality, and it is impossible to reject them and still try to make any claims about anything. As the above quote shows, logic involves analyzing reality and dividing creatures and phenomena into different categories. These categories are based upon objective characteristics and the similarity or dissimilarity of these characteristics. An example of this logical process would be dividing the animal kingdom into different species and sub-species, or dividing the constituents of matter into different families of atomic elements. Our capacity for logical thought is one of our defining characteristics as humans, but the Cultural Marxists are willing to abandon this capacity because it is an impediment to Communist revolution.
Horkheimer and Adorno say that all value judgments are unfounded (Ibid. Page 74), so we might expect them to refrain from making any value judgments themselves. This would be the logical thing to do for a man who has deemed such judgments to be impossible. But of course these Jews have rejected even logic itself, and therefore they freely make statements about what is best for humanity. When faced with value judgments they do not like, they declare value judgments to be unfounded, but then turn around that make their own value judgments about the virtues of Communism and sexual liberation. We are reminded of the Rabbis from the Talmud who claim that their arguments override the direct command of the Almighty. This Talmudic fable perfectly captures the attitude of modern Jewish intellectuals. The natural order, logic, science, even God himself; all must bow down to unhinged Jewish theory. The Jews decide what is good and what is evil, and it is insolence for a gentile to ask a Jew for a logical account of his judgments. After all, logic is a tool of gentile bourgeois oppression. Asking the Jew such questions is surely anti-Semitic.
Freud believed the repression of base desires to be the cause of human unhappiness. According to Horkheimer and Adorno, this repression not only causes us to be deprived of erotic pleasure but also makes us feel irrational hatred towards completely innocent groups. When the Christian refuses to give in to his lust, the lustful urge still remains in his psyche, and rather than acknowledging its presence, the Christian “projects” his lust onto another group. By this projection he attributes to an outside group (often the Jews) characteristics that they do not actually have, which causes him to hate the outside group instead of hating the lust within himself.
Anti-Semitism is based on false projection...false projection makes it surroundings resemble itself...displaces the volatile inward into the outer world, branding the intimate friend as foe. Impulses which are not acknowledged by the subject and yet are his, are attributed to the object: the prospective victim...The sexual impulses suppressed by humanity survived in both individuals and peoples and asserted themselves in the imaginary transformation of the surrounding world into a diabolic system. (Ibid. Page 54)
In this passage, Horkheimer and Adorno completely exonerate the Jew from any wrongdoing and claim that anti-Semitism is the result of a diseased mind. This total denial of Jewish guilt and responsibility is especially odd when discussing the charges of Jewish sexual deviance. For if the Cultural Marxists criticize Christian, capitalist society for being too prudish, then presumably a Jewish, Communist society would enjoy more sexual “freedom”. But if this is the case, then the Christian is not suffering from “false projection” when he accuses Jews and Communists of trying to destroy traditional morality. Rather, he is acting in response to an undeniable objective fact: Jewish Communists do promote sexual liberation. We should also note that Horkheimer and Adorno dismiss this accusation against the Jews as being crazy in the very same book in which they themselves argue in favor of sexual liberation. Jewish dishonesty knows no limit.
While the Cultural Marxists obviously find fault with Christianity and the sexual repression associated with it, they identify capitalism as the real culprit behind human suffering. In their view, prior to capitalism, man existed in a paradise of free erotic enjoyment, in which there was no sexual repression, no religion, no “false projection”, and therefore no prejudice. This paradise was wrecked by the introduction of capitalism, because capitalism brings about social distinction through division of labor. Division of labor is a great evil because it requires a level of social cooperation and self-control, and because it brings about a situation where immediate base desires are resisted in order to achieve long-term, communal goals. While a healthy individual would see such progress from primitive anarchy towards rational civilization as the triumph of cooperative Agape over selfishness, these Jews see only the cruel repression of Eros. It should also be noted that the primordial paradise of the Freudian-Marxists is not to be equated with the conditions of primitive natives in Africa or the Amazon, because in these societies there already exists the conceptual division between man and nature and a division of labor between men and women. Horkheimer and Adorno assert that even these early changes from the primordial chaos were brought about only by “violence”:
In the first stages of nomadism the members of the tribe still played an independent part in influencing the course of nature. The men tracked prey while the women performed tasks which did not require rigid commands. How much violence preceded the habituation to even so simple an order cannot be known. (Ibid. Page 15)
The harmonious workings of a tribe or a family where different tasks are given to those with different abilities, and where unity provides security against the dangers of the outside world— in all this, Horkheimer and Adorno can see only violence and oppression. They did not come to this conclusion from scientific evidence. Just like their hero Freud and his theory of sons murdering the primordial father, Horkheimer and Adorno are engaging in ungrounded, pseudo-scientific speculation. They completely dismiss man's innate desire to find companionship and security in a group, and decide to define man exclusively as a creature that seeks to satisfy his own lusts. It is true that as civilization grows, man often has less opportunity for immediate gratification of animal desires, but he becomes much safer and more secure in his physical being, and he also becomes capable of a much grander, more exalted form of enjoyment: the rational enjoyment of being part of a whole that is greater than himself. Horkheimer and Adorno refuse to admit that any of these advantages of civilization actually improve the life of man. For them, civilization is a net loss:
The history of civilization is the history of the inversion of sacrifice—in other words, the history of renunciation. All who renounce give away more of their life than is given back to them, more than the life they preserve. (Ibid. Page 43)
To use a favorite word of Freudian psychology, this attitude is absolutely infantile. Putting some restraint on personal appetites in order to serve the community is simply part of becoming a mature individual. Only a madman or a spoiled child would think that a life of perpetual, immediate gratification of animal desires would be possible, or even desirable.
As is to be expected, the primitive pleasure in which Horkheimer and Adorno are most interested is sex. They speak of “sexuality's better, prepatriarchal past” (Ibid. Page 84), where tribal orgies gave birth to the concept of pleasure. Our true essence as humans is to be found amongst these sexually depraved savages, and the civilized virtues associated with Agape are simply “pacified” forms of unrestrained, primordial Eros. By returning to this stage of savage promiscuity, man can escape from rational thought and capitalist oppression:
Only when dream absolves them of the compulsion of work, of the
individual's attachment to a particular social function and finally to a self,
leading back to a primal state free of domination and discipline, do
human beings feel the magic of pleasure...Thought arose in the course of
liberation from terrible nature, which is finally subjugated utterly.
Pleasure, so to speak, is nature's revenge. In it human beings divest
themselves of thought, escape from civilization. In earlier societies such
homecoming was provided by communal festival. Primitive orgies are the
collective origin of pleasure. (Ibid.
But even the most incorporeal tenderness is transformed sexuality; the hand stroking the hair, the kiss on the brow, which express the rapture of spiritual love, are in pacified form the beating and biting which accompany the sexual act among Australian aborigines. (Ibid. Page 85)
And just as sexual morality is a weapon that capitalism uses against humanity, so sexual perversion is a weapon that revolutionaries can use against capitalism:
the criminal violation of taboos...lives on, with sublime love, as fidelity to the utopia brought near by the availability of physical pleasure to all. (Ibid. Page 86)
In these passages, one can see the essence of Cultural Marxism: the Utopian promises of Marx combined with the sexual fixation of Freud. The revolutionaries no longer sought to defeat capitalism and Christianity by educating the masses in economics. Henceforth they sought to bribe the masses with promises of limitless pleasure.
This blending of Marx and Freud was put into clearer and more explicit terms by the Jew Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), one of the main popularizers of Cultural Marxist doctrine who became something of an intellectual idol of the 1960s hippy movement. Like Horkheimer and Adorno, Marcuse sees capitalism and sexual repression as being closely related. Marcuse bizarrely argues that capitalism brought about the limitation of sexuality to genital functions, and that in man's natural state, all of life and all of the body is sexual. Capitalism restricted sexuality to the genitals in an effort to enslave the remainder of the human body. Sexuality is free, so in order to make man's body an instrument of capitalist exploitation, it was necessary to “desexualize” it. According to Marcuse, the development of capitalist society “achieves the socially necessary desexualization of the body: the libido becomes concentrated in one part of the body, leaving most of the rest free for use as an instrument of labor” (Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. Routledge, 2005. Page 48.) In turn, doing away with sexual repression would bring about the end of capitalism, the family, and civilization as we know it:
[The] unrepressed development [of the senses] would eroticize the
organism to such an extent that it would counteract the desexualization of
the organism required by its social utilization as an instrument of labor. (Ibid.
No longer used as a fulltime instrument of labor, the body would be resexualized. The regression involved in this spread of the libido would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polyamorous sexuality...The body in its entirety would become...a thing to be enjoyed, an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family. (Ibid. Page 201.)
Hence Marcuse does not simply argue in favor of promiscuity, homoxexuality, and other perversions. To be sure, he praises sexual perversion because “[t]he perversions...express rebellion against the subjugation of sexuality”(Ibid. Page 49.), but he wants something more. He wants a return to the imaginary primordial state where erotic feeling is unlimited and all of human life is completely sexualized:
Originally, the sex instinct has no extraneous temporal and spatial limitations on its subject and object; sexuality is by nature “polyamorous-perverse.”(Ibid. Page 49.)
The obvious objection to this Eros-obsessed attitude is that sexuality is inherently irrational and short-sighted, and that it therefore must be made subordinate to logic in some respect. Marcuse boldly counters this objection, not by means of rational argument, but by openly declaring that liberated Eros is capable of “transforming this world into a new mode of being”(Ibid. Page 169.) and of replacing logic as the source of human judgment. In what is one of the gravest intellectual perversions ever attempted by sinful man, Marcuse expressly and unambiguously rejects Logos in favor of Eros.
In the Greek New Testament, the Logos is the “Word” that became flesh. The Logos is the Word that was with God in the beginning, through whom everything was made. The Logos of God gives order and regularity to the creation, and this order is what allows us to possess life, consciousness and reason. Logos is also the origin of the word logic, which was developed by ancient Greek philosophers. The Greek philosophers lived without the divine light of revelation, but still dimly grasped after an orderly, governing force of the universe, which they often termed Logos, because of the inherent connection between speech and rationality. These Greeks founded Western logic and science, those capitalist evils against which Horkheimer and Adorno so stubbornly protested. Marcuse joins them in this protest, stating that the:
idea of reason becomes increasingly antagonistic to those faculties and
attitudes which...tend toward gratification rather than transcendence
...They appear as the unreasonable and irrational that must be conquered
and contained in order to serve the progress of reason...The Logos shows
forth as the logic of domination. (Ibid.
When philosophy conceives the essence of being as Logos, it is already the Logos of domination—commanding, mastering, directing reason, to which man and nature are to be subjected. (Ibid. Page 125.)
To the Christian, the domination of base desires is a great virtue and blessing, and this was the consensus of all Western philosophy prior to the disintegration of the modern era. And what greater good could be imagined, than to live in accordance with the instruction of the Logos that has created and governs all existence? The only argument that Marcuse brings against Logos is that it prevents unrestrained carnal indulgence, but for him this is reason enough to destroy the theological and philosophical concept of Logos entirely, and to replace it with his own “Logos”, the “logic of gratification”:
Both [the logic of domination and the will to gratification] assert their claims for defining the reality principle...[A]gainst the conception of
being in terms of Logos rises the conception of being in a-logical terms:
will and joy.
This countertrend strives to formulate its own Logos:
logic of gratification. (Ibid.
124. Emphasis added.)
Eros redefines reason in his own terms. Reasonable is what sustains the order of gratification. (Ibid. Page 224.)
This “a-logical” logic proposed by Marcuse is completely absurd and self-contradictory, but tragically, the “logos of gratification” is the ruling principle in contemporary America. Proponents of abortion, promiscuity, divorce, or homosexuality do not discuss these topics logically with an eye towards wider social ramifications. They are almost exclusively concerned with the increase in carnal pleasure that these evils bring about. In America today, that which is pleasurable is good, and that which is restrictive of Eros is evil. Our culture's embrace of the Logos of gratification has produced a generation that is incapable of understanding economic reality, a generation that thinks perpetual borrowing and perpetual handouts are sustainable. They have subconsciously accepted Marcuse's statement that:
Man is free only where he is free from constraint, external and internal, physical and moral—when he is constrained neither by law nor by need. But such constraint is the reality. Freedom is thus, in a strict sense, freedom from the established reality. (Ibid. Page 187.)
The Logos of gratification is the Jewish idol that has come to dominate our society. The worshipers of the true Logos who refuse to bow down to this idol are labeled as heretics— heartless bigots whose days are numbered.
Many conservatives still wonder how such a prosperous and advanced Christian nation like America could have disintegrated almost overnight. In tracing the development of Cultural Marxism, we have found part of the answer, but before we can understand how such nonsensical Jewish theory became so mainstream so quickly, it is necessary to look more closely at the greatest source of Jewish power: Hollywood.
Green Baggins is a popular Reformed blog that takes a "conservative" view on many issues, while at the same time promoting the Cultural Marxist position on race and the Jewish question. The site recently published an article entitled Welcome to Babylon! Here’s Your Mark! The article correctly points out that opposition to sodomy is quickly becoming a dangerous opinion to have, and that Christian churches that stick to the clear Biblical teaching on the subject will face increasing persecution in the coming years. To illustrate this point, the author of the post includes the image of a "gay rainbow", suggesting that this is the mark of the beast spoken of the book of Revelation:
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)
While it is certainly true that the militant pro-homosexual movement would like to prevent Christians from carrying out business, this is just the latest step of an ongoing process to marginalize and ultimately criminalize Biblical teaching.
As a more comprehensive and appropriate mark of the beast, I would suggest the "kosher K" rather than the "gay rainbow". Being punished for opposing homosexuality is a fairly recent phenomenon, while Christians who have spoken the plain Biblical truth about the Jews have been persecuted for years. The Christians who refuse to absolve the Jews of their obvious guilt in the murder of the Messiah are targeted by the Jews and their "Christian" Zionist allies. The writers at Green Baggins may deplore homosexuality, but they would doubtless join in denouncing the "anti-Semtism" of myself and other like minded Christians. These pro-Jewish Christians bear the kosher K, the mark of Jewish approval. Toleration of the Jews (particularly toleration of their disproportionate power in our society) is the single greatest cause of the degeneracy plaguing what was once known as Christendom. The Christians who gladly bear the mark of Jewish approval are directly responsible for the current persecution of Christians who refuse to participate in sodomite weddings.
Those who shouted for Christ to be crucified have completely dominated our society for several decades. Our media, government and academic institutions are dominated by Jews. Jews and Jewish ideology control the way our people live and think. Given all this, it should be no surprise to kosher Christians that the Christian foundations of our civilization are rapidly being undermined. Nor should they expect that the clear Biblical teaching against homosexuality will keep the retreating church from compromising yet again. The Scripture passages condemning the Jews are just as clear and irrefutable as those condemning homosexuality. Dismissing the former while trying to hold on to the latter is futile. The passages that obviously condemn the Jews have already been explained away and ignored, and the passages condemning homosexuality can be taken care of in exactly the same way. We are already seeing this happen, as more and more pastors begin to revise their previous positions on homosexuality. These pro-sodomy "Christians" are saying that Bible passages condemning homosexuals actually only refer to promiscuous homosexuals, not homosexuals in committed relationships, even though Scripture nowhere makes this distinction. This is the exact same tactic used by pro-Jewish "Christians", who argue that the passages condemning the Jews only refer to the Jews of the New Testament era, not the Jews of today, despite the fact that the Jews have never collectively turned away from their defining error (the rejection of the Messiah). Once this dishonest method of interpretation is allowed, there is no Biblical doctrine safe from revision.
The fruits of Jewish domination are beginning to ripen, and pro-Jewish "conservative" Christians have only themselves to blame.
Just like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) employed pseudo-scientific arguments in favor of rebellion against God's law. But rather than focusing on economics, Freud focused on (and greatly influenced) the young science of psychology. With the rise of atheism in the 19th century, men sought for something to fill the void left by abandoning Christian doctrine. While 19th century man made great advances in physics, chemistry and biology, these sciences could not provide any answers to the questions of morality and the meaning of life. Psychology was an attempt to provide a “scientific” approach to these issues. As Christians, we know that any attempt to answer these ultimate questions without relying on revelation will inevitably fail. It is therefore no surprise that the empty farce of psychology provided the perfect avenue for deception and sin. And once again, a Jew was Satan's lead henchman.
I will do my best to avoid the sickening details of Freud's disgusting sexual theories. (Any reader who wishes to do so can easily find more information on Freud's ridiculous and unfounded theories about Castration Anxiety, Penis Envy, and the like). I will focus instead on how Freud used these theories in an attempt to undermine the Christian worldview and justify extreme hedonism and selfishness.
Near the end of his life, Freud wrote Civilization and Its Discontents, in which he succinctly expressed the conclusions of his psychological research and its implications for human society. Freud explicitly rejects the validity of selfless, compassionate love (Agape), and leaves selfish, irrational desire (Eros) as the only true source of happiness. This rejection of Agape and embrace of Eros inevitably leads to the destruction of all that is truly good in human life.
Freud's definition of happiness is purely hedonistic. Happiness is merely the enjoyment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, based on what Freud calls the “pleasure principle”:
[Humans] strive after happiness; they want to become happy and to remain so. This endeavour has two sides, a positive and a negative aim. It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure. In its narrower sense the word 'happiness' only relates to the last... As we can see, what decides the purpose of life is simply the programme of the pleasure principle. (Civilization and Its Discontents. Translated by James Strachey. W.W. Norton and Company, 1961. Page 25.)
But for Freud, not all pleasures are equal. There is one pleasure in particular that he puts above all others: the pleasure of sex.
...one of the forms in which loves manifests itself—sexual love—has given us our most intense experience of an overwhelming sensation of pleasure and has thus furnished us with a pattern for our search for happiness. What is more natural than that we should persist in looking for happiness along the path on which we first encountered it? (Ibid. Page 33)
From these two simple statements, it is easy to see that for Freud, happiness = sex, and that sexual pleasure is the primary factor in human experience. Everything else in life is a repression or mutilation of our sexual desires, and human institutions can be judged by the degree of sexual “freedom” they provide. On this definition of happiness, civilization has greatly hampered the happiness of mankind. For Freud, the essence of civilization “lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions” (Ibid. Page 49).
In Freud's view civilization begins with the restriction of Eros; for the Christian, civilization begins with the flowering of Agape, with the formation of families, tribes and nations working together in brotherly love towards a common good. For Freud, Agape is defined negatively as the restriction of Eros. Giving up one's own gratification to help another takes away from our happiness. This is the complete inversion of Christianity. For the Christian, Agape is the highest virtue. Jesus says that no man has greater love (agape) than to lay down his life for another. When we lay down our life for another, we deliberately and consciously deny ourselves any future enjoyment of physical pleasure. Therefore, Freud would view Christian Agape as the complete opposite of Eros. In this, the Christian would naturally agree, for Agape is man's true source of lasting happiness, while Eros is the cause of man's fall and damnation.
Of course Freud cannot deny that selfless love exists, as the actions of the great martyrs readily show. To explain this phenomenon, Freud claims that religious individuals repress their desire for genital satisfaction and that this repressed Eros is transformed into Agape. This makes Agape a weakened, mutilated form of Eros, and can therefore only provide man with a small fraction of his true possible happiness. In speaking of men living in a Christian society, Freud states that:
A small minority are enabled by their constitution to find happiness, in spite of everything, along the path of love. But far-reaching mental changes in the function of love are necessary before this can happen. These people make themselves independent of their object's acquiesence by displacing what they mainly value from being loved on to loving; they protect themselves against the loss of of the object by directing their love, not to single objects but to all men alike; and they avoid the uncertainties and disappointments of genital love by turning away from its sexual aims and transforming the instinct into an impulse with an inhibited aim. What they bring about in themselves in this way is a state of evenly suspended, steadfast, affectionate feeling, which has little external resemblance any more to the stormy agitations of genital love, from which it is nevertheless derived. (Ibid. Pages 56-57)
For Freud, only a small number of “weak” individuals can be happy with this mutilated form of Eros. For those with healthier, more “normal” sexual appetites, sexual restraint is a form of oppression:
As regards the sexually mature individual, the choice of an object is
restricted to the opposite sex, and most extra-genital satisfactions are
forbidden as perversions. The requirement, demonstrated in these
prohibitions, that there shall be a single kind of sexual life for everyone,
disregards the dissimilarities, whether innate or acquired, in the sexual
constitution of human beings; it cuts off a fair number of them from sexual
enjoyment, and so becomes the source of serious injustice. (Ibid. Page 60)
Only the weaklings have submitted to such an extensive encroachment upon their sexual freedom. (Ibid. Page 61)
Since sexual enjoyment is man's greatest end, then preventing this sexual enjoyment—no matter what form it takes—becomes the greatest violation of human rights. We can see this same argument at play in the “free love” and “gay rights” movements that became dominant in the 1960s. Not only was Freud the principal theorist behind the 60s sexual revolution, but he even went far beyond what most hippy libertines would support. For example, Freud declared that the prohibition against incest was somehow a violation of man's original sexual freedom:
[Civilization's] first, totemic, phase already brings with it the prohibition against an incestuous choice of object, and this is perhaps the most drastic mutilation which man's erotic life has in all time experienced. (Ibid. Page 59)
While this statement on incest might seem shocking, even to most contemporary “progressives”, it is the logical conclusion of the ideology of sexual liberation. Freud is simply being more honest and more consistent. He displays this same brutal honesty when discussing the relationship between religion and the purpose of life. Unlike many liberals today, Freud does not even try to pretend that morality in the traditional sense can exist for “secular” society. Rather, he boldly declares that “One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system”. 38 Keep in mind that Freud considered all religion to be a mass delusion, and therefore would have us believe that in a mentally “healthy” society, there would be no higher values and no purpose to life other than physical gratification.
Before proceeding further with Freud's theories, I must stress how thoroughly unscientific and irrational Freud is. This is especially important to point out because secularists like Freud claim to hold a strictly scientific worldview and constantly ridicule Christians for holding unscientific beliefs. Freud's theory that all Agape stems from frustrated Eros certainly falls into the realm of pseudo-science. It is not based on any real evidence, and it cannot reasonably account for a number of human experiences. The absolutely selfless Agape that a mother feels for her child is not rooted in frustrated Eros. This maternal love is innate, biological, and hormonal. Many mothers have consciously risked their own lives for that sake of their children without any hope of future physical enjoyment. There have also been many men who gave no thought to sexual purity, and yet still died willingly while defending their family, friends or country. Agape is what drives us to the greatest sacrifice and the greatest bravery. A man motivated by pure lust might put himself at some risk when pursuing his aim, but he will never walk into certain death. The vast majority of mankind, even nonbelievers, would admit that the Agape felt amongst family members is more noble and more praiseworthy than Eros, and that a truly good person is one who takes care of his family before his own personal desires.
Therefore, given that most men and women perceive Agape to be superior to Eros in value, and given that Eros and Agape both have biological, hormonal components, there is no good reason for Freud to assume that Eros is more “natural” or more essential to human happiness than Agape. Freud's choice to do so is not scientific, it is ideological. He desires a society where unlimited sexual gratification is celebrated, and therefore he stubbornly refuses to admit the existence of any genuine human good that is not ultimately subordinate to sexual lust. It is obvious that Freud's teaching contradicts Christianity, but even from a secular, materialistic perspective, his arguments make no sense. Given man's capacity for both base sexual enjoyment and refined intellectual activity, there is no good “scientific” reason simply to assume that greater happiness is derived from the former and not the latter. Those who over-indulge is physical pleasure often regret it. Leaving aside the question of salvation, these over-indulgent individuals often regret their neglect of family and friends, of career advancement, or of physical health. Even worldly satisfaction is not purely physical, for in order to be truly happy, a man's rational faculty must be satisfied as well. In fact, physical pleasure is fleeting and soon passes away, while the knowledge that one has made the right, rational choice can provide satisfaction for years into the future. These considerations would strongly suggest that a truly scientific examination of human wellbeing would conclude, at the very least, that rational self-control is just as important as physical gratification. But it is essential for Freud that he reject such a conclusion. For once it is admitted that physical gratification should be guided by reason, this opens up the way to declaring certain physical pleasures to be undesirable because of their negative consequences. Reason demands that choices be made with a regard to the future. If a particular pleasure, such as sexual intercourse outside of marriage, can potentially lead to the negative consequences of contracting a disease or producing a child with someone who would be an unfit parent, then reason would warn against engaging in such activity. But for Freud, such rational self-control would be an “injustice”, and therefore must be declared an enemy of humanity. In his decision to choose physical pleasure over intellectual self-control as the mark of genuine human wellbeing, Freud is not being at all scientific.
Despite the natural appeal of carnal enjoyment, Freud and his message of sexual liberation have always been met with strong opposition. Fallen man might be easily seduced by Eros, but by God's grace we have been blessed with religion and an innate sense of guilt, both of which have done a great deal to curb our sinfulness. Freud understood the challenge posed by religion and guilt, and therefore sought to undermine them, stating that it is:
..my intention to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the development of civilization and to show that the price we pay for our advance in civilization is a loss of happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt. (Ibid. Page 97)
Unsurprisingly, Freud traced the origin of religion and guilt to restrictions on physical gratification.
In order to understand Freud's thought on this subject, it is necessary to examine Freud's ridiculous theory about the Oedipus Complex and the origin of civilization. This theory is likely the most brazen example of Freud's pseudo-science. According to Freud, the first form of social organization to arise from the “freedom” of animal existence was a primitive horde where the father ruled over his wives and children as a tyrant. This ancient father was cruel and oppressive. He forced his sons into labor and prevented them from obtaining sexual gratification, as he reserved the women of the horde for himself. The sons living under such a father desired physical gratification, but the fear of their father's punishment kept them in line. Eventually, however, the sons banded together and killed their father. But even after killing their oppressor, the sons were still left with a sense of remorse, which led to the development of guilt:
We cannot get away from the assumption that man's sense of guilt springs
from the Oedipus complex and was acquired at the killing of the father by
the brothers banded together. (Ibid. Page 93)
This remorse was the result of the primordial ambivalence of feeling towards the father. His sons hated him, but they loved him, too. After their hatred had been satisfied by their act of aggression, their love came to the fore in their remorse for the deed...Whether one has killed one's father or has abstained from doing so is not really the decisive thing. One is bound to feel guilty in either case, for the sense of guilt is an expression of the conflict due to ambivalence. (Ibid. Page 95. Emphasis added)
This is obviously pseudo-science. There is no evidence that the killing of the father by his sons was a common phenomenon. There is no good reason whatsoever to assume that such a thing ever happened. Even from a secular perspective, there are no grounds for assuming that civilization was founded on such oppression and murder as described by Freud. It is much more reasonable to assume, for example, that political organization began when sons joined together with their fathers in opposition to other families. Blood ties provide the most natural and obvious basis for trust and community, and there is no reason to think that the earliest political violence was caused by conflict between fathers and sons. Freud's theory of sons killing their father is not based on evidence, and does not accord with common sense. It is pure pseudo-science. Of course another major problem with Freud's theory is that we all experience a sense of guilt without ever having killed our fathers. Freud explains this away by saying that we all wanted to kill our fathers at some point, and even though we were not able to, we still felt ambivalent about our desires, which led to the development of guilt. When it is objected that none of us remember wanting to do this, Freud assures us that we did wish to kill our fathers, but did so at a very early age, which is why we cannot remember! While the sons living in Freud's imaginary primal horde consciously experienced parental tyranny as more mature children, we are told that all infants experience similar “tyranny” at a very young age when their irrational desires are frustrated by paternal interference. This interference leads to the infantile desire to kill one's father. In saying this, Freud demonizes the loving structure provided by parents and identifies it as the root of guilt, and consequently of unhappiness. Thus, together with genital desire, Freud puts the infantile temper tantrum at the heart of human existence. Obviously it is healthy and natural for fathers to prevent their children from carrying out certain irrational desires that could cause serious harm. But Freud is so far divorced from reality, that even these basic impediments to irrational, infantile desires must be treated with suspicion.
Freud's fixation with infantile experience pervades much of his thought and frequently reaches absurd levels. For example, he even claims that “the dwelling-house was a substitute for the mother's womb, the first lodging, for which in all likelihood man still longs, and in which he was safe and felt at ease” (Ibid. Page 43). Aside from being unverifiable, this statement ignores the obvious fact that houses are very convenient for avoiding exposure to the elements and for repelling enemies. There might be an analogy between the womb and a house, but there is no reason to think that man, even on a subconscious level, was trying to recreate the womb when first building permanent dwellings. In every instance, Freud places the infantile above the mature, implying that mature human thoughts and emotions are merely corrupted, malformed versions of the infantile originals. Such an absurd ordering of things is like saying that walking is a deformed version of crawling. Infants are immature and not fully formed, both anatomically and emotionally. Infancy is a stage that we progress beyond as we mature, and it is not the standard by which human happiness ought to be measured.
In explaining the development of religion, Freud once again cites infantile frustration as the key factor:
The derivation of religious needs from the infant's helplessness and the
longing for the father aroused by it seems to me incontrovertible. (Ibid. Page 20)
The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. (Ibid. Page 22)
Given that Freud is an atheist, it is not surprising that he assumes religion to be man made. But he goes further than this, declaring that religion is not to be traced to human speculation, but to irrational infantile desires. Many atheists have suggested that religion arose from man thinking about the origin of the universe and the causes of natural phenomena, but even this explanation is too noble for Freud. He instead focuses on the conflicted emotional life of the infant: hating and fearing the father because of his discipline, but at the same time desiring the father's aid and protection. Freud shows incredible insolence in dismissing religion as “infantile”, while he is the one who elevates base, irrational, and infantile desires. Christianity, along with common sense, teaches that this life is inevitably full of both pleasure and pain. Reason, toil and sacrifice are necessary in order to live virtuously. Christianity also teaches that the transcendent, ineffable creator of the universe has established what is right and what is wrong, and that just punishment will come to those who do evil. Freud, on the other hand, teaches that true happiness can only come with the “liberation” of our base, animal desires, and that “primitive man was better off in knowing no restrictions of instinct” (Ibid. Page 73). He places the chaos of animal savagery above the moral and intellectual advancements of civilization, because only in the state of nature can man pursue absolute fulfillment of selfish lust. I ask you, which worldview, Christianity or Freudianism, is “foreign to reality”? Which one is “patently infantile”?
While everything that Freud says might seem very silly, his poisonous teachings should be taken very seriously. Reason, self-control, the family, religion, civilization—Freud labels all of these things as enemies. Freud's theories have not been restricted to the world of eccentric academics; his theories have infiltrated every level of society and have come to shape public morality. In the mainstream media, Christianity and chastity are mocked, while undoing the “injustice” of homophobia is praised as a great moral advancement. This triumph of degeneracy has been effected by a group of Jewish intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School, which used Freud's theories as a revolutionary weapon. Freud taught that mental illnesses are caused by erotic frustration and the attendant sense of guilt, especially guilt caused by failure to live up to the high moral standards demanded by Christianity. Freud's Jewish disciples in the Frankfurt School attempted to “cure” society of the diseases of morality and religion.
Last week the Obama administration expressed its support for a petition demanding a ban on homosexual and transgender conversion therapy for minors. The petition was started in memory of Joshua Ryan Alcorn, a seventeen-year-old boy who took his own life after suffering from the delusion that he was a girl named Leelah. Joshua's parents are described by the media as conservative Christians who did everything in their power to restore their son to his right mind. Unfortunately, Joshua was still able to access social media where he found encouragement to persist in his disease.
The exact text of the petition is as follows:
On Sunday, December 27, 2014, Leelah Alcorn a 17 year old transgender youth wrote a suicide note, posted it on Tumblr and then walked in front of a semi-truck tragically ending her life. Leelah explained how her parents had forced her to attend conversion therapy, pulled her out of school and isolated her in an attempt to change her gender identity. 'Conversion therapies' have been documented to cause great harms and in this case, Leelah's death. Therapists that engage in the attempt to brainwash or reverse any child's gender identity or sexual orientation are seriously unethical and legislation is needed to end such practices that are resulting in LGBTQ+ deaths. We respectfully seek your help to ban the practice known as 'conversion therapy' and name the bill in honor of Leelah Alcorn.
While it is bad enough that the petition demands an end to therapy aimed at helping sick children, the full implications of this demand are deeply disturbing. Note that in addition to the therapy itself, the petition also condemns Joshua's parents for removing him from school and trying to limit his contact with his peers, actions that are within the accepted limits of parental authority. In essence, the petition blames Joshua's death on his parents' refusal to accept his delusion. The moral principle behind the petition is clear: it is abusive and evil for parents to discourage their "transgendered" children.
For now, the only legal action demanded by the Left is aimed at conversion therapy performed by mental health professionals, but it is easy to see how parents who teach their children to reject homosexuality and transgenderism could also be labeled as criminal in the future. For if, as the petition states, it is unethical for a therapist to attempt to "reverse any child's gender identity or sexual orientation", how could it not be unethical for a parent to attempt to do so? By now, the ultimate goal of the Left should be obvious to all Christians. The Left desires to use the authority of the state to destroy the Church and the Biblical teaching on sexuality. Christian businesses and Christian families will be targeted and prosecuted. Children will be taken from Christian families in order to prevent "abuse" and to provide the children with a full range of gender options.
The "sexual revolution" is not a finished event that occurred in the 1960s. It is an ongoing process and it is accelerating. During the first stage of the sexual revolution abortion, pornography and homosexuality were legalized. But although these practices were legal and promoted by the mainstream culture, it was still possible for individuals to express their disapproval of these practices and to teach their children to avoid them. Now, in the second stage of the sexual revolution public disapproval of sexual perversion will become taboo and will ultimately be criminalized, as is already happening in other countries.
We must not be deceived: we are entering the darkest period in the history of the world. I would prefer a thousand times over to be fed to lions than for my children to be taken from me and raised as sinful perverts. But this is the future that the retreating church is inviting.
With the recent killing of Walter Scott by police officer Michael Slager, many on the Left are suggesting that their suspicions regarding Ferguson have been vindicated. This is utter nonsense and shows a total ignorance of how justice system is supposed to work.
In the case of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, the Left and their black mobs screamed for a murder conviction. But there was no evidence for such a conviction. In our justice system, in order to get a murder conviction, there must be enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Even Eric Holder's Justice Department, which was furiously trying to convict Wilson, admitted that there was no such evidence. To any rational person, this should have been the end of the matter: no evidence, no conviction. The hurt feelings of the community do not count as evidence, nor do "racist" emails sent by members of the Ferguson police department who were not actually involved with the case.
With the Walter Scott case, we are dealing with a completely new and unrelated event. The evidence in the case will determine the guilt or innocence of the officer involved. To demonstrate just how irrational the Left is on this issue, imagine the following scenario: a black teen is suspected of murder, but there is insufficient evidence for an indictment, so he is never charged. Then, a year later, a different black teen in a different city is caught on video committing a murder. Could you imagine the media suggesting that the obvious guilt of the second black teen somehow proves the guilt of the first?
In all of these cases, the Left has completely ignored the evidence. There has been a rush to judgment before the facts have been known. The only "evidence" that they need is the identity of those involved. If a Negro dies at the hands of a white police officer, there is no need for further evidence before the street protests and riots begin. By contrast, the Right has demonstrated a rational respect for the evidence. Even amongst white nationalists, some are saying that the video in the Walter Scott case likely indicates that the officer is guilty. Has there ever been a black panther or a nation of Islam member who admitted that the evidence in one of these cases actually points towards the innocence of the police officer? (Keep in mind that some black nationalists have demanded that all black prison inmates should be released, regardless of the evidence of their guilt).
The justice system developed in England and the United States is one of our greatest treasures. Clear, objective evidence related to each individual case is the only standard by which guilt can be measured. This system protects us from the anger and prejudices of the mob. But under the coming reign of irrationality being ushered in by deranged leftists and the non-white hordes, our justice system will soon be undermined, along with every other aspect of our civilization.
In the ongoing controversy over Indiana's Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA), "Christian conservatives" are once again showing their complete inability to combat the enemy. Not only do they fail to advance their own position, but they retreat at every single opportunity and never recognize (or admit) that they are in fact retreating. The behavior of these conservatives reminds one of the "traditores" of the early Church. During the persecution of the Church by the Roman Empire, certain Christians surrendered to the worldly powers and handed over (Latin "tradere") the Holy Scriptures to be destroyed by the pagans. Today's conservatives are not physically handing over copies of the Bible, but they are still betraying the Church by perpetually redefining what Christian attitudes should be.
Up until the mid 20th century the Christian position was that homosexuality should be illegal. The only real difference of opinion that existed was whether homosexuals should be executed, castrated, thrown in prison, or forced into conversion therapy. But the unanimous voice from Old Testament times up until the 1960s was that the power of the state should be used to suppress homosexuality. This attitude is perfectly in line with what the Bible teaches, as all Christians have always known.
Many of the more conservative regions of the country were slow to accept the radical redefinition of sexuality brought about by the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. Even in 1986, the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional Georgia's anti-sodomy laws, a decision that was not reversed until 2003. Today, a mere 12 years after anti-sodomy laws were finally done away with, "Christian conservatives" are hoping for a "victory" in Indiana, whose Restoration of Religious Freedom Act could prevent Christians from being forced to provide services for homosexual mock-weddings.
In recent comments made by former Senator Rick Santorum, we can see how weak the "religious right" has become:
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate dove deep into the topic on most everyone’s lips this week, telling “Face the Nation” on Sunday that when it comes to religious freedom and discrimination, “tolerance is a two-way street.”
In his interview Santorum distinguished between discriminating against a person and declining to take part or contribute directly to an activity that one’s faith indicates is wrong.
“If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates F**s’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up?” he asked. “Should the government force you to do that? And that’s what these cases are all about. This is about the government coming in and saying, ‘No, we’re going to make you do this.’ And his is where I think we just need some space to say, ‘Let’s have some tolerance (and) be a two-way street.”
Santorum here suggests that "mutual respect" and "non-discrimination for all" are what Christians have been in favor of all along, which is clearly untrue. The Christian position is that homosexuality should be illegal. Christianity requires legal discrimination against sodomites and other sexual perverts. The de-criminalization and normalization of homosexuality was carried out by anti-Christian forces that were unsuccessfully resisted by the Church. Proponents of RFRA are constantly saying that the law does not allow discrimination, thereby implying that discrimination against homosexuals is somehow immoral or undesirable. By doing this, they betray the Church of just a few decades ago, when legal discrimination against sodomites was universally accepted. Almost no contemporary Christian, no matter how "conservative" he claims to be, will dare to state openly that legal discrimination is the only winning tactic in the battle against sexual depravity.
This ignorance of history allows the retreating church to move from one defeat to another without acknowledging that they are firmly on the losing side of the battle. It also prevents Christians from recognizing how to solve their current problems. Absolute suppression of all homosexual activity and propaganda is the only way to maintain a healthy society. Perverts are like subterranean vermin who cannot stand the light of morality and righteous judgment. Once "tolerance" of sexual perversion is allowed, the degenerates will fight to destroy all remaining decency.
Sadly, it seems as if the sodomites have a better historical memory than most Christians do. The sodomites still remember that a generation ago men were arrested and thrown in prison for their sexual behavior. The sodomites understand that there is no common ground, no perpetual peace that will be agreeable to all sides. They see the current conflict for what it is: an ideological struggle in which only one side will be victorious.
IIf we were to come across a burning building, and perceived inside it a man who would certainly die if he did not escape, we would at once rush to his aid. If, upon speaking to the man, we learned that he refused to leave the building, convinced that the fire would not harm him, we would loudly and insistently plead with him. We would beg him to stand up and walk out of the fire. In our conversation with him, we would not for an instant accept as legitimate any of his premises or arguments for the harmlessness of fire. No single aspect of his choice to remain in the fire would deserve any respect. We would deplore and deny his wish to bring children into the burning building. With every word said to him, we would communicate the clear message that if he did not leave the burning building, he would surely perish. If, despite our pleadings, he refused to budge, we would mourn, not smile.
The preceding illustration shows how Christians are to witness to sodomites with love.
Engaging in sodomy will result in damnation (1 Corinthians 6:9). We do not witness to sinners in order to be nice or to make them feel good about themselves. We witness to them in order to save them from the eternal fire. Convincing them of their sin and the need to repent is our sole aim. Anything that distracts us from this aim is not of God.
Liberal pseudo-Christians complain that we fundamentalists are cruel and fail to act in a Christ-like manner when speaking to homosexuals. But the pseudo-Chistians have forgotten the Christ of Scripture. The Christ of Scripture directly and without apology warns impenitent sinners if their fate. When speaking to those who lead men into hell, he unambiguously condemns them for what they are doing (Matthew 23:13). The failure of the pseudo-Christians to understand this is likely due to the fact that they do not actually believe that sodomy will be punished, and therefore they do not in any way represent Christianity. Their hearts are hardened and are no longer sensitive to the pain, ugliness, and destructiveness of sin.
The Church will continue to compromise and decay until we again witness with true love--with a love that cares for our fellow man's eternal fate, not his mistaken feelings.
Today's program focuses on the differences between Bible-believing Christians and Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians.Topics discussed include:
-The Protestant and Catholic/Eastern Orthodox understanding of authority.
-The writings of ante-Nicene fathers, especially Tertullian and Origen.
-The Council of Elvira.
-The Old Testament accounts of Josiah and Ezra give a model for reforming the Church.
Sin and unbelief have been the common lot of men ever since the fall of Adam. In every generation most men have denied God to some degree and have put self-satisfaction at the center of their lives. Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the first to make excuses for ungodly behavior, or even that he was the first to promote atheism and materialism as positive goods. But in the doctrine of Marx, we find a coalescence and distillation of nearly all the vice and blasphemy of preceding ages. It is under the rule of Marxism that the destruction of Church, nation, family and private property has been most successfully carried out. Marxism has murdered millions of innocents over the past 150 years, and this slaughter continues in our own times. In Marxism Satan found the perfect formula to blind man and draw him away from his savior. Although Satan has not hesitated to enlist both Jews and gentiles in the ranks of Marxism, he has appointed Jews as the chief earthly agents for spreading this disease. This evil doctrine was formulated by the Jew Karl Marx, was heavily supported by numerous Jewish intellectuals, and inspired the Jewish Frankfurt School.
In this chapter I will look at several passages by Marx, taken mostly from The Communist Manifesto. But before examining Marx's writings, it is important to clear up a common misconception. Marxism is often presented as primarily an economic system. This view is incorrect. Marxism has always had as its chief end the selfish gratification of base desires and “liberation” from restraint and responsibility (in other words, the free reign of Eros). Economic theories have only been means to achieve this end. By focusing on the purely economic aspect of Marxism, many observers have come to think that Marxism disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This is completely untrue. Marxist Jews never gave up on the essence of their system. They merely found a more effective way to market their beliefs, as we shall see in the following chapters.
Marx's demand for the abolition of private property certainly was wicked and destructive, but it was his demand for the abolition of all former moral values that has truly scarred humanity. Because Marx was a materialist, he viewed religion and all human culture as merely the outcome of blind economic and biological processes. The Christian sees the moral law as the foundation and starting point of civilization, but for Marx, morality is merely a surface phenomenon shaped by the true driving forces of history. With this shallow understanding of morality and culture, it was easy for Marx to reject all earlier standards of goodness and decency. In The Communist Manifesto Marx writes:
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life? What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
Elsewhere in the same text, Marx addresses the imagined criticism of those who believe that eternal moral standards remain constant despite changes in political and economic life:
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.” “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
When confronted with the charge that his doctrine will destroy every eternal truth, Marx does not deny it. Instead he celebrates the “radical rupture” with the past that he hopes to bring about. According to Marx, all past societies have been based on class exploitation, and therefore every moral system promoted by these societies is worthy of annihilation. Marx proposes the creation of a new world based on shared property and absolute equality. This new, unprecedented social order will naturally bring with it a new morality.
At this point the perceptive reader should have recognized the profound dishonesty of Marx. Leaving aside the utter impracticality of Communism, we should be puzzled at Marx's ability to deny the moral absolutes of his opponents and simultaneously to promote his own set of moral absolutes. We should ask Marx, how is it possible to deny eternal truths such as Freedom and Justice, but at the same time declare the moral superiority of Communism?
Thus already in the 1840s, when The Communist Manifesto was published, we can see the seeds of “postmodernism”, the pseudo-intellectual deception that has been used by nearly every single Jewish liberal and revolutionary. According to postmodernism, we Christians are fools for believing in moral absolutes, when in reality truth is relative and there are no objective moral standards. But after making this anti-Christian argument, the postmodernist then goes on to propound his own moral commandments. As we have seen, Marx gleefully dismisses “bourgeois” morality as a random product of historical development, but at the same time unhesitatingly accepts the absolute moral goodness of “liberation” and “equality”. Similarly, today's Jewish liberals dismiss Christian moral teachings as irrational and unscientific, but then fail to provide any scientific evidence to support their own moral dogmas. The Marxist/postmodernist reduces religious morality to the blind activity of economics and biology, but then assumes, without any logical explanation, that his own moral standards somehow transcend these material forces. When he does this, the Marxist shows that his doctrine is a sham. After all, if human life is entirely made up of chemical reactions that randomly arose from the primordial chaos, then how can one form of political organization be morally superior to another? If our sentiments and judgments do not have any objective reality, then all morality, including leftist morality, is an illusion. If a man who denies the existence of moral absolutes were to be logically consistent, he would cease to make moral declarations at all, and the issue of private property, and every other social and economic concern, would become completely irrelevant. But the Marxist is not logically consistent. The Christian affirms that there is a God, and then bases his moral judgments upon God's revealed moral standards. The Marxist denies that there are any true standards, and then proceeds to declare moral absolutes.
And not only does Marx promote his own “eternal truths”, but he promotes a morality that is the complete inversion of Biblical teaching. God commands that we do not steal; Marx demands the theft and collectivization of all property. God commands that we honor our mother and our father, and not to covet our neighbor's wife; Marx declares that marriage and family relations are merely the result of economic convenience, and will be done away with under Communism. God commands that we love our neighbor as ourselves; Marx preaches the dehumanization and destruction of certain economic classes. God commands that we love him and worship him alone; Marx teaches atheism. God is Agape; Marxism is Eros. Once eternal truth has been banished, moral standards cannot be based on any valid authority or logic; and without authority or logic, moral standards are increasingly modified to suit our base desires.
This demonic Marxist morality has always been horrifying to Christians, and to anyone else who has any basic respect for natural order or social stability. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, love of God, family and country were very strong amongst the common people, and therefore the moral demands of Marx were never widely accepted. The only ones to fully embrace Marxist morality were Jews and a small minority of emotionally-damaged gentiles, almost all of whom came from privileged middle or upper class backgrounds. Whenever Marxist revolutionaries seized power, the common people fiercely clung to faith and family. To the horror of Marxist intellectuals, the churches in Eastern Europe survived decades of communist rule, and in many cases emerged stronger than the churches in the West. This triumph of Agape during Communism is just one of many lessons learned from the tragic history of the Soviet Union and its kindred regimes. Another lesson is that Marxism simply does not work politically or economically. Jewish Marxism brings about starvation, misery and mass 75 murder for the very people it claims to “free from oppression”. Communist governments were forced to build walls to keep their own people in. It is difficult to imagine a stronger indictment of a political system.
And yet, miraculously, Jewish intellectuals still revere Marx and his theories. Marxists believe that the destruction of religion, family and nation is necessary in order to bring about fair working conditions. This belief has been disproved again and again, and yet the hard-hearted Jews still cling to their error. This is because Jewish Marxists have never really cared about or understood working class gentiles. This is evident in the false and callous statements made by Marx about the working class.
From The Communist Manifesto:
The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children
has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations;
modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in
England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of
every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so
many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many
bourgeois interests...The Communists are further reproached with desiring
to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country.
We cannot take from them what they have not got...
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
According to Marx, Christian workers have already lost their attachment to country and family, and therefore they would not be at all bothered by “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”. This has never been the case when Marxism has been forced upon a nation, as the history of the 20th century has proven. Millions of Christian workers and peasants refused to give up Christ, and chose bloody persecution at the hands of Marxists over apostasy.
In The Communist Manifesto , Marx proposed the abolition of private property and the creation of a totalitarian state that would control the economy. And yet in this very same text, Marx dares to claim that this totalitarian state is the only path to freedom: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. In another one of his works, The German Ideology, Marx expands on what life will be like in the “free” communist paradise where division of labor has been abolished:
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
This laughably infantile vision of society could never possibly work. Gaining proficiency in a profession requires years of experience. Humans are simply incapable of mastering five or more trades simultaneously. Certain professions will always be more desirable, and there will always be greater demand for certain products. No amount of totalitarian planning can bring about a situation where everyone can do whatever he wants all the time. It is a completely false promise, the pursuit of which has brought about untold suffering.
Although today's Jewish subversives have largely abandoned Marx's promise of unlimited professional freedom, they still make a similar promise of unlimited personal freedom. Cultural Marxism promises the unlimited freedom to pursue sexual perversion and self-gratification. According to the Cultural Marxist, we should all be free to fornicate, terminate unwanted pregnancies, engage in sodomy, watch pornography, do drugs, dress immodestly, gluttonously consume junk food (or obsessively pursue fitness and exercise out of personal vanity), get plastic surgery, and even change our gender. Our own personal whim is to be the only judge. Cultural Marxists do not say that you can be a fisherman one day and a doctor the next, but they do say that you can be a man one day and a woman the next. The horrors of Cultural Marxism are the logical consequences of Marx's original doctrines, but in order to understand the shift of focus from class struggle to unrestrained hedonism, it is necessary to look at the influence of another wicked Jew idolized by modern society: Sigmund Freud.
Thus far I have examined the Jews from a religious perspective, looking at what the Bible says about the apostate sons of Abraham and what these blasphemers actually believe. It is now necessary to change to a slightly different subject: Jewish secular thought. This subject is important because the ideology promoted by secular Jewish intellectuals has become so powerful in contemporary America, that no contrary opinion is tolerated in our universities or the mainstream media. It can truly be said that our culture is thoroughly Jewish, and that anyone whose opinions are shaped by the media and the academic establishment is under Jewish control. At the outset of this section of the book, I would like to impress upon the reader that although wading through the perverted thoughts of radical leftists can be quite tedious for the Christian, nevertheless we must study the intellectual weapons of our enemies if we are to overcome them. I have tried my best to present the essential features of Jewish thought in the most succinct and straightforward manner possible.
This system of secular Jewish thought is best described as “Cultural Marxism”. Although the average American is unfamiliar with the term Cultural Marxism, it is the key to understanding why conservative Christians have lost every battle in the culture wars. The earliest origins of Cultural Marxism are, naturally enough, the doctrines of the Jew Karl Marx. Marx taught that the only way for oppressed workers to receive justice was by completely destroying all traditional aspects of civilization (including faith, family and nation), and by guaranteeing the communal ownership of property under the management of a centralized state. Marx also believed that the Communist revolution was an inevitable outcome of historical development, a faith shared by his Jewish followers. When the disproportionately Jewish Bolshevik revolutionaries seized power in Russia, many Jewish intellectuals celebrated the dawn of a new era of human progress and justice. But Marx's prediction of a communist utopia proved to be false. The Soviet state soon became synonymous with gulags, starvation, and murderous purges. It also became clear that even when ruled by “enlightened” Marxists, the average Christian still clings to his faith. Outside of a few emotionally-damaged upper class gentiles, Marxism never reached into the heart of any Christian people. Honest, everyday Christian folks were never taken in by the Marxist demand to completely destroy civilization. Dissatisfied workers might join in strikes and other agitations out of a desire to raise wages and improve working conditions, but in the end, they were still largely loyal to God, family and country. These Christian, blue-collar workers had no interest in the Satanic subversion of God's law demanded by Marx. But the Jew was not content with the average Christian's dismissal of Marxist doctrine, nor did the horrors of the Soviet Union convince the Jew to reject Marxist theory. According to the Jew, the nightmare of Communism was not due to any flaw in the theory, but to the stubborn refusal of the Christian to abandon his faith and identity. If the Christian would not accept Marxism when it was explained to him honestly and openly, then the Christian must be forced to accept Marxism by covert means. In order to bring about this covert imposition of Marxism, Jewish intellectuals employed the work of Jewish pervert Sigmund Freud.
Freud reduced all of human civilization to base sexual desires, and taught that true happiness is to be found by abandoning the strict sexual morality demanded by religion. Religion and chastity, therefore, should be considered mental illnesses that must be cured. A group of Jewish intellectuals originally based in Frankfurt, Germany (and hence known as “the Frankfurt School”) combined the theories of Marx and Freud, creating a new doctrine that came to be known as Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism shares the same goals as traditional Marxism—the complete destruction of faith, family and nation—but rather than focusing primarily on property ownership, it focuses on the complete “liberation” of the individual from traditional morality and responsibility. This doctrine is a total inversion of Christianity, for it preaches that fallen man's sinful desires for fornication and other selfish enjoyment are the highest virtues, and that denying unlimited pleasure to oneself or others is the greatest sin. In this basic proposition we can see the root of all of the modern world's social problems. Everything from the “freedom” of sodomites to marry to the “right” of welfare abusers to avoid hard work can be traced back to the Cultural Marxist position that unlimited pleasure is the ultimate goal of all human existence, and that any limit to carnal enjoyment is “oppression”.
chapters I will explain the development of Cultural Marxism in greater
detail by analyzing the original writings of Marx, Freud and the Jews of the Frankfurt School.
But before beginning this analysis, I would like to stress three points that should be kept in mind
1) These Jews present themselves as “ enlightened” and “scientific” when attacking “primitive” and “irrational” Christianity. This presentation is completely false. Cultural Marxism is not science, it is pseudo-science. As we will see in the following chapters, Cultural Marxism is based on completely unverified statements about history and human nature. It sometimes claims for itself the certainty of the empirical sciences, but at other times it dismisses scientific certainty as an illusion . Cultural Marxism is therefore completely untethered from both religion and science, and has absolutely no intellectual legitimacy.
2) When examining the nature of Jewish control, we must not fall into the trap of making a distinction between religious and secular Jews. Despite what I demonstrated in the previous chapter about religious and secular Jews, I can imagine a reader once again thinking that these Cultural Marxists, who so strenuously promote atheism, simply have nothing to do with “religious” Jews. I therefore repeat once again that “religious” Jews do not belong to the God of the Old Testament, nor are they members of God's covenant. They do not follow the word of God. They follow their own false doctrines, and ultimately worship themselves. Even though “religious” Jews invoke the supernatural to justify their beliefs in Jewish superiority, this does not make them religious in the true sense. And as we will see in the following chapters, even after Jews reject the supernatural element of religion, they still consider their own tradition and their own race to be unique and superior to all others. Jewish Marxists may have abandoned belief in the supernatural, but they did not abandon the rabbinic teaching that the Jews have the power to redefine truth and reality as they see fit. The shared faith in Jewish superiority binds “religious” and atheist Jews into one unified body.
3) According to the Bible, love is the greatest Christian virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13). The original Greek word that is translated as love is agape. The Bible also declares that God is Agape (1 John 4:8), and that it was because of Agape that God sent his son to save us (John 3:16). Therefore, the importance of Love/ Agape in the Christian life cannot be overstated. Agape is completely selfless concern and goodwill for others. Agape is giving up one's own life in order that others might live. Diametrically opposed to Agape is Eros. Eros is the Greek word for “lust”, but it is often mistranslated as “love”. This opposition between Agape and Eros and the confusion of the two concepts in today's culture are at the center of the Jewish subversion of Christianity. For Eros is selfishness. Eros seeks self-gratification at the expense of others and drives men to abandon God's law, which is seen as “oppression”. When the Jews rejected Jesus, they rejected true love. The legacy of this rejection is still very much with us in the form of Jewish Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism completely disregards Agape, both the spiritual Agape taught by the Bible, and the more mundane Agape that is seen even among unbelievers (such as the love and concern that an unbelieving mother has for her child). In place of Agape, Cultural Marxism establishes Eros as the supreme governing force in human affairs, and the chief goal of human existence. For Cultural Marxism, social progress is found in the ever greater satisfaction of Eros, not in developing greater control over base desires. In this elevation of Eros, we can easily recognize the deeply Satanic nature of Cultural Marxism. In our time, the ongoing struggle between light and darkness is most clearly seen in this contest between Christian Agape and Jewish Eros.